# Questions About The "Small Cell Studies"



## NeilV

Tailgater got boring so I thought I'd harass a different group of folks for a minute. 

IMO, the small cell debate has largely fallen into two camps: (1) small cell supporters and (2) people who think that it's primarily a matter of small cell beekeepers have managed to breed bees that, for whatever reason(s), drastically reduce the mite population in the hives. 

In the interests of full disclosure, at the present I fall into the second camp but I could be convinced otherwise if somebody could show me some scientific proof from a controlled study. I'll also admit that I hope view number 2 is correct, because it means that all we have to do to lick varroa is have the queen breeders of the world only select from untreated stock. However, I don't really have any reputation at stake here, and I'd really just like to know the truth about this issue, if there is a "truth" to be known.

The recent small cell studies, for whatever they are worth, indicate that small cell did not reduce the number of mites per bee or overall mite counts during the time studied. I understand lots of people discount those studies based on their own experiences, but that is what they show. 

If I recall correctly, in the original Jennifer Berry study, she started out with all regressed bees. So all of the bees had been "small cell bees" (whatever that means) before the study. She did that because putting large cell bees on small cell could have been a problem. 

Which brings up my first question: Does anybody know whether the counts of bees in both the small cell and large cell hives in her studies were relatively low, high or somewhere in the middle? In other words, they may have been roughly the same in the SC and LC hives, but what was "the same." If mite counts were roughly equal but still relatively low, that would tend to suggest that maybe the genetics of the small cell bees is the driving force. I vaguely recall that they were all fairly "low" but I'm not sure that's right.

My second question is whether anybody has done other things to see if there is a relationship between cell size and mite counts or genetics and mite counts. For example, has anybody taken small cell hives and then monitored mite counts after the hives were requeened with queens from hives that had high mite counts on large cell?

FWIW, I have a personal story in this regard. One hive that is totally small cell, with the others all large cell. I started out with queens from a small cell beekeeper, and I did nothing to treat for varroa and I had virtually no mites (like 2 mites on a sticky board over 24 hours in August 2007). Same result in the spring of 2008 -- virtually no mites. I requeened it in June, 2008. By August, 2008, I was up to around 20 mites in 24 hours. Which reminds me that I need to do a mite check on it right now to see where I am now. One hive does not a study make. In fact my basic concern about the small cell beekeepers claims is that correlation does not prove causation. However, it sure seemed to me that changing the genetics of the hive made a big difference and fast.

Would any small cell beekeepers out there be willing to take on some queens from hives that were about to collapse from varroa and see what they do in a small cell hive?

Neil


----------



## Michael Bush

>Would any small cell beekeepers out there be willing to take on some queens from hives that were about to collapse from varroa and see what they do in a small cell hive?

Sure. I'll put them in one of my outyard splits.

My experience was that when using large cell and no treatments I lost 100% of my hives to Varroa 100% of the time (I tried it three times). My experience was that when using large cell and Apistan I lost 100% of the hives to Varroa after three years. The evidence this was from Varroa would be the hundred thousand or so dead Varroa mites on the bottom board.

My experience using small cell with commercial stock and no treatments is that I've lost 0% to Varroa as evidenced by the only losses having not more than single digits amounts of Varroa on the bottom board.

My experience using natural cell with commercial stock and no treatments is that I've lost 0% to Varroa as evidenced by the only losses having not more than single digits amounts of Varroa on the bottom board.

My experience using small cell with feral survivor stock with no treatments is that I've lost 0% to Varroa and even less to starvation wintering etc.

I have losses, as everyone does. But there are no significant number of Varroa remaining as evidence of any Varroa issues. I have trouble finding any at all.

I'm convinced both survivor stock and small cell play a part in healthy colonies, but the small cell was enough for the Varroa issue.

My Varroa counts in the spring for the last five years, taken and certified by the State of Nebraska Department of Agriculture:
http://www.bushfarms.com/beescerts.htm

So far after going through over a hundred hives and a hundred mating nucs several times and uncapping drones, I've seen ONE Varroa mite this year.

That's my observations.


----------



## gmcharlie

What would useing the queen do to prove the theory?? seems to me that would be the same test that have already been done??
(maybe I am misunderstanding)

What about takeing a whole hive with A moderate (soon to problimatic varro population and swithing them to small or natural cell fondatins and see if they recover???

Just a wandering thought:lookout:


----------



## DRUR

Michael Bush said:


> >My Varroa counts in the spring for the last five years, taken and certified by the State of Nebraska Department of Agriculture:


I have seen these results before Michael, in fact after studying these I made an informed decision to go the small cell route. 

But you know, there are those who would say that this was not a 'scientific' test of mite counts, and also what about the hundred or so colonies that you have compared to the millions out there that show otherwise. And maybe it's just your good luck, and maybe its your other good management practices, and maybe this and maybe that. And maybe I will choose to treat mine (which I won't) at a cost of around $100.00 per year and then they won't die for 3 whole years.


----------



## DRUR

gmcharlie said:


> What about takeing a whole hive with A moderate (soon to problimatic varro population and swithing them to small or natural cell fondatins and see if they recover???
> 
> Just a wandering thought:lookout:


Well, I have one of those. Just checked all my small cell (regressed) by using clean oil for 2 days (actually from evening of 1st day to morning of 3rd day). In my 4 regressed colonies, no mites; although in one of these colonies my son did previously spot a worker with a mite, which I killed. I guess I saved this colony from a major mite infestation.

In my only standard cell colony (which is now regressed but has had no regressed brood hatched yet) there were nine mites which I found under the same circumstances (only minutes differences in examinations). The queen in this colony is a raised MHQ from one of my small cell colonies. I am not treating and will let you know how this progresses.


----------



## Michael Bush

How about a dead hive and live hive count and a mite count on the bottom board of the dead ones. Seems much easier and much more applicable to the issue.

"It's not about mite counts, it's about survival." -- Dann Purvis


----------



## gmcharlie

Michael Bush said:


> How about a dead hive and live hive count and a mite count on the bottom board of the dead ones. Seems much easier and much more applicable to the issue.
> 
> "It's not about mite counts, it's about survival." -- Dann Purvis


I thought about that, but I think(respectfully) it misses the point of proof.

we have established that runawaymites kill hives.... thats a given... what we (I belive) are still in a quandry about is what is keeping them in check? is it in fact the small cell, or so other behaivior that goes with small cell?? to my feeble mind the only way to pocket the naysayers is take one that is already on the downslide and see if it stablizes or reverts....... 

Again, just my mind speculating on the argument others would throw out.


----------



## DRUR

gmcharlie said:


> what we (I belive) are still in a quandry about is what is keeping them in check? is it in fact the small cell, or so other behaivior that goes with small cell?? to my feeble mind the only way to pocket the naysayers is take one that is already on the downslide and see if it stablizes or reverts.......


Charlie, what would qualify to fit your criterea? I have one where I raised a queen from a MHQ, and as of this morning I found 9 mites in the oil tray from late Saturday evening through this morning. This queen has only recently started laying in small cells, none have hatched. 

My problem is I don't even know if this is a high count or not. In my other colonies (all totally on small cells) I found no mites in the oil tray (which I examined with a magnifying glass. If this would meet a desired study criteria, I will give you the historical details of this colony.


----------



## gmcharlie

Drur, I am like you, what is a high count?? my point was not that I need proof, but what would pacify the naysayers??

I had read your note and think your right on target to quelch the arguments....

From what I read the hive was getting mites (enought that 9 fell off) and were on natrual cell, and now you switched them to small cell???

Sound perfect to me... if the mite count goes down in the next 3 brood cycles instead of up, then doesn't that prove teh cell size was the only varible??

The only other detail was the loss of brood cycle (and mite cycle) in the switch... but since you use the same adults the interuption of the mite cycle should only be one larva peroid, and should be back to pre move levels after one brood cycle..

Least thats the way I see it...

Great plan I think:scratch:


----------



## JBJ

I thought J Berry's study and the two others she cited in this months Bee Culture article does not bode well for the small cell movement. In all three studies the mite to be ratio was actually higher with the 4.9 bees and they had smaller overall brood areas. Check out the table on the bottom of page 50. 

In my estimation beekeeper's efforts would be better spent identifying and developing hardy bees that have VSH and SMR traits that produce and pollinate well.


----------



## beemandan

NeilV said:


> IMO, the small cell debate has largely fallen into two camps: (1) small cell supporters and (2) people who think that it's primarily a matter of small cell beekeepers have managed to breed bees that, for whatever reason(s), drastically reduce the mite population in the hives.


There is at least one more option. (3)Those who suspect that the small cell and traditional cell beekeepers who maintain untreated, successful apiaries have something in common and it isn’t cell size.


NeilV said:


> Which brings up my first question: Does anybody know whether the counts of bees in both the small cell and large cell hives in her studies were relatively low, high or somewhere in the middle


I don’t recall any population ‘counts’ or estimates on those hives. I can tell you that they were, for the most part, healthy vigorous hives….both sc and lc.



NeilV said:


> My second question is whether anybody has done other things to see if there is a relationship between cell size and mite counts or genetics and mite counts?


I do know that Africanized bees are smaller and have smaller cells and seem to coexist with varroa. I do believe that Dee Lusby has significant African genes in her apiaries. But, that doesn’t explain the success of others who are beyond the Africanized areas.



Michael Bush said:


> "It's not about mite counts, it's about survival." -- Dann Purvis


I’ve always held Dann in high regard….a maverick with principles. But I’m pretty sure he is/was an lc guy.


----------



## Michael Bush

>But I’m pretty sure he is/was an lc guy. 

Yes, he was. That does not diminish the reality of the statement that mite counts are not the point.


----------



## beemandan

Michael Bush said:


> That does not diminish the reality of the statement that mite counts are not the point.


You and I agree on this. As I said, I hold Dann in high regard. In his early selection process he intentionally introduced all variety of pestilence into his yards. The 'natural selection' pressures were far beyond anything that would likely occur in an unforced setting.


----------



## Riki

JBJ said:


> I thought J Berry's study and the two others she cited in this months Bee Culture article does not bode well for the small cell movement. In all three studies the mite to be ratio was actually higher with the 4.9 bees and they had smaller overall brood areas. Check out the table on the bottom of page 50.


As far as I can remember, J Berry's study showed a significant higher population with a bigger brood area for the *small cell* colonies. I would be glad to be corrected if I'm wrong.


----------



## Riki

beemandan said:


> I do know that Africanized bees are smaller and have smaller cells and seem to coexist with varroa. I do believe that Dee Lusby has significant African genes in her apiaries. But, that doesn’t explain the success of others who are beyond the Africanized areas.


WRT africanized bees, this may be an interest reading: http://www.funpecrp.com.br/gmr/year2003/vol1-2/gmr0057_full_text.htm

My bees are AHB (all of them), and sometimes I have problems with Varrroa (mostly when it gets colder than usual, which means much warmer than the winters you all are used to). I stopped using foundation in the broodnest for three years now, and, in spite of this past winter being "cold" and rainy, Varroa didn't turn to be an issue.


----------



## Dave W

The BC article states that BOTH the SC and LC drops were well below threashold (as defined by Delaplane) for the area (sp?).

>There is at least one more option. (3)Those who suspect that the small cell and traditional cell beekeepers who maintain untreated, successful apiaries have something in common and it isn’t cell size . . .
There are many, many, many beekeepers and bee-havers (I know several personally) that have never heard of SC. And they too, have bees that "survive". Many of these "many" swear they do not treat with anything (there "word" is just as good as any for me ). Some say they did "years ago", but stopped. I know a local fella that says he has NEVER treated for Varroa. He "thinks" he may have "some", but in his words, "they dont hurt anything".


----------



## JBJ

The table on pg 50 of this months BC clearly shows more brood area and less mites for the "conventional cell".


After the last 10 years of working on identifying mite tolerant bees on standard foundations the conclusion I personally have come to is that it is the genetics that matter the most. The bottom line is that tolerant bees need to have the genes for things like VSH, SMR, allogrooming and others. Without the proper genetics cell size is a moot point in my locations.


----------



## Dave W

>it is the genetics that matter the most . . .
And management techniques, like splitting and thus creating a "broodless period" at the right time (to control Varroa). Good beekeeping skills in general are a "must".


----------



## Barry

JBJ said:


> the conclusion I personally have come to is that it is the genetics that matter the most.


I've concluded just the opposite. The one factor that is constant in my hives is the comb. I just put bees purchased from a "conventional" beekeeper on my combs a little over a year ago and I'm not seeing anything different than the last batch of bees I had. Go figure.


----------



## JBJ

I am not sure what you mean by anything different, is that good or bad?

Side by side, the differences between selected tolerant lines and and unselected lines, like perhaps Australians or run of the mill Italians, are very noticeable to me, especially in terms of might loads in August and overwintering success without acaricides.


----------



## Barry

Sorry. I use only SC comb. So it's a good thing.


----------



## Michael Bush

Since the question seems to come up a lot, I thought I would clarify a bit.

Rationalization Theories on Small Cell Success

This isn't to talk about my theories of why small cell works or others who are doing it, but the theories of those who want to explain away the success of small cell beekeepers with theories that are more in line with their model of the world. There seem to be many theories from those who are not doing small cell and who want to explain the success of small cell beekeepers in some other frame of reference that makes sense to them. I will address a few of these here.

AHB. One explanation, which is consistent with other beliefs held by these individuals is that small cell beekeepers must have Africanized Honey Bees. Since they believe that AHB build smaller cells and EHB do not, in their model of the world, that explains both the size of the cells, and the success with Varroa as well as early emergence and other issues to do with Varroa. The problem with this theory is that many of us are keeping bees in Northern climates, where we are told AHB can't survive, are selling them to others, who comment on how gentle our bees are, have them regularly inspected, without any complaints of aggressiveness or suspicions of AHB from inspectors, and indeed most of us are collecting local survivor stock when we can, which supposedly could not survive in the North if it was AHB. And I have had samples tested at the request of someone doing a study on bee genetics which says they are not. The fact is we are not raising AHB and don't want to. Whether or not Dee Lusby, or others in AHB areas end up with some AHB genes, is a different discussion, but it's irrelevant to the fact that most of us do not live in AHB areas and are not raising AHB and are not interested in raising AHB.

Survivor stock. While it's true that many small cell and natural cell beekeepers try to breed from survivors, this is simply the logical thing to do. You raise bees that can survive where you are. Many people are doing that even if they are not doing small cell and even if it's not for Varroa issues, but just wintering issues. Typically the people using this argument quote the losses that the Lusby's had while regressing as evidence that they just bred stock that could survive the Varroa. This seems plausible if the Lusbys were the only example, but I had no large losses while regressing and started with commercial stock and when I did the same thing on large cell, I lost all of them to Varroa several times over. Starting again with new commercial stock on small cell I have lost none to Varroa. This is consistent with other people's experience that I know of as well. Considering how many people are working so diligently to try to breed resistant stock, I think it's beyond believability that so many of us small cell beekeepers just blundered into Varroa resistant stock with so little effort. If these people really believe genetics is the cause of our success then they should be begging us to sell them breeder queens. Since they are not, I do not think even they believe this. I certainly don't believe this, although I would love to. It would greatly increase the value of my queens. Since I regressed and since my Varroa issues went away, I then did start breeding from survivor stock I could find around, because I want bees acclimatized to my environment. I have better wintering when I do this. I did not see any change in Varroa issues when doing this as Varroa problems had already disappeared.

Blind faith. This isn't so much a reason being given that it works, as much as discounting that it does work and trying to find a reason people THINK it works. It seems that a lot of detractors of small cell think that the whole group of small cell beekeepers are fanatically religious followers of Dee Lusby. The implication is that we are deluded into believing it is working when it is not. Anyone who comes to one of the many organic meetings where Dee Lusby, Dean Stiglitz, Ramona Hershembiemer, Sam Comfort, I and others speak would see the absurdity of this. As would anyone who participates in the organic beekeepers Yahoo group. We often have different observations and often disagree, as any honest beekeepers do. If we all spouted some standard party line, then this might be a legitimate concern, but while we agree on the basic concepts, we often disagree on details and we have all had different experiences probably caused our locations and our climate as well as just chance. While I have great respect for all of the above listed speakers and particularly for Dee, as she and her late husband Ed pioneered this work, I have never been in total agreement with her or the rest. The four things I think we all agree on are: No treatments; natural or small sized cells; local adapted stock; and avoiding artificial feed. But while Sam and I are pretty happy with simple foundationless, Dee is more focused on actual specific cell size. While Dee will feed barrels of honey to her bees, I have neither the time nor the honey for such things and will, if they are faced with not enough honey for winter stores, feed sugar. While Dean and Ramona like natural comb, their experience has been that they had to force the bees down with some Honey Super Cell first to get them regressed, while I've often had good luck with just foundationless regressing quickly. This may be related to the genetics or the cell size in the hives that are the source of my packages and their packages. It is difficult to say. The point is, there is no "party line" other than Dee's insistence that the Organic Beekeeping list doesn't get sidetracked talking about "organic treatments" when the topic of the list is keeping bees without treatments.

Personally, I have never been able to figure out the resistance to small cell or natural comb. While the large cell beekeepers are obsessed with Varroa, I get to just keep bees. While the large cell beekeepers are still searching for a solution to Varroa, I get to work on my queen rearing and finding easier ways to do less work. Since letting the bees build comb is easier than using foundation, and since those of us doing that are not having Varroa issues, I would think there would be a lot more interest in doing the same. The battle cry of the detractors, of course, is either that there is no study to prove it works, or that there are studies that show that it doesn't. All of this is, of course, irrelevant to me since I'm still not having Varroa issues anymore. I've been hearing such things about everything from Vitamin C and zinc helping with colds to small cell reducing mite counts all my life. In the end it's not about mite counts, although mine have dropped to almost none over time, it's about survival. No one seems to want to count living hives instead of mites, but it's a much easier thing to count. If you put one beeyard on small cell and leave another on large cell, then it seems like the "last man standing" would be an easy way to decide. If one yard dies out and the other does well, that would seem a much better way to decide than counting mites.


----------



## beemandan

Barry said:


> Sorry. I use only SC comb. So it's a good thing.


'Nuff said


----------



## beemandan

Michael Bush said:


> Personally, I have never been able to figure out the resistance to small cell or natural comb.


In my case it's pretty simple. I was open minded. I tried them both (small cell and natural cell). SC didn't solve any problems. It added a number of new ones. Natural cell has been consistantly 5.1mm and larger (there was one small clump of cells in one hive that were closer to 5.0). They draw what I believe is excessive drone cells....yes I know what Clarence Collison says...it just doesn't jibe with what I see in my hives. Even Dee Lusby recommends culling frames with excessive drone cells.

I know and hear of a sizeable number of beekeepers who successfully keep traditional cell hives without treatment. What is the point in going through the gyrations to force your bees to produce brood artificially small cells? 

Personally, I have never been able to figure out what possessed the Lusbys put their bees on small cell in the first place.


----------



## DRUR

beemandan said:


> They draw what I believe is excessive drone cells....yes I know what Clarence Collison says...it just doesn't jibe with what I see in my hives. Even Dee Lusby recommends culling frames with excessive drone cells.


I have been up to my neck in alligators recently, and although I am trying to climb out of the pit I am not quite there yet. I do want to put my 2cents worth in, for what its worth; and neither do I want anyone to think I quit participating after getting my ears trimmed by beemandan and barry because of my inappropriate response to one of Dan's postings. Unfortunately, I guess I don't wear my feeling on my shoulders, so those that find my responses disgusting, be prepared to get disgusted. Now for the issue at hand then I am off to fight the gators again.

I am wondering how pertinent mites on drones really are since a mass destruction of the drone population is not necessarily harmful (but rather possibly beneficial) to the colony. I am also wondering how helpful it is to remove those mites which are more inclined to attack drone brood as opposed to those more inclined to attacking worker brood? Isn't the norm that if you destroy mites with arcacides, then you eventually allow the mites which are immune to arcacides flourish? What about removing mites that have a tendency to attack only drone brood, would this not possibly allow mites who are more inclined to attack workers to flourish?



beemandan said:


> What is the point in going through the gyrations to force your bees to produce brood artificially small cells?


*RESULTS!* 

Contrary to what all the experts have said, none of my 'small cells' colonies show any substantial mite counts. The only colony which I have had problems with is one which I have had problems regressing (A superceeded MH queen). My mite counts on this colony (24 hr. drop) went from -0-, to 9, to 45-49 (2 seperate drops). This colony is now totally off of large cell and the 24hr. count was insignificant. However, in the month of August, when temperatures here, consistently stayed above 98F and we were in a dearth period, brood rearing ceased. I think this environmental factor can affect mite populations, as brood rearing ceases for about 1 month. When I kept bees during the 80s mites weren't a consideration, so I usually stayed out of the colonies because they were generally more aggressive during the heat and dearth. I am wondering if maybe Ross, Hambone, and some other experienced Texas beeks could weigh in on this and let me know if this is a natural occurrence for Texas. I know that when I was in south central Kentucky during '96 that the temperatures rarely exceeded 94-95F, a big difference from what I see here in my part of East Texas.

When I get a chance I will again do 24hr. mite drop count on all my colonies for comparison. Unfortunately, even if the previous large cell colonies county is substantially lower, there are to many factors (August heat) which could have affected the lower count as opposed to genetics and/or small cell. 

Back to the Gator Pit.


----------



## JBJ

How about an alternative hypothesis, just for comparison, it would be interesting to take SC bees that are doing well on their own, and see how they do on regular cell? I would wager there is a good chance they would still thrive.

My SC friends in this region seem to as many mites or more than my regular cell colleagues.


----------



## beemandan

JBJ said:


> take SC bees that are doing well on there own, and see how they do on regular cell


I think, in a rather informal sense, Bill Owens will be doing that. He's the small cell beekeeper who worked with Jennifer Berry on her sc studies. The last I heard, he planned to use sc until his current stock of sc foundation was gone, then he was going lc.


----------



## Barry

JBJ said:


> take SC bees that are doing well on there own, and see how they do on regular cell?


I know Dennis Murrell has already done this and if I remember right, they crashed after going back on LC. He has changed his site around now and has removed most of his SC content. :s


----------



## Riki

Barry said:


> I know Dennis Murrell has already done this and if I remember right, they crashed after going back on LC. He has changed his site around now and has removed most of his SC content. :s


I remember something somewhat different, in his words the bees would perish if he didn't help them (it's almost the same and it's just my remembering,maybe I'm wrong...)


----------



## Riki

JBJ said:


> The table on pg 50 of this months BC clearly shows more brood area and less mites for the "conventional cell".


I just watched the video at HAS (http://www.heartlandbees.com/berry2007.htm), and by the 42º minute she said that the ending bee populations were significantly higher in the small cell group. She also said, when she was talking about the total amount of brood (cm²) "we also had more brood, obviously we had more bees", hence I understood that the brood area was also higher in the small cell group.


----------



## Michael Palmer

DRUR said:


> I am also wondering how helpful it is to remove those mites which are more inclined to attack drone brood as opposed to those more inclined to attacking worker brood?


I don't think there are varroa that specifically target drones or workers. It seems that varroa target the drones first, until there is a large enough population of varroa or until the drone population starts to decrease, and then they target worker brood. The idea of drone trapping is to remove a large % of the varroa population early, before they target worker.


----------



## JBJ

RIKI, that was 2007. According to her recent (Nov 2009 Bee Culture)article, multiple recent studies show much less favorable results for SC. This illustrates the evolving nature of science. What is perceived at one point in time often gives way over time as we begin to more thoroughly understand the biology of these critters. Who knows what we will know next year?


----------



## Michael Bush

>How about an alternative hypothesis, just for comparison, it would be interesting to take SC bees that are doing well on their own, and see how they do on regular cell? I would wager there is a good chance they would still thrive.

Yes, as Barry says, Dennis did this and they did not do well back on large cell.

>Who knows what we will know next year? 

What we "know" vacillates and changes constantly. Why do we think we "know" anything?

"The bulk of the world’s knowledge is an imaginary construction."--Helen Keller


----------



## BWrangler

Hi Guys,

You can read about my un-regressed bees here:

http://bwrangler.litarium.com/un-regressed-bees/

Like Barry and Michael, mites are no longer an issue for me. I stopped treating, counting, reading about, thinking about or dealing with mites a long time ago. I see one occasionally, but they are a none issue for me.

And they remain that way, even after I retrieved my hives from a commercial beekeeper's care after two seasons. You can read about that here:

http://bwrangler.litarium.com/end-in-sight/

For me, putting bees on small cell was a great step forward. And I too am indebted to Ed and Dee. I visited the Lusbys after my second season on small cell. I thought, at that time I needed some 'survivor' stock. Ed convinced me to return to Wyoming and persevere with what I had left which wasn't much!

And he was right. The bees rebounded. I bred from them. Unfortunately, most of the resulting bees were susceptible to para foulbrood. So, I treated them and recommended others do the same which got me tossed off the organic list. And then requeened everything with commercially available stock Miska's, Harbo's, NWC, Koehnen, Glenn Russians, Bolling Green Caucasians, and my own mutts. And bred from the best of the lot.

Since then, no problems with mites, disease, overwintering or anything else. The only problem I've had are winter queen failures, as some of my experiments stretched well beyond the useful life of a queen. And heaven forbid, I replace a queen and mess up the test results :>)

Getting bees on small cell sized comb is one thing. The results are amazing. But it's costly in both bees and money. It's time consuming and at times very frustrating.

And then there's small cell organic beekeeping which is another thing altogether. It involves regressing bees, isolated/off season mating, much comb culling and lots of other stuff. A small cell beekeeper can stress over his bees as much as a conventional beekeeper stresses over varroa!

For me, small cell issues have gone the way of varroa. I no longer think about them. Read about them. And I promised myself, not to write about them ;>) A natural beekeeping approach is just so much easier. And it's much simpler.

Small cell and especially natural cell beekeepers are living the treatment-free dream that's only a distant vision for most other beekeepers desiring the same. Surprising enough, not all beekeepers have that vision! But that's another story I might share sometime.


----------



## JBJ

"What we "know" vacillates and changes constantly. Why do we think we "know" anything?" MB

Considering we do not even know what we don't know, it would be unreasonable to expect otherwise. At least scientific principals we know like the gravitational constant do not fluctuate too wildly. Scientific method still seems pretty useful and relevant to me despite inherit limitations. Somebody some day may look back at our current understanding of the universe and feel very thankful to not be livinging the "dark ages". Dark matter anyone?

Since it is possible to be "treatment free" without fussing about with this 4.9 regression stuff, why bother? This seems expensive, arduous, and unnecessary, especially in light of the three recent studies cited in J Berry's recent BC article.


----------



## Michael Bush

>Since it is possible to be "treatment free" without fussing about with this 4.9 regression stuff, why bother?

What kind of losses do you get from Varroa being treatment free without small cell or natural cell? I bothered because I never succeeded being treatment free without it and since doing it have had no Varroa issues or losses at all. That is a huge weight off my shoulders.


----------



## JBJ

"What kind of losses do you get from Varroa being treatment free without small cell or natural cell? " MB

I would say usually on average about 20% plus or minus 10%. In other words in some years one out of ten, and in others 3 out of ten. However I would be very reluctant to attribute all losses to Varroa. I feel that viral, Nosema, and nutritional issues are as, or more, important than Varroa. The rigors of commercial pollination can place heavy demands on bees and if there are any underlying stresses or issues they will be revealed.


----------



## Riki

JBJ said:


> RIKI, that was 2007. According to her recent (Nov 2009 Bee Culture)article, multiple recent studies show much less favorable results for SC. This illustrates the evolving nature of science. What is perceived at one point in time often gives way over time as we begin to more thoroughly understand the biology of these critters. Who knows what we will know next year?


Sorry, I've been away from this forum for a while and didn't know of that. Thanks for keeping me updated.


----------



## kennedy

I dont know about studies.sc is working for me also im saving on foundation and miteaway 2. much regard to other peoples knowledge ken


----------



## fat/beeman

I been on small cell yrs now. if it wasn't working I would have less and less bees. or do think I wasted my money on a mill to keep out all chem's. say what you like or believe what you like come look around my bee yard tell me its not working===lol
Don


----------



## Jeffzhear

My hives are 98 percent on small cell.....
I swear buy it and will continue to drive to 100 percent small cell, 4.9 or less.


----------



## tecumseh

fatbeeman writes:
I been on small cell yrs now. if it wasn't working I would have less and less bees. or do think I wasted my money on a mill to keep out all chem's. say what you like or believe what you like come look around my bee yard tell me its not working===lol
Don

tecumseh:
my bees are just your regular sized run of the mill bees and I seem to have more and more as each season passes. no small cell, no insecticide inside the hive... I must be doin' something improperly. I guess for some that ain't workin' either.

science methodology would suggest that for most folks seperating out the various convoluting factors* which makes something work or not work is a pretty difficult task. inability to systematically elimnate the various factors invariable leads to mistaken and often time delusional thinking (when you see stuff that ain't there... you qualify).

my losses pretty much mirrows ole sol and like ole sol I would have a problem deciding which losses are from varroa, which are from starvation and which are from other causes. I would say that at this time I think I have a larger losses from starvation and nosema than anything else.

*I suspect first off that most of the small cell true believers CANNOT recognize that perhaps the bees out there today could just be a bit different from the bees they had 10 years ago and therefore their comparison may mean little.


----------



## beemandan

fat/beeman said:


> I been on small cell yrs now. if it wasn't working I would have less and less bees. or do think I wasted my money on a mill to keep out all chem's.


FBM, didn't I read about you using FGMO fogging? And using boric acid for shb?


----------



## Michael Palmer

fat/beeman said:


> I been on small cell yrs now. if it wasn't working I would have less and less bees.
> Don


Don, how much of your bees' success is due to manipulations? I thought I understood that you are constantly splitting up your bees and making/selling nucs. Did I get it wrong?

I make many hundreds of nucs a year, and they never have to be treated. The bees are always in the build-up mode, and haven't turned into brood/varroa factories.


----------



## mythomane

A study does not the truth make. Bee Culture effectively ignored the Varroa problem all through the 90's and beyond, whilst pushing Apistan (always had the back cover) and (useless) stock in deference to their advertisers. They only gave up the ship when they had to. In their defense they did a neat article on the Lusby's (in 95?) which turned me on to small cell, but I canceled my subscription and kept my own counsel for a few years to let the dust settle. I switched over to ABJ a while back. This last EAS meeting sponsored by BC focused on "Natural Beekeeping." It was a great get-together, and this time around they were pushing Russian Stock really hard. One of the biggest proponents, Kirk Webster, wrote in the ABJ a few months ago how it didn't make any difference if you were on small cell or not. He is on his own custom cell size (5.1??). There are other factors at work here: People have to make a living, whether its by selling honey or selling bees. The marketplace influences public opinion more than any study or observation. There are more new wanna-beeks out there than ever before with the "green" revolution hyped on every channel -- and there are those out there who are happy to provide these novices with the product they have at hand. Many beeks contact me for advice or have me come over to their yards -- I have seen them fork over quite a bit of money for second-rate equipment and worse condition bees. People are going to back up what they are selling. No LC guy is going to push SC bees. It is not in his best interest. No Italian sole-producer is going to trump the benefits of Russians. You have to do what works for you. Typing on these forums or hashing it out over bar stools is not going to keep your bees alive, or food in your mouths. As Richard Taylor used to say: "Time will Tell."


----------



## SoMDBeekeeper

I attended my state beekeepers meeting this month and someone got up and said something like, "Bee Culture magazine says small cell is a waste of time so stop using it!" 

I scoffed at the statement as a lot of other people in the room did. Unfortunately some people in the room probably listened.

Show me one "study" like the one that was done and written about in Bee Culture saying small cell doesn't work and I'll show you ten that says it DOES work. I know this is a hot topic and I'm not trying to start a flame war so I apologize in advance if you disagree.

I think people should keep trying and not blindly follow what gets written in these magazines. Its the small backyard, sideliner beekeepers that are making the advances anyway not the commercial guys with 100's of hives. Why should the little guy not tinker and experiment?

I recently interviewed Ross Conrad on my Podcast and he is in the middle of a multi-year study on small cell size with about 40 hives. He sure didn't buy into the "it doesnt work" stuff and neither do I. He wants to find out for himself as everyone should. He is regressing from 5.4mm to 4.9mm through multiple stages. Sure, there is some expense involved but there is also enough "proof" out there if you can weed through the noise to find it.


----------



## hipbee

the thing that boggles my mind is everyone who disagrees whith SC success calls there Large cells "regular cells" the only thing regular about them is thats what most people use. to the best of my knowledge it was us who started making larger cells not the bees.


----------



## Myron Denny

Has there been a scientific study where 5.4 or 5.1 and 4.9 cell size have been compared on the same location with the same race of bees?

If this has been tried I would like to see the end results.

Myron Denny
Glencoe, Okla


----------



## Myron Denny

Is there a manufacturer that sells 5.4, 5.1 and 4.9 cell size foundation either natural wax or wax coated plastic and is readily accepted by bees? I think it is also necessary that these foundation sheets be undrawn, all made of the same material and that it be installed by the manufacturer on wood frames.
Myron Denny
Glencoe, Okla


----------



## Michael Bush

>Is there a manufacturer that sells 5.4, 5.1 and 4.9 cell size foundation either natural wax or wax coated plastic and is readily accepted by bees?

Dadant sells all three in wax. The 4.9mm is not readily accepted unless given to bees who were raised on 5.2mm or smaller such as Pierco, or Mann Lake PF100 series.


----------



## Myron Denny

I was hoping that this research had already been done and the answer was just waiting for me. Getting everything together for the trial this spring seems insurmountable right now. I have read that Dadants had discontinued their 4.9, I guess that is wrong.

The big thing I want to know is will 5.1 Mann Lake wax coated plastic (I have read where it is actually 4.95) be readily accepted and will it help to keep the bees healthy if in addition I use screened bottom board for ventilation for each hive? In the small cell discussion Jennifer Berry has been mentioned as having reservations about small cell??? I have read that 5.1 cell is actually normal cell. I have been using Kelley wax with more losses than I like.

While we are at it I have been told 20 Muleteam Borax (the stuff you put in the washing machine to sweeten clothes) will work on small hive beetles, I have not seen this mentioned anywhere on this forum.
Myron Denny


----------



## kennedy

borax will get delivered to your gueen at least thats how it work with ants try slipping one or two blank frames into your brood nest next spring between full frames when there building in the nest good you know when you make your splits. cell size has to do with where your bees are located your climate then it does to the mill size of the manfacturer


----------



## beemandan

Myron Denny said:


> While we are at it I have been told 20 Muleteam Borax (the stuff you put in the washing machine to sweeten clothes) will work on small hive beetles, I have not seen this mentioned anywhere on this forum.


Do a search for boric acid....that's what the Twenty Mule Team borax is. There've been any number of threads on the subject.


----------



## Myron Denny

I have read the "Small Cell Foundation and Varroa Mites" 3 times.

Jennifer Berry's conclussion, page 50, middle column, line 37, Nov 2009 Bee Culture: 
"We conclude that small cell comb technology does not impede Varroa population growth."

The chart she has listed clearly indicates conventional cell had less mites in every catagory than small cell foundation.

Page 51, 3rd column, line 3, same article refering to research in New Zealand:
"They too concluded that small cell does not reduce infestation by Varroa and offers no solution to the mite issues in New Zealand."


----------



## kennedy

Myron i know how you feel about the study. the cell size of foundation mills have got larger and larger for many years to boost production bees. think of it in relation to a cows udder my grandfarther cows that had small udders might not of ben high production cows but lived for years and very seldom had a sick cow today cows udders are much larger and often have congestion of the udder i think its posible were doing the same thing to are bees with cell size regards to you Mr Denny


----------



## slickbrightspear

something that I am curious about is that maybe small cell does not control varroa reproduction but somehow the smaller bees are harder for the adult mites to feed on and over time the population decreases because of that. that could be born out by the increased population in a short study in example the study equalized the number of mites in the beginning and they would lay eggs in the brood so you could have an upswing for a short period of time but over a longer period of time they would steadily decrease as a number of adult mites starved.


----------



## Michael Bush

Since it fits here, I will be lazy and repost this.

Let's assume a short term study (which all of them have been) during the drone rearing time of the year (which all of them have been) and make the assumption for the moment that Dee Lusby's "psuedodrone" theory is true, meaning that with large cell the Varroa often mistake large cell workers for drone cells and therefore infest them more. The the Varroa in the large cell hives during that time would be less successful because they are in the wrong cells. The Varroa, during that time would be more successful on the small cell because they are in the drone cells. But later in the year this may shift dramatically when, first of all the small cell workers have not taken damage from the Varroa and second of all the drone rearing drops off and the mites have nowhere to go.

In the end, as Dann Purvis says, "it's not about mite counts. It's about survival". No one seems interested in measuring that. What I do know is that after a couple of years the mite counts dropped to almost nothing on small cell. But that did not take place in the first three months...
__________________


----------



## Myron Denny

I would suggest the "small cell foundation and Varroa mites" study that Jennifer Berry conducted in Georgia be extended and monitored through the 5th year to see if either size cell has an advantage with Varroa and to see if either cell size promotes a longevity advantage. That recommended treatments be administered for survival on either size cell and all the production and costs be recorded and the results summarized yearly and the total end results shared with all that are interested. It would also be interesting to see if there is a yearly production advantage on either size cell. 

Again, if this trial has already been done I would like to read about it.

My computer has problems, this is the first time today it would let me online, It likes to go to the repair shop.


----------



## Myron Denny

I want to start either Nuc's or packages, I would like to use 5.1 mm "plasticell" foundation. The Nuc's might come with an assortment of frames and cell sizes, is the mix of cell size's going cause a problem?

Do I need to start all "packages" using totally undrawn 5.1 mm "Rite-Cell" to keep the bees happy?

Do I need to have 1 frame of "drone cell" per hive body?

I also intend to use 5.1 mm "Rite-Cell" for the surplus supers.

I am going to use screened bottom boards with sticky board on the trays.


----------



## Michael Bush

> I want to start either Nuc's or packages, I would like to use 5.1 mm "plasticell" foundation. The Nuc's might come with an assortment of frames and cell sizes, is the mix of cell size's going cause a problem?

I would start with packages. The fasted and cheapest way I know to regress is Mann Lake PF120s or PF100s. They are 4.95mm and I have found them to be drawn perfectly the first time by any old package. of course from there it would be better to have them on actual 4.9mm wax.

>Do I need to start all "packages" using totally undrawn 5.1 mm "Rite-Cell" to keep the bees happy?

4.95mm would be better and Mann Lake's PF100 series are the cheapest plastic frames I know of...

>Do I need to have 1 frame of "drone cell" per hive body?

I never worry about drones. They take care of themselves, but if you want to put an empty foundationless frame in they will probably make it drones. The problem with drone foundation is the same as the problem with any foundation, it's not natural sized.

>I also intend to use 5.1 mm "Rite-Cell" for the surplus supers.

Why? Why not all the same size foundation throughout the hive?

>I am going to use screened bottom boards with sticky board on the trays.

That does make keeping track of mite counts easy.


----------



## StevenG

If I start converting my brood boxes to foundationless frames, how long would it take them to "revert" to small cell size? Or, since there is no foundation to guide them, would they immediately go to small cell for brood, larger for drone and honey storage?

In my ignorance it seems that going foundationless would save money on foundation, eliminate chemical contamination of brood comb, and get the bees to small cell faster. I'm sure I've missed something here though.
Thanks!
Steven


----------



## Michael Bush

>If I start converting my brood boxes to foundationless frames, how long would it take them to "revert" to small cell size?

Some bees do it on the first try. Some take as much as two turnovers of comb to get to about 4.9mm but still might go smaller with another one or two turnovers. I see 4.7mm in the core of the brood nest often.

> Or, since there is no foundation to guide them, would they immediately go to small cell for brood, larger for drone and honey storage?

They will go smaller and sometimes I've seen as small as 4.7mm but more commonly they only go down to about 5.1mm or so on the first try.

>In my ignorance it seems that going foundationless would save money on foundation, eliminate chemical contamination of brood comb, and get the bees to small cell faster.

It won't get to small cell faster, but it will get there cleaner than anything else and you have the confidence that you're not forcing them to some unnatural size

> I'm sure I've missed something here though.

http://www.bushfarms.com/beesnaturalcell.htm#whatisregression
http://www.bushfarms.com/beesfoursimplesteps.htm
http://www.bushfarms.com/beesfoundationless.htm
http://www.bushfarms.com/beesframewidth.htm


----------



## jmgi

What is the benefit of continuing to use 5.4 wax foundation nowadays? Look here, we all want to alleviate if not eliminate mite's in our hives, right? There are plenty of studies, great and small, that have been done that point to small and natural cells helping, sometimes significantly in the reduction of mite infestation. There are many beekeepers who have gone totally small cell or natural cell with no treatments for years now with no mite "problems." I know that there are those who will disagree with what I just said, that's expected. 

So, again I ask, what is the benefit of using 5.4 foundation today? Please don't tell me that bigger bees make more honey because they have longer tongues and larger honey stomachs! And that bigger bees can produce more heat in the winter so that colonies have a better chance of survival! Please, lets not go there. 

Are those that frown on small and natural cell waiting for genetics or miracle drugs to solve the problem? Are you also denying that going back closer to what nature intended as far as cell size is not a viable economic alternative in today's beekeeping world? What would be the problem in eliminating 5.4 foundation as an option, and going strictly to small or natural cell and no treatments? Why not trust what nature intended to be the best for bees today as it was prior to 1850 or so? This is not going to be an overnight fix even if all beekeepers went back to small cell sizes entirely. The bees themselves need time to work things out with the mites too, how long you ask, I don't know that answer, sorry. 

I understand the situation that the commercials are in with this idea. They have the most to lose, they think, if it doesn't work. They prefer to cut their losses by treating, giving bees an artificial crutch, until something better comes along. That's why I'm not confident that this problem will get resolved on a national scale anytime soon, it will be too hard to convince everyone to get on the same page in respect to cell size. Like I said elsewhere in another post awhile back, the small guys for the most part will be the ones that have initial long term success with small and natural cell beekeeping, and only after many years will the big boys be convinced that the long term answer is going back to what nature intended with no treatments. It will be a painfull process however, undoing years of mismanagement of bee colonies that has contributed to disease and parasites. Paybacks are a bummer!


----------



## mythomane

When bees are getting trucked around the country in an endless summer with no breaks in brood production, in environments where pesticides are in full (sometimes mandatory) use, your bees are going to get sick. Keepers care less about the long term health then about cashing the check NOW. Andy Card loses 5000 lives per year out of 20,000, but still makes a very good living. He has to run his bees around and they have to be inspected. If he "fails" the bees stay put. Its a matter of economics. Pour on the chemicals. The only larger commercial keeper I know who tried small cell (correct me if I am wrong here, as there may be others) on a large scale basis is Mendes. The mites began creeping up on him and he let them have it. Problem solved. Sort of. Lusby has 500 and does not treat on small cell, but her genetics are stout. There is Bouffard of Round Rock who says he doesnt treat, and Chris Baldwin who also states that, but who knows if this is really true. I have my doubts. If you make a living with bees you may not be so brave when it comes time to do what is necessary. I know plenty of hippies that backed down and threw in the Apistan to feed their families. Bush, one of the major spokespeople for small cell has in the range of 40-100 hives. Your answers and observations on small cell are going to be different when you have 2000 or 5000 or 10000 hives, especially if you are in the pollination business. Weaver states he does not treat. African genetics harnessed and bred out over the last 20 years has probably helped strengthen the stock. AHB may be a blessing after all. If you look at the tracheal mite epidemic in 1916, the bees of England were nearly wiped out. The genetics of the good old Italians saved the day. Now we have Russians. And the African. I am on small cell, but I like having a closed system, and making my own foundation. It can only help, so why not?


----------



## peterloringborst

mythomane said:


> When bees are getting trucked around the country in an endless summer with no breaks in brood production, in environments where pesticides are in full (sometimes mandatory) use, your bees are going to get sick. Keepers care less about the long term health then about cashing the check NOW.


I am sorry, but this whole line of reasoning has been plastered all over the news media, and it is absolutely false. Many beekeepers that I personally know are third generation beekeepers. Their families have been trucking bees since flatbed trucks first rolled off the assembly lines. Trucking bees is NOT the cause of these the new and more difficult problems. There is no credible evidence nor proof of this and it just keeps getting repeated over and over by people who should know better

As far as beekeepers not caring about the long term health of their bees, that's simply foolishness. Beekeepers are just people like everyone else. They have mortgages, families, all the rest. OF COURSE they care about the long term health of bees, just like they care about the long term health of their families. One simply cannot run a business, or a farm, or have a family without being concerned about the long term. Unless you're a robber or a thief. There are some bee thieves, but the rest of us are just trying to make it work.

Look: small cell foundation has been on the market for ten years in the US and has been available for decades in Africa. If it REALLY WORKED, everybody would be using it by now. If something is really a good idea then it gets adopted pretty quickly. If it is a bad idea it dies out just as fast. Compare the good and bad ideas. Vinyl records, eight track tapes, CB radios, glove compartments full of maps -- gone with the wind. MP3 players, cell phones, GPS navigation -- good ideas catch on quickly.


----------



## Kieck

> What is the benefit of continuing to use 5.4 wax foundation nowadays? -jmgi


Availability.

(I know you don't want to go here, but here it is anyway.) Increased honey production.

And some "large cell" keepers can get by with just as few treatments as some "small cell" keepers, while some "small cell" keepers find they need to treat just as much as some "large cell" keepers.



> Are you also denying that going back closer to what nature intended as far as cell size is not a viable economic alternative in today's beekeeping world? -jmgi


Hard to say. Are you saying that if every beekeeper simply switched over to small cell or natural cell, _Varroa_ mites would be eliminated? I'm not so sure it's that simple.

Logically, the evidence seems to suggest that _Varroa_ control is effected less by the cell size than by something else. If the cell size were all important, then the early reports after introduction of _Varroa_ of unmanaged colonies dying off were either wrong or the claims of bees "reverting" to smaller cell sizes if left to themselves were wrong. If the cell size were able to overcome all other effects, "drifting" as an explanation for small cell colonies failing when mixed in yards with large cell colonies would be unnecessary.

I believe the truth of this matter isn't so simple. That's likely why it hasn't caught on and been universally adopted by commercial beekeepers.



> What would be the problem in eliminating 5.4 foundation as an option, and going strictly to small or natural cell and no treatments? -jmgi


Nothing, assuming it is that simple. Many of the best advocates for going to small cell or natural cell report heavy losses early in the conversion. Could beekeeping as a whole in this country afford to take massive losses collectively?

And what if all beekeepers make the switch, mites adapt, and treatments then are needed to keep small-cell bees alive?



> Vinyl records, eight track tapes, CB radios, glove compartments full of maps -- gone with the wind. MP3 palyers, cell phones, GPS navigation -- good ideas catch on quickly. -peterloringborst


Vinyl was the best idea when it came around. Eight tracks were better. Cassette tapes were better, easier to use and more portable, virtually indestructible according to the sales pitches. CDs were still better, better quality sound, portable, and virtually indestructible according to sales pitches (better than cassettes, anyway, it was claimed). Now MP3s and hard drives and solid state drives are the most recent idea, more portable, more convenient, etcetera. I have them, too, but I'm not convinced that they're a lasting idea. More like the most recent method to make sales.

But I think an important message for beekeeping lies in that list. Maybe nothing serves as a long-term solution to beekeeping issues. Adapt and adopt the best current idea, anticipate needing to make changes again as long as you plan to keep bees.


----------



## peterloringborst

> Are you also denying that going back closer to what nature intended as far as cell size is not a viable economic alternative in today's beekeeping world? -jmgi


Whether it's viable depends largely on whether you are a good beekeeper in a good area. Even a poor beekeeper can succeed in a really good area. And good beekeepers seem to be able to make anything work (on Saturday an old timer said he uses thin plywood coated with wax instead of foundation)

As far as the statement "going back closer to what nature intended" -- what are you talking about? Who in the wild world knows what "nature intended"? Last time I looked, nature was the sum total of millions of organisms, all battling away for their place in the sun. 

Look, nobody I know thinks there's some kind of natural plan for existence on earth. No plan at all. Theory of evolution is that it is not directed, not moving in a particular direction. Humans _try_ to direct nature, but have limited success, due to the rules of the game. Just what those rules are, we are finding out.


----------



## Michael Bush

>Bush, one of the major spokespeople for small cell has in the range of 40-100 hives.

Last year I was over 200 counting nucs... and down to about 100 last time I counted because of combines for the winter. So it varies between about 100 and 200 right now. Still not in the thousands, and I don't think I ever want to be.

>If it REALLY WORKED, everybody would be using it by now. If something is really a good idea then it gets adopted pretty quickly. If it is a bad idea it dies out just as fast.

This is not only not scientific, but it is also not consistent with history. Many bad ideas were perpetuated for centuries. Doctors bleeding people comes to mind. Just because it's a bad idea doesn't mean it catches on. Maybe in the real long run (like a lifetime) this may work out that way, but in the short run, history would show it does not. Many a bad idea has been perpetuated for a very long time and the good idea it was replacing languished for an equally long time. The reality is as long as the "experts" continue to say something is not a good idea, the majority will follow the "experts" no matter if they are right or if they are wrong. And conversely as long as the "experts" say other things are a good idea the majority will still follow the "experts". This can greatly slow down innovation.

I'd be curious, based on your theory, how much small cell foundation is being sold, and how many small cell mills are being sold and how much natural comb or foundationless frames are being used. All with no treatments. I bet the number is considerably higher than you think.


----------



## peterloringborst

> I'd be curious, based on your theory, how much small cell foundation is being sold, and how many small cell mills are being sold and how much natural comb or foundationless frames are being used.


As I have said before, I worked as a State Bee Inspector here in NY and inspection tens of thousands of hives. I only met a couple of people using small cell and only a very few who did not use some sort of mite control. 

I saw a lot of hives where the bees were literally covered with mites. I saw a lot of hives where the beekeepers gave up because they got tired of replacing the bees over and over.

I also so a few hives that hadn't been opened up in years and the bees were doing just fine. Now, whether these were perennial colonies or fresh swarms yearly, I have no way of knowing.

So, clearly, I am not speaking from my personal experience with bees. My personal experience is that they are very hard to keep alive in my area. But what I am talking about is the combined experience of thousands of NY beekeepers and the mainstream beekeeping literature coming out of dozens of countries. This is an international problem which has generated world wide concern.



> Currently, declines in honey bee (Apis mellifera L.) populations are being observed in many regions of the world. In the light of this worrying situation, there is an urgent need for scientific investigation. This has led to the formation of an international COST network. This network, COLOSS (prevention of honey bee COLony LOSSes), includes 151 scientists from 39 countries who are collaborating to mitigate the detrimental impact of honey bee colony losses for beekeepers, agriculture and natural biodiversity. COLOSS will identify the factors at the individual honey bee and colony levels that cause severe colony losses and investigate synergistic effects between them. This will enable the development and dissemination of emergency measures and sustainable management strategies to prevent large scale losses in the future.
> 
> COLOSS Working Group 1 : monitoring and diagnosis
> 
> Bach Kim Nguyen 1, Romée Van der Zee 2, Flemming Vejsnæs 3, Selwyn Wilkins 4, Yves Le Conte 5 and Wolfgang Ritter 6
> 
> 1 University of Liege, Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, Department of functional and evolutionary Entomology, Passage des Déportés
> 2 B-5030 Gembloux, Belgium. 2Dutch Centre for Bee Research (NCB), Durk Dijkstra str. 10, 9014 cc Tersoal, The Netherlands.
> 3 Dänish Beekeepers Association, Fulbyvej 15, DK-4140 Sorø, Denmark.
> 4 National Bee Unit, Food and Environment Research Agency, Sand Hutton, York, YO41 1LZ, UK.
> 5 INRA, UMR 406 Abeilles et Environnement, Laboratoire Biologie et Protection de l'abeille, Site Agroparc, Domaine Saint-Paul, 84914 Avignon Cedex 9, France.
> 6 National and International (OIE) Reference Laboratory for bee diseases, CVUA Freiburg, FB: Bienen (bee team), Am Moosweiher 2, D 79108 Freiburg, Germany
> 
> Journal of Apicultural Research 49(1): 97-99 (2010) © IBRA 2010


----------



## DRUR

Kieck said:


> And some "large cell" keepers can get by with just as few treatments as some "small cell" keepers, while some "small cell" keepers find they need to treat just as much as some "large cell" keepers.


Do you know specifically of anyone on small cell treating, and if so, to what extent. There are varying degrees of treatments. I don't know of anyone on small cell treating with chemicals.



Kieck said:


> Hard to say. Are you saying that if every beekeeper simply switched over to small cell or natural cell, _Varroa_ mites would be eliminated? I'm not so sure it's that simple.


Probably not, but we would probably be a lot closer. Natural resistance has not eliminated tracheal mites, but has drastically reduced its effects. Don't you reckon about the same thing would happen if we all just quit treating for varroa? After, all many who are treating are suffering 100% losses, how is that treatment working out for them? How could going cold turkey have been much worse?



Kieck said:


> Logically, the evidence seems to suggest that _Varroa_ control is effected less by the cell size than by something else. If the cell size were all important, then the early reports after introduction of _Varroa_ of unmanaged colonies dying off were either wrong or the claims of bees "reverting" to smaller cell sizes if left to themselves were wrong. If the cell size were able to overcome all other effects, "drifting" as an explanation for small cell colonies failing when mixed in yards with large cell colonies would be unnecessary.


That would depend on the study and the beekeeper.



Kieck said:


> Many of the best advocates for going to small cell or natural cell report heavy losses early in the conversion.


Well, I probably don't qualify as 'the best advocates', but I purchased 2 colonies March of 2009 and split to 4. All on large cells. Ordered my small cell equipment and am now up to 8 colonies, no losses, and all on small cell except 2 deep frames of large cell I missed and didn't get a chance to pull out yet. 




Kieck said:


> Could beekeeping as a whole in this country afford to take massive losses collectively?


Wow, seems to me the country as a whole is taking massive losses collectively, and primarily on those who treat and/or are not on small cell. 




Kieck said:


> And what if all beekeepers make the switch, mites adapt, and treatments then are needed to keep small-cell bees alive?


Seems like mites are adopting to treatments. That is where their immunity will develope or so it seems to be the case. Where as small/natural cells, and/or mite resistance bees are gaining the upper hand.


----------



## peterloringborst

> Wow, seems to me the country as a whole is taking massive losses collectively, and primarily on those who treat and/or are not on small cell.



You are linking treatment of disease with the disease. This a classic example of faulty cause and effect.

If you sample a population of individuals with disease, of course you will find that a much higher percentage of those individuals will be taking medicine, compared to a healthy population. Does this mean the medicine caused the disease? Of course not! They started taking medicine because they were sick!

It's like saying a guy with a cast and a broken leg got the broken leg from the cast! Or people who put sunscreen on are more often sunburned than those that don't, so the sunscreen is the problem. One reason some people never get sunburned is they stay out of the sun!


----------



## DRUR

peterloringborst said:


> You are linking treatment of disease with the disease. This a classic example of faulty cause and effect.


I did no such thing. My comment was directed to the fact that we are already suffering massive bee losses in this country, and most of those colonies are treated. The evidence does show that after about 2-3 years the mites are resistant to the treatments and you suffer losses from the mites regardless of whether or not you treat. But, certainly other measures can help minimize these losses from measures taken [other than treatments] by making splits and/or otherwise breaking the mite brood cycle.


----------



## peterloringborst

DRUR said:


> The evidence does show that after about 2-3 years the mites are resistant to the treatments


What evidence? Come on, pulling numbers out of a hat isn't evidence. By the way, nobody has ever seen mite resistance to formic acid and oxalic acid.


----------



## DRUR

peterloringborst said:


> What evidence? Come on, pulling numbers out of a hat isn't evidence. By the way, nobody has ever seen mite resistance to formic acid and oxalic acid.


Hmmm, did I make reference to any specific treatments. Just another unsupported presumption. Obviously you are on the prowl again, and varroa resistance to chemical treatements is to well established for me to waste my time educating you since you already have all the answers.:shhhh:


----------



## Allen Dick

> What is the benefit of continuing to use 5.4 wax foundation nowadays? 

Actually, in some areas of Europe, that seems to to be the natural cell size for the local bees.

In North America, that cell size is much easier to extract. The smaller the cell, the more difficult to extract. This was actually one reason for using larger cells, and at one time an intermediate size between worker and drone was made on the belief that the queen would not lay in it. Amazing what beekeepers can believe.

> There are plenty of studies, great and small, that have been done that point to small and natural cells helping, sometimes significantly in the reduction of mite infestation. 

I have heard lots of anecdotes, but have yet to see any controlled, peer-reviewed studies. Hopefully, you will list some for us?

> There are many beekeepers who have gone totally small cell or natural cell with no treatments for years now with no mite "problems."

There are also many who have not done that and have gone years with no treatments and no mite problems. Some are very reputable. In addition to many of the 'survivor' groups, there are 'official' projects. Tom Rinderer is one who has assured me that his stock is not treated and is also exposed to many challenges.

It is interesting how "small cell" has morphed into "natural cell" in the minds of many. They are _not_ the same, and often natural cells are not much different from some commercial foundation sizes. I have done a lot of measuring and solicited reports from around the world and claims otherwise do not seen to bear out.

> Please don't tell me that bigger bees make more honey because they have longer tongues and larger honey stomachs! And that bigger bees can produce more heat in the winter so that colonies have a better chance of survival! Please, lets not go there. 

I think that idea was dicredited long before the 'small cell' and 'natural cell' movements. For that matter, though, there are some crops on which strains of bees with longer tongues are more successful. Some clovers are examples.

> What would be the problem in eliminating 5.4 foundation as an option, and going strictly to small or natural cell and no treatments? 

That Fascism is frowned on would be one major objection.

> Why not trust what nature intended to be the best for bees today as it was prior to 1850 or so? 

Nature does not have 'intentions' that anyone can objectively prove AFAIK.

We could dispute about how the history has been misread by some to justify questionable beliefs, but why stop there? We should rather go back another century or two more and that would solve the problem -- no honey bees in America. Meddling with nature by bringing in plants and bees disrupted the natural system here.

> This is not going to be an overnight fix even if all beekeepers went back to small cell sizes entirely.

Once the AHB takes over, small cell will be much more universal.

> They have the most to lose, they think, if it doesn't work. They prefer to cut their losses by treating, giving bees an artificial crutch, until something better comes along. That's why I'm not confident that this problem will get resolved on a national scale anytime soon, it will be too hard to convince everyone to get on the same page in respect to cell size.

Cell size is simply only one answer -- if it is an answer and not simply a side-effect of something else.

Besides, the commercials are doing very different things with their bees than any natural or small cell people I know about.

Also, there are numerous answers. The bees in America are not the same as they were ten years ago -- or twenty. A great deal of selection has happened over that time, both by Man and by nature.

> Like I said elsewhere in another post awhile back, the small guys for the most part will be the ones that have initial long term success with small and natural cell beekeeping.

That is because the definition of success is very different between a migratory commercial beekeeper and the typical sideliner or hobbyist, and also big difference in the challenges they face.. 

> ...only after many years will the big boys be convinced that the long term answer is going back to what nature intended with no treatments.

This will never happen, because after these challenges will come others. There are plenty more pests and diseases to come. This is a battle which never ends.

> It will be a painfull process however, undoing years of mismanagement of bee colonies that has contributed to disease and parasites.

The simple fact is that disease and parasites are facts of life, and just because they are not expressed in one place and one particular time does not mean that they are at bay. 

Diseases and parasites will always require management and sometimes drastic measures. As the honey bee adapts to one, another becomes a problem.

Unfortunately, there is no panacea. No amount of brave talk or rhetoric can change that fact.


----------



## peterloringborst

DRUR said:


> Obviously you are on the prowl again, and varroa resistance to treatements is to well established for me to waste my time educating you since you already have all the answers.:shhhh:


If there is anybody out there who thinks I been unfair and hard on anyone, please feel free to contact me directly via PM. I accept all criticism with an open ear.


----------



## beemandan

jmgi said:


> What is the benefit of continuing to use 5.4 wax foundation nowadays?


When I started a handful (15) of foundationless hives and took an average of their worker cell sizes the average was very close to 5.2. I found a couple of cells smaller than 5.0. When I tried to regress a handful of hives (30) to small cell, some were unable to ‘get’ the 5.1. So the next season I took some of the successfully drawn 4.9’s and put in those hives. The queens in a couple of those hives refused to lay in the 4.9. Furthermore many of my successful 5.1’s never got the hang of 4.9. For the first time I had rampant brood disease and for the first time ever I used terramycin…..in the regressed and partially regressed hives.
My question to you is why would I want to attempt to force my bees to produce brood in unnaturally small cells?


----------



## DRUR

peterloringborst said:


> If there is anybody out there who thinks I been unfair and hard on anyone, please feel free to contact me directly via PM. I accept all criticism with an open ear.


Please note I modified my original answer for 'specific' and 'chemical' treatments. Certainly there are many IPM procedures which would not cause mites to develope immunity to said treatments. I was referring primarily to 'chemical' treatments.


----------



## Allen Dick

DRUR (Earlier) > Well, I probably don't qualify as 'the best advocates', but I purchased 2 colonies March of 2009 and split to 4. All on large cells. Ordered my small cell equipment and am now up to 8 colonies, no losses, and all on small cell except 2 deep frames of large cell I missed and didn't get a chance to pull out yet. 

DRUR (Later) > ...for me to waste my time educating you since you already have all the answers.:shhhh:

PLB (Now) > If there is anybody out there who thinks I been unfair and hard on anyone, please feel free to contact me directly via PM. I accept all criticism with an open ear

Now please let me get this straight. DRUR could educate Peter, who has spent an entire life in bees on the West and East Coasts, worked at a university with noted bee researchers, worked as a bee inspector (looking in many hives of all sorts including small and natural cell), and seemingly spends all his time reviewing literature and writing?

Am I missing something?


----------



## DRUR

peterloringborst said:


> If there is anybody out there who thinks I been unfair and hard on anyone, please feel free to contact me directly via PM. I accept all criticism with an open ear.


Peter:
Right, and since the comments which you made that I took exception to, were made on the public forum, I certainly feel compelled to address them in that same forum.

Regards
Danny


----------



## DRUR

Allen Dick said:


> Now please let me get this straight. DRUR could educate Peter, who has spent an entire life in bees on the West and East Coasts, worked at a university with noted bee researchers, worked as a bee inspector (looking in many hives of all sorts including small and natural cell), and seemingly spends all his time reviewing literature and writing?
> 
> Am I missing something?


Well, yeah I would think did. You reckon Peter is the only one who has spent time examining colonies and keeping up on all the current literature and writing? Don't be misled by my statement concerning my recent entry back into beekeeping. I have also examined 1000 of colonies and done many experiments on my own [as if it matters]. Didn't even ask for any government financing or funding, or grants. As far as the implications that Peter can't learn anything from me, well we are each entitled to our own opinion, but I will tell you this that I would hope that Peter [and suspect that he has] made statements from which I could learn something, as I agree with many of his statements, but just didn't think it was necessary for me to be in the 'Amen' corner of the building. I won't go through this life with blinders on, am open to criticism; but certainly will defend my position when I feel appropriate.

Allen, sorry, I am just not overly impressed with 'government' employees. Now this statement is not directed specifically at Peter, nor anyone in particular for that matter, but I have found that government employees [in most areas of expertise] to generally be less competent than those who have to scrounge out a living legitimately from the sweat of their labor.


----------



## peterloringborst

DRUR said:


> I just didn't think it was necessary for me to be in the 'Amen' corner of the building.


If that's how you really feel, then we are definitely in the same book, if not on the same page ; )


----------



## DRUR

peterloringborst said:


> If that's how you really feel, then we are definitely in the same book, if not on the same page ; )


Peter:
We, may not always agree, and my outspokenness often gets me in trouble; but I can assure you that I am not in the habit of politicizing [by modifying] my expressed feelings. 

Kindest Regards
Danny


----------



## Allen Dick

> Don't be misled by my statement concerning my recent entry back into beekeeping. I have also examined 1000 of colonies and done many experiments on my own [as if it matters].... sorry, I am just not overly impressed with 'government' employees. 

Thanks for clearing that up. 

As for "government employee", Peter does not fit that mold.


----------



## peterloringborst

Hey Allen,
What do you always say -- if everybody is agreeing, nobody is thinking? 

It's something like that ...:thumbsup:


----------



## Kieck

> Do you know specifically of anyone on small cell treating, and if so, to what extent. -DRUR


I've read posts here on Beesource of plenty of small-cell beekeepers who do drone trapping, use oxalic acid, use powdered sugar, use "essential oils" or FGMO or any number of other attempts at remedies.

I've also read posts of some large-cell beekeepers here who do not use treatments. Personally, I tried a couple years ago to increase mite populations in some of my hives, trying to build populations of mites to levels that I could run a full blown test of small cell versus large cell.

Couldn't get enough mites to show any difference.

Most of my bees right now run on large cell foundation or on foundationless frames. I see no difference in my hives between the two. I lose less than 10 percent of my hives each year, usually when I combine weak hives in the fall.

Oh, by the way, I last treated with a chemical in 2003. I also haven't done any drone trapping in the last three years.



> After, all many who are treating are suffering 100% losses, how is that treatment working out for them? -DRUR


Why on earth would any beekeeper pay for treatments if he was going to suffer 100 percent losses despite the treatments?

I know several commercial beekeepers. I know a number of hobbyists and sideliners. I know of none of them that suffer 100 percent losses, especially not routinely.



> Well, I probably don't qualify as 'the best advocates', but I purchased 2 colonies March of 2009 and split to 4. All on large cells. Ordered my small cell equipment and am now up to 8 colonies, no losses, and all on small cell except 2 deep frames of large cell I missed and didn't get a chance to pull out yet. -DRUR


How do you know that they might not have done just as well on large cell?



> Wow, seems to me the country as a whole is taking massive losses collectively, and primarily on those who treat and/or are not on small cell. -DRUR


Losses due to mites, or due to other causes? What percentage of hives are being lost each year?


----------



## Allen Dick

> What do you always say -- if everybody is agreeing, nobody is thinking? 

I think we all agree on that.


----------



## jbeshearse

My apologies if these have been asked and answered.

What would lead to small cell being an effective treatment against varroa. Small cell leads to many differences besides simply cell and bee size. 

So my questions for those using small cell is: What are the differences between small cell and large cell colonies.

The obvious:

Cell Size. (4.9)

Varroa seem to prefer the larger drone size cells, are they unable to reproduce in 4.9 cells?

The less obvious:

Bee life cycle? Time from egg to queen? Egg to worker? Egg to drone?

Does DWV not have time to develop with a shortened brood cycle?

Shortened brood cycle result in immature varroa, unable to live when brood emerge?

Do smaller bees live longer or shorter lives? Does this affect the varroa’s ability to reproduce?

Do regressed bees have a Shorter/longer life span? Does it inhibit varroa life cycle? Does it change the pheromone component and confuse the varroa?

Bee size:

Spacing between frames? What effect does different amounts of bee to bee contact and bee proximity to one another have on varroa resistance/hygienic behavior)?

Are small cell drones a different size also? If so, what effect would this have?

Bee size and dexterity (smaller bees, are they able to remove varroa better? Are small bees more damaged by varroa? 

What is the difference in the hives pheromone profile? (brood, queen & drone pheromone)

Even less obvious:

Queen laying at maximum rate, more bees in less area, better defense, stronger colony.
More bees in less area, lower exposure to other vectors (spores per bee, etc)
Better hive management by bees (more bees to ventilate, clean etc)

Other differences?

Once all the differences are figured out then one can begin to try and determine why small cell might be effective against varroa and other hive stressors. 

What are the answers to the above? 

jeb


----------



## Kieck

> By the way, nobody has ever seen mite resistance to formic acid and oxalic acid. -peterloringborst


Yet.



> Certainly there are many IPM procedures which would not cause mites to develope immunity to said treatments. -DRUR


Humor me: name *one* IPM procedure that could not cause mites to develop immunity to it.


----------



## jmgi

>In North America, that cell size is much easier to extract. The smaller the cell, the more difficult to extract.

Yes, anything to make the beekeepers life easier is what we want, what do the bees want? Who cares,they'll adjust.

>It is interesting how "small cell" has morphed into "natural cell" in the minds of many. 
They are not the same, and often natural cells are not much different from some commercial foundation sizes.

I'm fully aware of the difference, natural cell in the center of the broodnest (worker cells) are very close to the small cell foundation size. Honey storage cells and drone brood cells in the natural nest are closer to the larger foundation size cells, correct.

>That Fascism is frowned on would be one major objection.

What do you call it in the days before mites, when all we had was 5.4 foundation?

>Nature does not have 'intentions' that anyone can objectively prove AFAIK.

So you don't believe in intelligent design?

>The simple fact is that disease and parasites are facts of life

True, but IMO those negative aspects of life evolved in a world that deviated from natures original design. In other words, I believe disease and parasites became an issue for mankind and the animal kingdom because of what man has done by not being good stewards of the environment and messing with things that should have been left alone, initially by trying to control nature and bend it to suit man for monetary gain for one thing. These issues go WAY back in time.


----------



## Allen Dick

> Wow, seems to me the country as a whole is taking massive losses collectively, and primarily on those who treat and/or are not on small cell. 

Well, that stands to reason, since the vast majority of hives are not on "small cell". 

The majority are not on "large cell", either for that matter. Most hives use standard commercial foundation which is neither particularly "small" or "large", and which typically measures from 5.25 to 5.35. (I don't know of any large scale commercial beekeepers on "small cell", either, for that matter).

The reporting of losses tends to be somewhat skewed, also, since it seems to be only the big guys who stand up and admit their losses. The little guys just fall silent when their turn comes. 

After all, these are bugs we are talking about and they run in cycles. Anyone who has watched bugs in nature has noticed that sometimes you can't kill them if you try, and other times, there is not a bug to be seen. To anyone who has not yet been surprised by a big loss: Don't be too ****sure. Your time will come.

> Losses due to mites, or due to other causes? 

Almost half the reported losses were due to (of all things) starvation in one quite authoritative report at the ABF meeting.

> What percentage of hives are being lost each year?

That number varies depending on how it is calculated and what areas are included.


----------



## peterloringborst

Kieck said:


> name *one* IPM procedure that could not cause mites to develop immunity to it.


Being an Apis cerana, for one. But look, there is a difference between chemical control and mechanical control. Weeds can develop resistance to herbicides, flies can develop resistance to insecticides. 

But weeds can't develop resistance to using a gas torch on them. Nor can flies develop a resistance to being frozen to death. 

In fact, both extreme heat and extreme cold are excellent non-chemical controls used on a variety of pests, including warts. Dead organisms don't evolve, only live ones.


----------



## jmgi

Peter, just curious if you know what the average cell sizes are for Apis Cerana worker and drone? I tried to find the answer yesterday, but the sizes varied considerably depending on where I looked.


----------



## Allen Dick

> Yes, anything to make the beekeepers life easier is what we want, what do the bees want? Who cares,they'll adjust.

Was that not the philosophy underlying _forcing_ bees onto foundation with cells smaller than they would draw themselves? Works for one, works for all.

> I'm fully aware of the difference, natural cell in the center of the broodnest (worker cells) are very close to the small cell foundation size.
Honey storage cells and drone brood cells in the natural nest are closer to the larger foundation size cells, correct.

That has long been my objection to using foundation at all.

>> That Fascism is frowned on would be one major objection.

>What do you call it in the days before mites, when all we had was 5.4 foundation?

Those days never were, except in the imaginations of some, and in the revisionist histories some peddle.

>> Nature does not have 'intentions' that anyone can objectively prove AFAIK.

> So you don't believe in intelligent design?

If I did, would it not be "God", not "nature" as you claimed?

>> The simple fact is that disease and parasites are facts of life

> True, but IMO those negative aspects of life evolved in a world that deviated from natures original design. <blah, blah> These issues go WAY back in time

Yeah. In fact, way before Man.


----------



## peterloringborst

More about developing resistance:



> One of the reasons HIV is so pernicious is that it readily defends itself from a type of human protein called APOBEC3G, using its own accessory protein Vif. Haché’s team deleted the Vif from HIV virus and then placed it in cells that had APOBEC3G. For several weeks, the HIV was unable to replicate, but after 45 days, it started to grow again in 3 of the 48 cultures being tested. The strains of HIV that survived had independently developed mutations that allowed them to resist the APOBEC3G. This mutation was quite slow, probably occurring at a rate of less than 3 in 400,000 individual viruses, and these mutated strains were still susceptible to another antiviral agent, APOBEC3F. Nonetheless, the study demonstrated that some viruses have the ability to adapt to extreme measures designed to kill them.
> 
> But the study also showed that _some mutations are less likely to occur than others._ If researchers can create drugs that target these less-likely mutations, then we will have more time to develop more effective treatments in the future. No practical drugs have yet been developed using these techniques, but you can follow the research as it progresses on ResearchBlogging.org.


----------



## jmgi

>If I did, would it not be "God", not "nature" as you claimed?

God created nature, getting a bit nit-picky aren't you?


----------



## peterloringborst

jmgi said:


> Peter, just curious if you know what the average cell sizes are for Apis Cerana worker and drone?



Worker 4.23 mm
Drone 5.12 mm
Queen 10.00 mm

Total period for complete development from egg to adult varies from 19-20 days for the worker, 21-23 days for the drone and 15-16 days for the queen


----------



## peterloringborst

I think are a lot of newbees here who have no idea of the history of beekeeping.

First a little about our great inventor Amos I. Root. According to his autobiography, he was interested in science from a very early age, first reading about electricity at the age of “nine or ten”. He claims to have published several articles in Scientific American before he was seventeen and at that young age, he took to the road as Prof. A. I. Root, giving scientific demonstrations in country schoolhouses. His handbill reads: “Flashes of Lightning! will be sent to different parts of the room. The Aurora Borealis will be exhibited on a small scale and the phenomena full explained.” Mr. Root soon got interested in bees, however, and perhaps if he had not, he would be remembered by the general public alongside Bell, Ford, and Edison as one of the great inventors of that era.

In 1875, he obtained some comb foundation and by 1876 he published instructions on how to press beeswax with copper plates. He found the process so tedious that he commissioned a mechanic to build him a set of rollers. With this device he could “roll out one continuous sheet a foot wide and a mile long if we wished.” He continued to experiment, attempting to reinforce the foundation with paper and cloth to prevent the inevitable sagging of the honey combs. He tried muslin and linen, and later metal and even very thin wood. It was another hundred years before Pierce perfected plastic foundation.

It appears that Mr. Root was also the first to experiment with much larger cells. He writes: “It evidently puzzled the bees.” But it was Monsieur Ursmar Baudoux of Belgium that took the experiment to great lengths in 1896. Roy Grout writes: “By means of stretching foundation, he experimented with various sizes of foundation having 750 cells to the square decimeter, 740, 730, 710, 700 and even 675 cells per square decimeter. This is in contrast to the U. S. standard size which is 857 cells per square decimeter.” Early experiments with very small cells were made in order to increase the number of bees raised on a comb, but these were given up in favor making larger bees. Grout states that in actuality, bees can’t really be enlarged more than about 2 per cent by this method.

Knowing that varroa do not reproduce in the smaller worker cells of its host Apis cerana, preferring the larger drone cells, speculation arose that varroa buildup could be reduced by forcing our bees onto foundation of a smaller size. Dr. Erickson experimented with this idea in the early 1990s but gave it up in favor of breeding bees for varroa resistance, as I mentioned in my previous article. Others continued the work and came up with some very interesting theories. Chief among these is the conjecture that European honey bees were smaller in the 1800s, prior to the widespread adoption of comb foundation. 

They claim that the adopted sizes of foundation are unnaturally large and this accounts for the great success that varroa has had in devastating our bees.I suggest that this an entirely false premise. Early beekeeping books refer to the average size of worker brood cells as about 5 to the inch. Cell size varies considerably but a correct average is remarkably close to 5 per inch. Only later, were far more accurate measurements made. Denwood states that typical foundation of 850 cells per square decimeter would be the equivalent of cells measuring roughly 5.2 mm across. Badoux’s large cell foundation was 700 cells per dm2 or about 5.7 mm. Small cell advocates claim the correct size to be 4.9 mm, or about 950 per dm2. Comb foundation from South Africa runs about 1050 cells or about 4.7 mm, since the African honey bee is smaller than the European varieties.

I'm pretty sure that European bees were _not smaller_ in the 1800s than they are now, and it seems unlikely that they were permanently enlarged by the use of foundation. It is more likely that the cells of our honey bees are naturally about 5.3 mm. Steve Taber studied natural comb building extensively and concluded that “foundation manufactured for the construction of new combs in hives does not have the correct dimensions. For example, Grout (1963) suggested 857 as a standard for worker comb. Our measurements, converted to square decimeters, were 813.8” which is about 5.3 mm. In other words, the natural size is actually a bit bigger than most foundation.

But some argue that he was using bees that had been raised on foundation and were already artificially enlarged. To see what the natural size of bee cells is, we would have to go somewhere where bees have never been raised on foundation. That place is Central America. As late as 1979, bees were still kept in hives without frames. The percentage of frame hives ranged from 44% in El Salvador, 15% in Costa Rica, to little or none used in Belize and Panama.

Marla Spivak spent much time in Costa Rica observing the onset of Africanization. She measured the cell size of the European bees before, during and after the arrival. She refers data collected by researchers as early as 1973 indicating European bees in the tropics built cells ranging from 5.0 to 5.4 mm. These bees, being kept in box hives for countless years, can hardly said to be affected by manufactured comb foundation. According to Marla Spivak, European bees in Costa Rica in 1984 built comb with cells averaging 5.3 mm.

Marla Spivak refers to one apiary that she studied in the mountains. There were 9 hives, which the owners filled with swarms. These hives were plain boxes filled with natural comb. The average cell size in each and every hive was 5.3 mm. The first arriving hybrid African swarms built comb around 5.0 mm and subsequent swarms (less hybridized) ranged from 4.7 to 5.0. This phenomenon was observed throughout South and Central America.

Finally, I offer this email from Ahlert Schmidt: “I would like to comment on bee cell size again. In Germany there has been beekeeping on natural combs for over five hundred years using skeps and there are still some apiaries using that technique. So there are bees that never have seen foundations for hundreds of generations. The cell size of combs constructed by these bees is still between 5.3 and 5.4 mm (805 cells per square decimeter) coming close to 5.37 mm which is the average of cell size for normal combs in Germany.”

Of course, the theory doesn’t matter that much, if the technique would work. But would it? A perfect test came when varroa arrived in South Africa. They already had small cells in all their hives! What happened next is highly instructive. According to Mike Allsopp, varroa mites were found in South Africa in 1997. Many people feared that honey bees, both in managed hives and in the wild, would be drastically reduced or wiped out altogether. At the onset, incredible numbers of mites were found in commercial hives. There were averages of 10,000 and maximum counts of 50,000 per colony. The much smaller cells of African bees were simply not a deterrent at all. Typical mite symptoms also appeared including spotty brood patterns, deformed wings, and eventual collapse. Thousands of colonies perished.

Yet by 2005, mite counts had plummeted to negligible numbers in regions that previously had the highest levels of infestation. Evidently, the Savanna honey bee (Apis mellifera scutellata) developed “varroa tolerance” in six to seven years. No effort had been made to breed resistant stock. Mike Allsopp states that the most likely explanation for the change is the ability of honey bee workers to remove reproducing mites. This trait became predominant due to natural selection in the wild and managed populations. He states emphatically: “Captive breeding programmes and especially gene selection programmes can never adequately keep up with the changing environment, certainly not to the extent that a ‘live-and-let-die’ approach can.”

Small cell advocates frequently state that the only thing they have changed is the cell size, so that would account for lowered mite levels in the colonies. However, they miss this key point: they have also stopped treating for mites, which means susceptible strains quickly die off and they are left with only bees that can deal with mites. This is corroborated by Mike Allsopp’s thesis.

It is certainly worthwhile to search for new methods of ridding ourselves of pests, but it isn't enough just to have a good idea.


----------



## Allen Dick

> > If I did, would it not be "God", not "nature" as you claimed?
> God created nature, getting a bit nit-picky aren't you? 

Depends on your religion or lack thereof, I suppose.

Some people think there is a vast difference.


----------



## sqkcrk

jmgi said:


> >If I did, would it not be "God", not "nature" as you claimed?
> 
> God created nature, getting a bit nit-picky aren't you?


Not really, not if you see a difference between the two.


----------



## Allen Dick

> I think are a lot of newbees here who have no idea of the history of beekeeping. (etc.)

Thanks for that, Peter.

That about sums things up as neatly as can be done in so few words.

There is so much misinformation out there that these simple facts get overlooked.

I think I'm going to frame a copy.

(One thing, though, the phrase, "There is little doubt in my mind that European bees were not smaller in the 1800s than they are now", can easily be interpreted to mean the opposite of what I think you mean due to the ambiguous implied double negative).


----------



## DRUR

Just my opinion but the thread is being destroyed by the constant bantering which I will not get into again. Sorry for my part to begin with. 

In all fairness there is a misconception that regression will cause massive losses. Speaking from experience it doesn't. Below is my first hand observation of some of the limitation of regresssion.

1. Bees from large cells do have problems drawing out from small cell frames.

2. Once drawn small cell frames have been provided to queens/bees from large cells [a.k.a. standard cell], the queens have no problem laying in small cell and the bees have no problems raising brood. 

3. After the first generation of brood has been raised on the small cells, my bees had no problems drawing additional small cell frames.

4. Small cell colonies seem to prefer raising queens in drone frames as opposed to small cells. 

The jest of the original post which caused me to respond in my first post was that regression to small cell would cause massive losses.* That just ain't the case [or so my observations and limited experience have shown me].*

Next, when I speak of 'treatments' I primarily refer to treatments which might affect the consumability of honey. I also use to a limited degree IPM to help control, not only varroa but also other pests. I use screened bottom boards and supply drone frames, but not necessarily for IPM, as i intend to allow preferred colonies to raise drones, but not those colonies with inferior genetics. This is the extent of my IPM. 

I will provide all with drone frames so as to encourage them to lay drones in a controllable environment. My experience is that they will raise drones in small cell frames, just the the 'bullet' caps extend further than on drone cells in 'standard' cell frames. I will then pull drone frames from those colonies which I consider inferior and replace with drones from selected colonies. I will make a somewhat related observation in my next post concerning my concerns of varroa as related to drones.

*I also, fail to see how using screened bottom boards can cause any varroa to develope immunity to screened bottom boards.*
Kindest Regards
Danny


----------



## DRUR

*IPM using drone removal*

When I was considering getting back into beekeeping, I read many studies concerning destructor [varroa] and one that particularly stuck in my mind was one done on the so-called Russian bees [these are actually naturally developed from caucasian strains][this study was done in its native environment, i.e. in Russia]. The colonies had high destructor counts but still thrived because the mites only killed large portions of the drone populations but had little affect on the worker populations. 

*Why is this Important?*

This is just my theory. Certainly it is easier for destructor to reproduce on drones, thereby having a greater affect on drone population as opposed to worker. However, a loss of 90% of the drones would not affect the fecundity of queens. Just doesn't take that many drones to do the job; therefore loss of drones is not catastrophic. It just seems to me that large populations of mites, inclined towards drones would help control destructor populations inclined towards workers. By removing drone frames in order to limit mite populations, couldn't that reduce the populations of mites which attack drones, thereby allowing mite populations which attack workers to thrive; thereby causing catastrophic losses to the worker population.

Regards 
Danny


----------



## jmgi

I'm beginning understand why Sam Comfort of Anarchy Apiaries said he doesn't participate in discussion forums too much. When some people focus more on each and every word that you put down in a post, to see if they can find fault with it, it gets tiresome. 

What it all comes down to is every man for himself in regards to hive management. We all have our own unique reasons we do what we do with bees, depending on our situations. There are the experienced mentors, books, studies, etc. and our own trial and error from which we drew from to mold who we are as a beekeeper. What works for me may not work for you, for a whole host of reasons, some which we may never fully understand.


----------



## peterloringborst

Clear explanation of Russia Bee Resistance:

Evidence from A. mellifera in far-eastern Russia, Primorsky (P) originating from honey bees imported in the mid 1800’s, suggested that many colonies were resistant to V. destructor. A controlled field study of the development of populations of V. destructor shows that P colonies have a strong, genetically based resistance to the parasite. As control colonies (D) were dying with infestations of ca. 10,000 mites, P colonies were surviving with infestations of ca. 4,000 mites. 

The origin of the resistance appears to be numerous small differences which are both additive and interactive since no single overwhelming resistance mechanism was identified. Although they had similar worker brood and more drone brood than D colonies, the P colonies somehow restricted the early season mite population growth which is normally exponential. In other periods of the year, the P colonies had declining populations of V. destructor. 

Natural selection is the most likely cause of the heightened resistance. We are not aware of any efforts to select for resistance in the Primorsky area. Also, the mid-1800 importations were prior to general use of movable frame hives and about 60 years before the naming of the genus Varroa. Lacking movable frame hives, beekeepers could only divide surviving colonies or catch swarms. 

The Primorsky territory has a specific, and perhaps unique condition which may have fostered this selection. Overall, P honey bees appear to have several mechanisms which act in concert to provide them with substantial resistance to V. destructor. 

It is unlikely that we have yet identified all of the factors that may contribute to this resistance. Indeed, a substantial number of hypotheses remain wholly or partially untested. However, the diversity of traits identified in this study that may contribute to the resistance suggests that a constellation of traits and genes underlie the overall resistance and provide opportunities for further development of the resistance through selective breeding.

"Resistance to the parasitic mite Varroa destructor in honey bees from far-eastern Russia." by Thomas E. RINDERER, et al 2001


----------



## mythomane

"I am sorry, but this whole line of reasoning has been plastered all over the news media, and it is absolutely false. Many beekeepers that I personally know are third generation beekeepers. Their families have been trucking bees since flatbed trucks first rolled off the assembly lines. Trucking bees is NOT the cause of these the new and more difficult problems. There is no credible evidence nor proof of this and it just keeps getting repeated over and over by people who should know better."

So there is no correlation between brood rearing and varroa? 

No correlation between sickness and pesticides?

There is no correlation between GMO crops and lack of forage/sickness?

There is no stress placed on the bees trucking them around the country?

I should know better? Really?? No credible evidence??? 

I don't care who you know or have "talked to" over three generations. Why does Merrimack lose 5,000+ hives every year?


----------



## peterloringborst

> So there is no correlation between brood rearing and varroa?
> No correlation between sickness and pesticides?


I never said either of those things. Sorry



> There is no correlation between GMO crops and lack of forage/sickness?


The GMO connection is hot air



> There is no stress placed on the bees trucking them around the country?


I never said that either, just that trucking bees is not new



> I should know better? Really?? No credible evidence???


Show me. But I get to decide if it's credible. Just because Jack So and So says is not credible



> I don't care who you know or have "talked to" over three generations.


To me three generations in the bee business says one thing; three years another.


----------



## Allen Dick

> Why does Merrimack lose 5,000+ hives every year?

Last I talked to Andy, (August), he was running 27,000.

Considering that, 5,000 or so does not seem so bad, especially since he is in blueberries. Seems he can keep his numbers up.

(He is also running some test hives for Danka and the survival seems fairly consistent over the three groups).

Or am I missing something here?


----------



## Allen Dick

> What it all comes down to is every man for himself in regards to hive management. We all have our own unique reasons we do what we do with bees, depending on our situations. There are the experienced mentors, books, studies, etc. and our own trial and error from which we drew from to mold who we are as a beekeeper. What works for me may not work for you, for a whole host of reasons, some which we may never fully understand. 

That says it very well.

The problem starts when people try to create a story around what they are doing and promote their ideas as gospel. At that point, the explanations come under intense scrutiny and are compared to known facts and studies.

Their success to that point is not disputed, assuming they have been totally honest (some are, some aren't, BTW) but the rationalizations for that success are.

Anyone who shuts up is mostly left alone, but those who proselytize can expect attention, both favourable, and critical.


----------



## peterloringborst

Allen Dick said:


> > He is also running some test hives for Danka and the survival seems fairly consistent over the three groups


For the first 12 mo of the test, hybrid VSH colonies from outcrossed VSH queens performed about as well as pure Russian colonies and better than control colonies. Later, pure VSH colonies had lower varroa infestations and lower percentages of colonies that needed treatment than both Russian and control colonies. Honey production by VSH equaled that of the other two stocks, suggesting that at least this aspect of beekeeping utility was not hampered by fitness costs associated with high varroa resistance, e.g., reduced brood production.

These data showed the worth of resistant stocks in reducing the need to treat for varroa when colonies were kept in small-scale, stationary honey production operations in the southeastern United States. Remaining to be tested is how mite resistant stocks respond when challenged with higher varroa levels such as in migratory operatio_ns where colonies often are exposed to an influx of mites_ as they are mixed with other colonies brought to crop pollination sites.

Comparative Performance of Two Mite-Resistant Stocks of Honey Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) in Alabama Beekeeping Operations
(2008) KENNETH WARD, ROBERT DANKA, AND RUFINA WARD


----------



## Allen Dick

Going from memory, I recall that as of August, to a beekeeper's mind the losses seemed about similar, and as I recall none were being treated. Of course scientists can find meaning in things that look "all the same" to most of us.


----------



## FishmanMike

To the best of my recollection there has yet to bee a small cell study[except for dee lusbey] throwing bees in a box and counting mites 6 months later is not a study it's a farst. A study on survival of small cell bees would have to last for years to prove anything.:lookout:


----------



## Kieck

> Being an Apis cerana, for one. -peterloringborst


Nope. Certainly not. _Apis cerana_ is parasitized by _Varroa_. Clearly the mites have overcome that strategy, long before moving to _Apis mellifera_.



> But look, there is a difference between chemical control and mechanical control. -peterloringborst


Yes, but evolution can resolve difficulties with both. Mechanical control is not free from resistance developing.



> But weeds can't develop resistance to using a gas torch on them. -peterloringborst


Really? Could have fooled me. I recommend reading up on jack pine seeds as one example.



> Nor can flies develop a resistance to being frozen to death. -peterloringborst


If frozen _to death_, right. But flies have definitely adapted to freezing conditions. Many overwinter quite nicely. I recommend reading up on the ability of ladybeetles to survive freezing as an example of an adaptation to freezing.



> Dead organisms don't evolve, only live ones. -peterloringborst


True, but that is not an argument demonstrating that organisms can't evolve to resist mechanical methods of damage.


----------



## Kieck

> Next, when I speak of 'treatments' I primarily refer to treatments which might affect the consumability of honey. -DRUR


Not sure about this one. You're defining "treatments" to suit your purposes, not necessarily in a way that makes sense to the discussion.

If I tell you that I keep hives with no treatments -- oh, except I do some drone trapping, use screened bottom boards with powdered sugar dusting every other week, interrupt brood cycles on a monthly basis, split three ways each year, and provide only 5.177mm cells in the foundation -- and then claim that the sole reason for needing no treatments is the 5.177mm cells, do you accept my claim of no treatment?



> I also, fail to see how using screened bottom boards can cause any varroa to develope immunity to screened bottom boards. -DRUR


Simple. Screened bottom boards favor mites that are able to climb back into the hive or onto bees, as well as mites that cannot be so easily dislodged.


----------



## Allen Dick

> To the best of my recollection there has yet to bee a small cell study[except for dee lusbey]

Yes, and the Lusby experience was not a study. For that matter, it was not just Dee. Ed and Dee did what they did together. There are many reasons why Dee did nto make a study of it. She has explained the reasons to me at length and in detail (as only Dee can), and I understand. 

> throwing bees in a box and counting mites 6 months later is not a study it's a farst. A study on survival of small cell bees would have to last for years to prove anything.

That is a criticism of the studies which have been done, and a valid one. The problem is that scientists need to isolate each effect and study each effect separately.

Can the Lusby system be separated into individual influences? Dee says not. She says there are three essential things which are interlinked.

In that she does not differ much, if at all, from what everyone else says.

However she says they are inseparable.


----------



## jmgi

>Simple. Screened bottom boards favor mites that are able to climb back into the hive or onto bees, as well as mites that cannot be so easily dislodged. 

Could you please try not to be so technical, and explain how this kind of immunity is possible. I'm not into deep thinking this late at night. Thanks


----------



## peterloringborst

There are lot of people working very hard on these problems. Their work has been made available to those who are interested in the facts in the real world. This just came out this month:



> Biology and control of Varroa destructor by Peter Rosenkranz, et al
> Journal of Invertebrate Pathology 103 (2010)
> 
> This compilation of present-day knowledge on Varroa honey bee interactions emphasizes that we are still far from a solution for Varroa infestation and that, therefore, further research on mite biology, tolerance breeding, and Varroa treatment _is urgently needed. _
> 
> An example for an initially promising method which did not meet expectations is the use of comb foundations with smaller cells. Under field conditions, _a significant effect_ of small cells on the Varroa population dynamics _could not been verified,_ in the United States Germany or in New Zealand.
> 
> There is neither a Varroa treatment available which fulfills all the criteria ‘‘safe, effective and easy to apply” nor a honey bee which is sustainably tolerant to Varroosis under temperate climatic conditions. Rather,_ we now face new problems _with secondary diseases and damage in honey bee colonies caused by synergistic effects of Varroosis plus other pathogens or environmental factors. In addition, there are still no data showing that Varroa in general becomes less virulent or that honey bee colonies selected for mite tolerance survive without mite control.


Of course, the armchair beekeepers have it all figured out. The scientists won't admit it, because they need that grant money to keep coming in to feed their expensive habits.


----------



## jmgi

>The scientists won't admit it, because they need that grant money to keep coming in to feed their expensive habit.

You know, I think you might be on to something, that just might explain........


----------



## Kieck

> Could you please try not to be so technical, and explain how this kind of immunity is possible. -jmgi


Sure.

Screened bottom boards allow mites that are dislodged from bees to fall out of the hives.

The theory claims that once dislodged, the distance or some other factor of being out of the hive is too great for the mites to reenter the hive before dying.

Now, any mite that would have better ability to climb back into the hive would be favored. That is, it would be more likely to leave offspring in future generations than mites that lacked the ability to crawl back into the hive.

Give them some time, and the mites might be able to overcome falling through screened bottom boards by simply improving their abilities to crawl and reenter hives after falling.

And there is a mechanism to evolve an ability to overcome one element of an IPM strategy.

The other method would be mites that are less likely to let go of bees in the first place. Mites that stick tighter to bees would be less likely to fall through screened bottom boards. That is, they would be "resistant" to falling through screened bottom boards.

Either way, screened bottom boards could be overcome by evolutionary means.


----------



## Barry

peterloringborst said:


> However, they miss this key point: they have also stopped treating for mites, which means susceptible strains quickly die off and they are left with only bees that can deal with mites.


I do find this theory interesting. We'll see. Due to personal reasons, I had to drop out of beekeeping for about 5 years. Two years ago, I started up again. I bought a nuc from a local guy and put them on my sc combs. Things have been going just like the last time, but this time with somebody else's bees.


----------



## peterloringborst

Kieck said:


> And there is a mechanism to evolve an ability to overcome one element of an IPM strategy.


Mr. Kieck, or whatever your name is (I hate it when people don't use their real names), you are mocking the understanding of resistance management. 

In order for resistance not to develop a treatment must be 100% effective. Like burning the weeds (before they set seed) or freezing insects (which then never reproduce). Obviously, if a small percentage survive, then you have only these survivors to breed and you MAY get a resistant pest as a result. 

This is why they tell you not to cut back on antibiotics when you are treating an infection. You want to kill ALL the bacteria, otherwise you are setting up a situation where resistant bacteria can develop. Of course, most treatments don't give 100% kill, that's how the resistance can come about.

HOWEVER, if for example, the 10% survive on account of some chance circumstance, such as being out of range of a particular treatment, then they have no hereditary advantage that they can pass on. So in this case, resistance might never develop in that population. 

Resistance has to be based on characteristics of the pest itself, and not depend on being lucky (AKA dodging the bullet)


----------



## DRUR

Kieck said:


> Sure.
> 
> Screened bottom boards allow mites that are dislodged from bees to fall out of the hives.
> 
> The theory claims that once dislodged, the distance or some other factor of being out of the hive is too great for the mites to reenter the hive before dying.


Well, mine fall into the pits of oil, and if they are so lucky to survive, then the fire ants get them here. Now, I am guessing this will cause some extra tough little critters to develope which end up eating the fire ants or getting drunk on my oil. MY, MY, wouldn't that be nice to kill 2 birds with one stone. The problem with your analysis is that this is pure speculation, and over the quadzillion years that it might take to develope this change Christ would have returned and set all things straight.

The bottom line out there is that there are many [which you would deny] making it without any treatment [chemical and I don't let you define my consideration of treatments] on small cell [put me down in that group] that don't treat, but I know any day now I will suffer from catastropic die off. And if I do, then you guessed it, I will start over without any chemically invasive treatments and try again. And there are a few brave souls on 'standard' cell doing this and this I don't deny. As my guess is that BeeWeaver is probably on 'standard' cell.

And you know what, before I moved all my bees to small cell, the world was telling me it can't be done like I did it; but I did it anyways [yep I did it by faith and trusted those like minded faithful who said it could be done][the just shall live by Faith, and where does that leave you]. And here I sit debating [a non issue with me] with you like it would really matter. But perchance there is some poor dumb beginner like me out there who doesn't want all the crap in his colonies which you all are peddling around and at the cost you guys want to charge. And maybe he will believe me, give it a try [like I did], and then be arguing with the likes of you who says it can't be done.

Kindest Regards
Danny


----------



## jmgi

>Either way, screened bottom boards could be overcome by evolutionary means. 

A mite that falls through the screen is normally caught up in a sticky board or tray filled with a sticky liquid. Some leave the screen wide open to the ground with no board or tray. A mite that falls through the screen therefore, the way I see it, is no longer a threat to the hive. So, how do you get mites that develop a better ability to crawl back into the hive? I think that you are over thinking this possibility which IMO is not possible. As far as the mite developing a better foothold on a bee, you're talking about a physiological change that must take place on the mite's feet, again I feel you are going too far with this. Don't forget, even if all this were possible by the mite, the bee, at the same time, would be adapting its own ways to deal with the mites new abilities. Maybe the bee could grow a third eye on the back of its head, and another arm like appendage on the top of its thorax to swat at the mite. I wonder how long it would take for any of these new developments to appear?


----------



## peterloringborst

I think you guys are getting bogged down in a topic you don't really have a handle on. You should at least familiarize yourselves with the idea of "resistance management". Pests DO adapt, but not equally to different treatments, rotating treatments works and some treatments do not appear to stimulate resistance at all. Do the homework, instead of speculating on how this stuff works




> The techniques for managing pesticide resistance are fairly well understood and should be more widely applied. It is much more difficult for pests, weeds and diseases to develop resistance if pesticides with differing modes of action are used in the control programme integrated with alternative ICM control measures. The mode of action of pesticides relates to where they attack the pest in its biochemical pathways. If different parts of the pathways are attacked either in sequence or preferably in tandem at the same time, it is more difficult for the pest to develop resistance. In addition, _cultural controls_, e.g. ploughing in diseased crop debris, mechanical weeding, avoiding monoculture and careful choice of rotation can _reduce the risk of development of resistance_.


In regard to beekeeping, cultural controls are things like destroying diseased hives and equipment, freezing of drone brood, varying queen sources, etc. Even though many people here seem to think that Modern Agriculture is some sort of Fire Breathing Demon, the problems _they have_ are the same as the problems _you have_. That is: keeping animals alive and healthy and producing a decent high quality crop


----------



## DRUR

peterloringborst said:


> I think you guys are getting bogged down in a topic you don't really have a handle on. You should at least familiarize yourselves with the idea of "resistance management".


Peter: 
You assume that some of us aren't familiar with the concept of pesticide rotation. That is just an assumption. Peter, I come at this from a different direction than many. To many it's just a way of controlling destructor, and I understand that. However, for me [and I assume many others], I simply do not want the harmful chemicals in my colony. I don't think it is good for the bees [seems like there is at least some support for this position]; I don't want the added cost [I will expound below]; But most of all I don't want there to be any chance that these chemicals will get into the honey, which we the People consume. This is for my health and for the health of my fellow man [I will also expound on this below].

With regard to the cost, I was told [before I chose to re-enter the world of beekeeping] by a commercial beek that the cost of treatments will run close to $100.00 per colony. Now whether these costs include only the chemicals or the chemicals and the labor, I know not because at the time I didn't think to ask him. Others have stated on this forum that this figure is on the high side while still others have stated it is about right. This commercial beek claims to lose between 25-30% of his bees every year [with treatments and he winters in the south]. He also claimed to be close friends with Marla Spivak, which as you should know is a Phd, specializing in bee entymology. This beek is a migratory beek who winters here in Texas and has pollination contracts in Wisconsin [rape, a.k.a. canola], and also produces honey from this crop. He also produces nucs which he resales up north. Therefore he has experience in most all areas in beekeeping as far as production goes [pollination, honey, and bees]. Sorry, but I trust his imput more than a government inspector who inspects the so called bees [who actually produces nothing but rather lives off the labor of others]. Just my opinion but I don't need a government man to inspect my bees, thank you, I will inspect my own. That is not to say that there is not some place in our society for so-called science [imo it just over-rated]. I also, do not care for the condescending manner in which the so-called scientist respond to our concerns. But, as you can see the feeling is mutual.

Peter, since about 1987, I have produced about 80-90% of the food which I consume. My family even has Jersey milch cows, which we milk to produce, milk, butter, cheese and baby beef. I have farmed with horses on several different farms and have done just fine without chemical fertilizers [use only manure and/or green manure], without pesticides/herbicides or chemicals known by any other name. At each new farm that we moved onto the soils had been depleted and could not produce a sustainable crop without much extra effort. However, after a few years of building the soils in the aforementioned manner, We have more production and less pest problems [except for deer etc.] than neighbors who treat continuously. Our fire ant problem is virtually not noticable even though we do not chemically treat them, while our neighbors have to be after them all the time. We don't have mosquitoes, we have Martins, etc. etc. It becomes a way of life. So, if it seems that we are way out of our league with many of your applications and theories, it may be because nature has shown to provide the antidote for many of your problems. I don't trust science [or science so-called], becuase most present a onesided narrow viewpoint to support those who granted the money to do the experiments.

Peter:
In closing I would probably like you as a person, I just don't agree with your scientific philosophy.

Kindest Regards
Danny Unger


----------



## Kieck

> . . . you are mocking the understanding of resistance management. -peterloringborst


No, I'm not. I am setting the record straight. Evolution can lead to "resistance" to mechanical control measures just as easily as it can to chemical control measures. Stating that mechanical control measures can never be overcome by the pests is erroneous.

The world is rife with examples of organisms that have adapted to counteract mechanical control measures. Pronghorns didn't develop the ability to run as fast as they do to catch their food. Turtles don't have shells to provide protection against chemicals. Bur oaks don't grow thick bark because it looks nice. _Varroa_ mites don't have thick cuticles because it makes them shiny.



> Obviously, if a small percentage survive, then you have only these survivors to breed and you MAY get a resistant pest as a result. -peterloringborst


I'm not arguing that an event that kills all will lead to resistance. However, such events are rare and not really worth discussing when it comes to management techniques against _Varroa_. A simple one for you: no bees equals no _Varroa_. 

My argument is that mechanical control measures are not without possibilities of overcoming those methods.



> HOWEVER, if for example, the 10% survive on account of some chance circumstance, such as being out of range of a particular treatment, then they have no hereditary advantage that they can pass on. -peterloringborst


Right. If it's chance. If it's not, well, it might work. Try slapping a fly. Ever notice how quick they are to evade? The sensillae ("hairs") on their bodies make them incredibly sensitive to air movements, helping them detect and avoid getting squished. Such reflexes can be considered evolutionary adaptations to help them survive. And such adaptations are really no different than "resistance."



> Resistance has to be based on characteristics of the pest itself, and not depend on being lucky (AKA dodging the bullet) -peterloringborst


Again, right. And the same applies to chemical applications. Pests that are simply missed by the applications would not be "resistant," then, they would simply be lucky. That isn't where I take issue with the comments in this thread.



> The problem with your analysis is that this is pure speculation, . . . . -DRUR


Sure, just like your comment about no resistance being able to evolve against screened bottom boards is pure speculation. You made the statement that no adaptation could occur to overcome screened bottom boards. I pointed out two possible ways that could be fairly simple.

A little off topic, but certainly applicable to this discussion: some spiders do not get caught on sticky traps. They slowly manage to work themselves free if caught. Again, the point here isn't that such mechanisms _will_ evolve in mites, just that evolution produces some effective ways for organisms to cope with situations.



> The bottom line out there is that there are many [which you would deny] making it without . . . -DRUR


I do not deny it. Please don't make statement for me. In fact, I've been fairly clear in this thread that I know several who do not rely on chemical applications.



> . . .any treatment [chemical and I don't let you define my consideration of treatments]. . . . -DRUR


If you choose to define "treatments" as only chemical, so be it, but make that clear. Please understand that my point was less about the chemical versus non-chemical as it was about singling out one part of a management strategy and assigning all credit to that single component (i. e., "small cell").



> But perchance there is some poor dumb beginner like me out there who doesn't want all the crap in his colonies which you all are peddling around and at the cost you guys want to charge. -DRUR


I really wish you would read what I've posted in this thread before making statements about what I do. I will state emphatically -- in case it's been missed here -- that I have *used no pesticides in my hives since 2003*, and I do not sell or promote the unwarranted use of pesticides.



> So, how do you get mites that develop a better ability to crawl back into the hive? -jmgi


Do all mites crawl equally? I doubt it. A mite that is better able to crawl, or a mite with a superior ability to relocate a hive might have an evolutionary advantage in these circumstances.



> I think that you are over thinking this possibility which IMO is not possible. -jmgi


Again, my argument here was not necessarily about the particulars, but rather that pests can overcome mechanical means of control just as they can overcome chemical means of control.



> As far as the mite developing a better foothold on a bee, you're talking about a physiological change that must take place on the mite's feet, again I feel you are going too far with this. -jmgi


A physiological change, such as a physiological change that would be necessary for a mite to resist a pesticide? Please see my thesis argument again.



> Maybe the bee could grow a third eye on the back of its head, . . . -jmgi


I highly recommend you put a bee under a microscope and look for additional eyes on the back of its head. What you see might surprise you.



> You should at least familiarize yourselves with the idea of "resistance management". -peterloringborst


I agree, but please understand that chemical control measures can be overcome like mechanical control measures can be overcome can be overcome like cultural control measures. The real key is combining methods in an IPM (integrated pest management) strategy, rather than relying on only a single measure or type of measure.


----------



## Allen Dick

Danny, thanks for the explanation. Very interesting. I think we all share some common ideals.

I would like to comment on the following:

> Sorry, but I trust his input more than a government inspector who inspects the so called bees [who actually produces nothing but rather lives off the labor of others]. Just my opinion but I don't need a government man to inspect my bees, thank you, I will inspect my own. 

In my experience, there are bee inspectors and then there are bee inspectors. Not all inspectors or programmes are the same.

I have done inspections from time to time for differing programmes over the forty or so years I have been a commercial beekeeper, and I have to say that in my travels locally and internationally, I have met many bee inspectors I would rather not have anywhere near me or my bees. This particularly true in jurisdictions which penalize co-operation and prefer enforcement to extension and moral suasion.

On the other hand. I am quite proud to say that I am currently working with our provincial authority in partnership with our association/commission doing inspection and extension.

This service is different from many in that the service is entirely voluntary and requires voluntary payment of a fairly large fee to enroll, and the programme was oversubscribed.

These inspections are not based on the assumption that the beekeeper needs to be treated like a child, but rather that we need to work together and share information, and that we all need to know if a new disease or pest breaks out in a region. Beekeepers working in semi-isolation much of the time wonder if their monitoring and treatments are working as well as others. Without revealing personal details, we are able to provide benchmarks and guidance. We work together; the beekeeper chooses the yards and hives and pulls the frames and takes the samples together with the inspector.

I would not be doing this if there was any shred of coercion or disrespect for my fellow beekeepers in the program. As for the money, well that is a joke. 

FWIW.


----------



## peterloringborst

> I don't trust science [or science so-called], becuase most present a onesided narrow viewpoint to support those who granted the money to do the experiments.


You know, this is the reason there are not very many real scientists spending time on this forum. Most would read this and say sayonara.

I was going to post about May Berenbaum "Public Understanding of Science Award" but I guess you wouldn't really be that interested.



> The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) has named May R. Berenbaum, professor and head of the Department of Entomology at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign as winner of the 2009 AAAS Public Understanding of Science and Technology Award


.


----------



## beemandan

_I don't trust science [or science so-called], becuase most present a onesided narrow viewpoint to support those who granted the money to do the experiments._



peterloringborst said:


> You know, this is the reason there are not very many real scientists spending time on this forum. Most would read this and say sayonara.


I'm with you on this. The nasty, unsubstantiated suggestion that most researchers will somehow skew their results or create studies that favor the sources of their funding is ridiculous. The vast majority are funded by state and federal grants. The research folks I've known are like the rest of us. They have families and share the same concerns. Whenever I read a post that impugns the reputation of people the poster obviously doesn't know or research they don't understand I just chalk it up to.......hell, I'm not even going to say it.


----------



## WLC

Just for the record: science is a belief system that isn't just practiced by 'scientists' themselves. 

There are plenty of managers out there who can take an excel spread sheet, perform a few basic statistical tests, and make a believer out of you. 

What this kind of talk shows is that people have reached their frustration level.


----------



## StevenG

Allen and Peter, don't be too hard on us lay folks.

Speaking for myself, I am not a scientist. I have trouble sometimes following your postings, but I read and appreciate all that you two bring to the forum. 

Now, at the risk of opening a real can of worms, which is not my purpose here, perhaps some folks are a bit more sceptical of scientists today because of the revelations of the fudging of data regarding global warming. Seems like each day there are new revelations that "scientific" data has been skewed to make a political point. 

I am not bringing this up to open a discussion about global warming. _I do not want to go there on this forum!_ I simply mention it as an illustration of why some lay folks are sceptical of scientific claims. Who do you trust any more, when it is revealed that some scientists cheat on the data? Fudge the data? Manipulate the data to prove a point? In the heat of the moment, folks forget there are good scientists, and bad scientists, just like there are good beekeepers, and bad beekeepers. :lookout:
Regards,
Steven


----------



## beemandan

StevenG said:


> Who do you trust any more, when it is revealed that some scientists cheat on the data?


I’m neither Alan nor Peter but I can answer a bit of your question. First, you used the term ‘some’. The original quote was ‘most’. There are dishonest folks in every profession. 
Our topic is the small cell study. I know Jennifer Berry. I know Keith Delaplane. 
Who do you suppose financed UGA small cell study? Frankly there were two main groups. The study was originally started to follow up on Bill Owens’ success as a small cell beekeeper. Jennifer and Bill are beekeeping friends. Jennifer initiated the study without any outside funding. Equipment and supplies that were intended to replace worn out hives in the beelab’s production hives were rerouted to the study. Bees were harvested from Bill Owens’ small cell hives….free of charge. Labor from the beelab employees was redirected from other projects. There was volunteer beekeeping time. Eventually the Ga Beekeepers Assn also helped fund this study. 
They are currently working on a study of powdered sugar dusting for varroa control. Who do you suppose is financing that? Once again, the Ga Beekeepers Assn has come forward. 
So, knowing these folks and their investment of personal time and energy in hopes of finding a means of successfully combating varroa and having someone suggest that they are corrupt…..I can’t begin to tell you…..


----------



## Countryboy

Scientists will tell you that it's impossible for bumblebees to fly. Oh wait, they just recently realized that it really is possible for bumblebees to fly. (Which is something non-scientists with eyes have known for thousands of years.)

Sadly, many scientists and academics can't see the forest for all the trees.


----------



## StevenG

beemandan, my apologies for not making myself clear :doh:
Personally, I look at the sources of the studies, and who is involved. All those folks you mentioned in bee studies I have read, kept notes from, and have deep respect for. I have Keith's videos, for instance. Because of the Lusby's and Mike Bush, and others, I have made my choices regarding the bees I use. Please feel free to check my profile.

My point is, which I did not make clear enough, is that there are some non-scientifically oriented beeks who have become sceptical of scientists because of what they read in the popular press, or see on the news. One or two bad apples manage to spoil the barrel. Some, and I use the word "some" because I don't know how many beeks are too lazy to check beek scientist credentials, tar all scientists with a broad sceptical brush, not realizing the integrity that exists among most all of the truly beek scientists. 

I sincerely hope that clarifies my point. I respectfully invite folks to return to my previous post in question, read it, then this post. Perhaps that will help clarify my point. There are too many valuable, and responsible, curious scientifically oriented beeks here, both lay and professional, to tar with the disparaging brush you think I tarred them with. If I misled anyone, you included, about my personal position and beliefs in an attempt to explain why some folks don't trust scientists, I apologize. If some of the bee scientists in question feel I have insulted or disparaged them, please pm me, or mention it here and I shall be glad to apologize to you publicly. That was certainly not my intent, nor my purpose.
Regards,
Steven


----------



## DRUR

beemandan said:


> _I don't trust science [or science so-called], becuase most present a onesided narrow viewpoint to support those who granted the money to do the experiments._


Yes I said that, and you might know that beemandan will step in to stir the pot. What you don't know Dan is that I have worked putting together several legal cases dealing with so-called forensic 'scientific evidence'. You read one side and think man that has to be right, read the other side and man that has to be right. They both sound good but they both can't be right can they? So yes I certainly believe that 'most' scientist skew there studies to show their pre-conceived viewpoints, it's human nature. And yes I also believe that money will sway ones viewpoints; furthermore, I don't believe anyone of us is immune to that influence.

I also have read your posts concerning your experiences on small cell, and *YOU WERE A FAILURE*, where others including me have succeeded. I understand your passionate distaste for small cell, *you failed*; but understand others passionate support, they succeeded. 



beemandan said:


> Our topic is the small cell study. I know Jennifer Berry. I know Keith Delaplane.


And I bet Jennifer just hates the way you keep slinging her name around unsolicited on this forum. Jennifer, I hate doing this so just forgive me in advance. Jennifer believes that genetic modification of plants [i.e. cotton] has been beneficial. Sorry, I don't believe in genetic modification, and I think the risks outweigh the benefits. I like Jennifer, but we begin with contrarian viewpoints. Now don't you think that our evidence is going to be skewed to reflect that viewpoint? I do. And I won't go into the limitations of her studies, but I will state this that she fairly reflected the fact that Dr. De Jong's studies have shown that 'small cell' decreases mite populations, which is more than I can say for you in any of your posts dealing with small cell. 



beemandan said:


> _ I'm with you on this._


_

You would be with anyone who would support your viewpoint on small cell. Actually, I am also with Peter on much of what he states, but where I disagree, I will passionately state my viewpoint. Since I have complained about his prior statement I won't kick a dead horse, but will state that I am not the stupidest guy in the world, as I have had 2 IQ test once in the military 139, and once in college 141. See where that rates in the general population, I don't really recall many things in which I have gotten in over my head that I can't figure a way out Bubba. Even with half my sense knocked out with a pine tree methinks I can still make an informed decision and logically reason through most problems. However, I will add just for your information, that I have known many with lower IQs that make a lot more sense to me than the geniuses of the world.

Kindes Regards, Dan
Danny_


----------



## beemandan

DRUR said:


> you might know that beemandan will step in to stir the pot.


Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!


DRUR said:


> I bet Jennifer just hates the way you keep slinging her name around unsolicited on this forum


I obviously missed something here. The original post referred to the small cell study conducted by Jennifer Berry at UGA. Within that same thread you implied that most researchers were corrupt. Which one of us would you suppose Ms Berry resents?


DRUR said:


> Jennifer believes that genetic modification of plants [i.e. cotton] has been beneficial.


You may be brilliant but you don’t know what you’re talking about.

Danny, I don’t care if you’re a genius. I don’t care how many legal cases you’ve put together. I don’t care what you think of me. I’m happy that small cell works for you.
On the other hand, if you make comments in this public forum that I disagree with, I’ll probably respond. And if that annoys you…..tough luck.

Best Regards
Dan Harris


----------



## deknow

there is so much wrong going on here....i simply don't have time to reply to all of this, as much of it i've replied to on this and other forums.

peter is once again quoting out of context (if he is quoting at all):


> Grout states that in actuality, bees can’t really be enlarged more than about 2 per cent by this method.


can you cite this? and please be specific, as grout measures a lot of things. yes, the "length of probosis" increases about 2% between 857 cells/decimeterssquared and 706 cells/decimetersquared....*but if you want to compare the mass of the bee coming out of these 2 cell sizes, you see a 51.27% increase in dry weight! (the copy i have has no page numbers, but this data is on the last page of "Table 1"
*.

so, once again peter, you are either not good at looking at these studies, or you are trying to purposefully misrepresent the facts. i have a copy of the grout thesis here in front of me, fwiw.

this is of course, just the tip of the iceberg of the misinformation that peter has been posting.

deknow


----------



## mythomane

I am with deknow, et all. Peter does not seem to know what is really going on here...I don't have time to play hit back the ball either. Better things to do, here in Texas springtime.


----------



## DRUR

beemandan said:


> Danny, I don’t care if you’re a genius. I don’t care how many legal cases you’ve put together.


Well, I am glad for that, but the reference was to me being over my head, and I doubt that that happens very often unless the issue is over a lot of heads [not a genius but top 90-95%]; and then maybe it should be reserved to a scientific publication subject to peer review from someone knowledgable of those particular issues; otherwise our lives are guided by the so-called science of the day. And the legal cases shouldn't concern you. It was given as an example as to how each side can make the same facts [convincingly] support two diverse viewpoints:doh:, but take out of the statement whatever your intelligence level allows you to.



beemandan said:


> Danny, On the other hand, if you make comments in this public forum that I disagree with, I’ll probably respond.


And I would expect you to, but add something of substantive value.



beemandan said:


> Danny, And if that annoys you…..tough luck.


Does it annoy me, NOPE, but will it often illicit a counter response? YEP. And quite frankly I do care for you, although we most often disagree, but that's part of life. We have a personality clash, but I don't judge character from personality [nor from a contrarian opinion]. I don't expect you to modify your opinion, nor should you expect me to modify mine [without some substantive support]. 
Personally I expect counsel to give diverse viewpoints, and passionate feelings is part of one's positions and beliefs.

That all being said, it is rather perturbing when one takes a statement out of the context in which it was used [when used in a generic sense], and then to imply that statement as if it was directed towards Peter, Jennifer, or whoever else. That was the reference to stirring the pot. My statement was obviously [at least from my perception] directed to 'science' in general and not towards any of the aforementioned individuals. I will also say this concerning the pot calling the kettle black. That works two ways. You seldom make any post from which any could receive any substantive advice, it is normally where you jump in on a side which is fine, but when you do so add something that supports or refutes the viewpoint, I am not impressed by 'YES' men.

But in closing, I do respect that you always let one know where they stand with you, I don't care for snakes.

Kindest Regards
Danny


----------



## Kieck

> Scientists will tell you that it's impossible for bumblebees to fly. -Countryboy


No, they won't. Never would. Please don't misattribute such things.

This whole misconception started as a class, I believe a collegiate physics class. A student measured the area of a bumblebee wing and the mass of the bumblebee and calculated that the surface area of the wing was too small for the bumblebee to theoretically fly. The problem with the calculation was that it failed to account for the additional surface area of the wings because the cells between veins in the wings are actually convex if viewed from above. The convexity/concavity changes air flow.

The difficulty came about because the calculation was made in a class where morphology of the insect was overlooked and better understanding of fluid dynamics was lacking.

Now this story gets attributed to "scientists" at large. Hardly a fair assessment.

With that, I'm out of this thread. Seems that too many people are feeling slighted when others don't completely agree with their beliefs. This thread really is well beyond usual Tailgater territory now.


----------



## beemandan

DRUR said:


> That all being said, it is rather perturbing when one takes a statement out of the context in which it was used [when used in a generic sense], and then to imply that statement as if it was directed towards Peter, Jennifer, or whoever else.


Just so we’re on the same page. If the topic of the thread is a particular study and you suggest that research folks aren’t to be trusted……does it not seem like a normal conclusion to believe it is pointed at those who conducted the research in question? 
I think, if you look you’ll find that I often post ideas of substance. It’s mostly when I express an opinion different from yours that you think it lacks substance.
Agreed…we disagree. 
Best to ya
Dan


----------



## deknow

if you are going to post your work and words online or in a magazine (or a book for that matter), you are open to public criticism.

in jennifer's case, there has been quite a bit of discussion about her work, she has had every opportunity to read it and to address it if she likes.

deknow


----------



## deknow

...also remember that jennifer is a professional. she is paid to do research, paid to publish, and most importantly, paid to defend her work.

deknow


----------



## DRUR

Dan: I said:


DRUR said:


> Jennifer believes that genetic modification of plants [i.e. cotton] has been beneficial.


and in response you said:


beemandan said:


> You may be brilliant but you don’t know what you’re talking about.


Now my following response is taken from this video done by Jennifer: http://www.heartlandbees.com/berry2007.htm

Beginning at 7 (mins.):07 (seconds) 7:07 in the video:

with regards to genetic modification "I still sit on the fence".

And then beginning at 7:15
"Because of BT cotton we have eliminated 750 million tons of pesticide so there is an advantage to gmos."

Also in this video Jennifer states:
1:06 "When mite came along, what did we have to do... *well we had to use chemicals*, correct"

IMO, no we could have let the fittest survive without chemicals. For me chemicals are not an option. This doesn't make Jennifer 'bad', but from her scientific viewpoint she begins at a different perspective.

I quit being actively involved in managing bees about 1987-1988 time period. Sold all but 3 of my colonies, which I no longer requeend every fall with midnite queens [which had been part of my managment program]. I have never treated any of my colonies. When I sold my place in 1995, these 3 colonies had reverted back to 'wild'. I would only steal honey and never even went into the brood chambers. Don't know when/if our area was affected by varroa at the time I sold my place [to move to Kentucky/Tenn area], but all 3 colonies were still active. When the place was again sold in early 2000's these colonies were still active with bees but were destroyed because of the 'killer bee' scare; although there have never been any reported cases in Anderson County Texas. 

I trust I have made my point.
Kindest Regards
Danny


----------



## beemandan

Danny - Jennifer believes that genetic modification of plants [i.e. cotton] has been beneficial.
Dan - You may be brilliant but you don’t know what you’re talking about.

JB - "I still sit on the fence". (generic)
JB - “Because of BT cotton we have eliminated 750 million tons of pesticide so there is an advantage to gmos." (specific)


Danny - That all being said, it is rather perturbing when one takes a statement out of the context in which it was used [when used in a generic sense], and then to imply that statement as if it was directed towards Peter, Jennifer, or whoever else.

It is weird how you and I can be so out of sync. I’m not blaming you nor am I accepting blame. In your comments regarding gm plants, I took that generically and you intended if specifically. On the other hand your reference to researchers, I took specifically while you intended it generically. It’s no wonder we clash.
Regards
Dan


----------



## DRUR

beemandan said:


> Danny - Jennifer believes that genetic modification of plants [i.e. cotton] has been beneficial.
> Dan - You may be brilliant but you don’t know what you’re talking about.
> 
> JB - "I still sit on the fence". (generic)
> JB - “Because of BT cotton we have eliminated 750 million tons of pesticide so there is an advantage to gmos." (specific)


Right and I believe the definition of 'advantage' [which includes the term 'benefit'] is close enough to draw a correct conclusion from a opinion statement made by Jennifer to support my contention that she believes gmos are beneficial.

Now here is how your post was structured:

Quote:
Originally Posted by DRUR 
Jennifer believes that genetic modification of plants [i.e. cotton] has been beneficial.
You may be brilliant but you don’t know what you’re talking about.

I hope that you can see that the structure of your post certainly represents that your position was that I didn't know what I was talking about concerning Jennifer's position on gmos. She claims gmos are have advantage and said term is synonomous with benefit. I didn't say what her position was just that she believe gmos were beneficial.

You can take whatever viewpoint you like concerning what you have read and respond in any manner that pleases you, and I shall do the same. Incidentally, I will not make further response to this bantering. We sound like a bunch of shiester lawyers. [Yeah, I know, I don't have a very high opinion of lawyers and their profession either]. *And if you are an attorney, I use this only generically*.

Kindest Regards
Danny


----------



## Allen Dick

Would you please take it outside, you two?

We're trying to work in here.

Thanks.


----------



## beemandan

Allen Dick said:


> Would you please take it outside, you two?


Oh....so you're lookin' for trouble too?!


----------



## Allen Dick

> *but if you want to compare the mass of the bee coming out of these 2 cell sizes, you see a 51.27% increase in dry weight! (the copy i have has no page numbers, but this data is on the last page of "Table 1"*

If you are referring to the material on BeeSource, unfortunately the table links don't work, and number of links are messed up in that area.

Also, please don't be so hard on Peter. There is room for difference of opinion on the quality, context and meaning of these various studies, and in deciding which are credible.

I spent some time looking around today, and have to say that -- for me -- there is too much guessing and interpretation of ambiguous or questionable material necessary to reach the conclusions that many do.

How much guessing and believing each person does is a personal decision.


----------



## deknow

Allen Dick said:


> If you are referring to the material on BeeSource, unfortunately the table links don't work, and number of links are messed up in that area.


No, as I said, I have a copy of the Grout Thesis in front of me.



> Also, please don't be so hard on Peter. There is room for difference of opinion on the quality, context and meaning of these various studies, and in deciding which are credible.


I agree that there is room for opinion, but Peter has been misstating things left and right here on Beesource, and no one gains anything if such untruths are not corrected. In this case, Peter said:



> Grout states that in actuality, bees can’t really be enlarged more than about 2 per cent by this method.


That is not opinion, that is not interpretation. That is a statement of fact that "Grout states...". The dry weight (which I posted earlier) does not seem to be consistent from test to test, but nowhere do I see him stating what Peter is attributing to him. If grout stated that, let Peter quote him (in context please).

deknow


----------



## NeilV

Just to put this dispute in context, I want to point out that there may be three people on the whole planet (the two of you and Grout, whoever he is and who is not reading this thread) who have any earthly idea what you two are arguing about. 

(When I first came across "Grout" my brain started to try to figure out what bathroom tile has to do with beekeeping.)

Carry on.


----------



## KAGEE

WOW! What a spirited debate, if you can call it that. I am new to this forum and new to Bee tending, but I am using small cell. The research I have done leads me to believe that small cell is not a total package fix for mite or any parasitic infestation. What I have gleaned from all the literature is that clean wax/honey is as much a part of the solution as the small/natural cell size. It seems to me (thru reading and observation) that colonies that are strong can deal with most natural problems. Colonies that are taxed or stressed do not deal as well. Bees priorities their chores and those that are stressed from chemicals may not be able or willing to combat the mites like their healthier neighbors. I personally believe that bees trained on larger than natural cells have an underlying stress issue. Couple that with the ill effects of chemical and the mites gain the advantage. The great thing about tending bees is that you can do it however the bees let you.

Another observation I have made is that there is NOT one cell size per colony. Even among worker brood the cell size varies through the season. If I could convince the bees to draw their own comb within the frame, and attach it to the frame on all sides, I would not use foundation at all. 

That is my two cents worth and I'll let you know in a few weeks if my bees are healthy and ready for spring and a new round of small cell.


----------



## Allen Dick

One of the problems with this whole debate from the start has always been access to the documents and organising them so that everyone is reading off the same page.

A lot of the time, we are asked to accept what someone else says he is reading. I know that even when we look at the same things, I often do not see what the other guys sees, and see something else.

Stating one fact or observation in isolation and basing an argument on it makes it difficult for those who cannot appraise the context. and its relevance to the discussion.

To change the subject back to the effects of cell size, I recall that when I was at Dee's, she pulled out an Egyptian (I believe) study which showed that the density of bees raised in small cells is greater than the density of bees raised in larger cells. I found that interesting.

There are so many things to consider...


----------



## deknow

Allen Dick said:


> To change the subject back to the effects of cell size, I recall that when I was at Dee's, she pulled out an Egyptian (I believe) study which showed that the density of bees raised in small cells is greater than the density of bees raised in larger cells. I found that interesting.


You don't have to go all the way to Egypt for this....it's right here on BeeSource!

http://www.beesource.com/point-of-v...-cell-size/the-influence-of-cell-size-part-2/



> If big bees are merely small bees whose every dimension has been multiplied in the same proportion, and if the materials of which they are constructed are in every way similar for the corresponding organs, then we ought to find that any two measures of length bear a constant ratio to one another, whether the bee be large or small. That this is the case is easily seen by plotting against some length, as suggested above. The span, wing root length, lengths and widths of wings, length of body, and the cell width, all plot as very nearly straight lines against any one of their number; and if one of them be divided by another (say, body length by wing length), the result is a quantity which is the same (or nearly so) for all the different sizes of bees. The comb thickness does not however conform to this rule, for reasons which must remain for future consideration.
> 
> From geometrical principles, one would expect that under these conditions the weight of the bee would vary as the cube of her length or other linear dimension. Very surprisingly, this is not so. The weight of the bee is proportional to her length, not to her (length). This is most unexpected; as M. Baudoux states, it must mean that the enlarged bee is not as solid as the bees of the smaller series. M. Baudoux, we understand, intends to test this point. His results will be awaited with much interest.
> 
> This matter of the specific gravity of the bee, and its decrease with increase of size, is not only of theoretical interest. If we suppose that the head, thorax and abdomen share alike in the lightening process, we shall-if we continue to enlarge the bee-arrive finally at an insect which cannot fly as fast or lift as great loads as smaller bees. *Big wings demand big muscles to move them; *as far as can be seen, the mass of the flight muscles must increase as the cube of the wing length. If the weight of the body increases in this proportion, the bee will continue to be an efficient flyer; but if-as is the case with M. Baudoux’s bees-it does not, then one of two things must be happening. *Either the bee will have less flying muscle than she needs to work her long wings; or the flying muscles will make up a greater proportion of her total weight. In either case, theory would indicate that very much enlarged bees should be less efficient nectar-carriers.* That the limit (where this begins to occur) has not yet been reached is shewn by the excellent practical results which M. Baudoux obtains.


I like to imagine 2 airplanes, one a bit bigger than the other (bigger wingspan, more cargo room, heavier, etc). Take the engine from the small airplane and put it in the larger.

deknow


----------



## Allen Dick

The question of scale can be a difficult one and can make comparisons exceedingly difficult.

There are many factors to compute if everything in the comparison does not scale simultaneously. In this case, air density does not change with the bees size, nor do other parameters, so we can speculate, but can we honestly conclude?

Analogies can be useful for rhetorical purposes and for convincing, but can as easily be confounding as illuminating when it comes to rational analysis. Analogies have a semblance to reason, but almost inevitably oversimplify, introduce extraneous dimensions and can as deceive as elucidate. That is why they are so popular with preachers and demagogues, but held in suspicion by independent thinkers. Granted, though, they can be a quick and dirty method of conveying obvious and uncomplicated information.

Unfortunately, in this case, analogies muddy the water and tend to imply obvious conclusions where none can reasonably be extracted from the data presented. The question is too complex for analogies.

Analogies and rhetoric also tend to conveniently draw attention away from the data. IMO, understanding and analyzing the data and examining it for consistency and plausibility is critical to arriving at conclusions or deciding the problem is indeterminate given the data presented. 

I'm still back at the point where you mentioned some data from Grout which I do not have at hand.


----------



## deknow

Allen, a couple of thoughts:

1. I believe (from other reading I've done) that the relationship of insect length to weight is a pretty well established relationship (cubal) within similar insects (ie, a small grasshopper vs. a largely identical but larger grasshopper).

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119587921/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0 (specific to aquatic insects)

http://www.jstor.org/pss/2426503 (incomplete article, but some useful information)

http://www.wmrs.edu/people/BIOs/john smiley/heliconius_project/pdfs/ann_ent_82.pdf (pretty good at first glance)

This relationship seems pretty well established, and it is this relationship that bees enlarged via enlarging the comb (or foundation) do not follow.

2. That's a lot of criticism of a pretty apt 2 sentince analogy, especially when i quoted (and pointed to) the article, which happens to support the analogy. Most folks here are not reading the studies we refer to, and rely upon us to interpret them...for that, analogies are important. If there is something _specific_ about the analogy i presented that you take issue with, I'd be happy to hear it....I'm always trying to find better ways to demonstrate these concepts.

"The question" is absolutely not too complex for analogies.

3. The Grout thesis is more than 100 pages, and don't have a scanner with auto feed (just a flat bed)...so scanning it will have to wait until i have an appropriate scanner handy. Since Peter was the one to bring up Grout, and since he likely has access to more office type equipment than I do, perhaps he can post it? I'm happy to host it, I just can't scan the copy I have efficiently. 

deknow


----------



## Allen Dick

> The question" is absolutely not too complex for analogies.

Then you and I differ and will continue to do so. 

In my opinion, and the opinion of many, analogies immediately cheapen any arguement since they suggest an identity where none exists. They are a device which has its place, but can never replace fact.

> The Grout thesis is more than 100 pages, and don't have a scanner...

We'll see what shapes up. Obviously there are a tonne of studies out there and many things have been proven. Some are very artificial and abstract. How they actually bear on real world, everyday experience is always a question, but we have to consider everything.

At any rate, I am always willing to look at material presented. I'm pleased to see that some of the suporting documentation for a lot of conjecture in the past has found its way onto Beesource since I last examined the issue and found the claims wanting. Unfortunately, quite a few of the links turn out to be broken, requiring more passion than I can muster to pursue the issue at this time.

(Frankly, although all this is fascinating, I would much rather be sailing somewhere far out at sea bound for some foreign shore than sitting in my castle digging through piles of research. Even a few more weeks in Florida would be OK).


----------



## deknow

Allen Dick said:


> In my opinion, and the opinion of many, analogies immediately cheapen any arguement since they suggest an identity where none exists. They are a device which has its place, but can never replace fact.


In this case, the "identity" (as you put it) does exist. It is the same set of physical laws that govern the length/weight of an airplane and the length/weight of a flying insect (as well as the ratio of volume to surface area...these are basic principles, not esoteric theory). 

If you don't like the analogy, then read the science (I've posted 4 links all discussing this relationship, at least 2 of them are excelent).

I'd especially recommend:
http://www.dinosaurtheory.com/scaling.html

The data on cell size bee size/weight is available in virtually any modern version of ABC and XYZ, as well as in the Grout thesis, and in many places under Dee and Ed's POV section here.

deknow


----------



## deknow

Allen Dick said:


> (... sitting in my castle digging through piles of research.


In our house, digging through piles of bee research is considered foreplay!

deknow


----------



## Allen Dick

> In this case, the "identity" (as you put it) does exist. It is the same set of physical laws that govern the length/weight of an airplane and the length/weight of a flying insect (as well as the ratio of volume to surface area...these are basic principles, not esoteric theory). 

The point is that airplanes do not have muscles or use the same flight principles in the same way. 

> I'd especially recommend:http://www.dinosaurtheory.com/scaling.html

Actually, thank you for proving my point by providing such an excellent article which, assuming it is understood, says what I am saying.

> The data on cell size bee size/weight is available in virtually any modern version of ABC and XYZ, as well as in the Grout thesis, and in many places under Dee and Ed's POV section here.

Sure, granted, but understanding what, if any real meaning it has, or application to current beekeeping is not as simple as some might wish to think.

> In our house, digging through piles of bee research is considered foreplay!

Eeeewww! Scary thought. I'm leaving.


----------



## deknow

Allen Dick said:


> The point is that airplanes do not have muscles or use the same flight principles in the same way.


absolutely correct...but they also do have a lot in common, In this particular case, one can deconstruct the length/weight ratios among similar (but differnet sized) insect and independantly deconstruct the length/weight ratios among similar (but different sized) airplanes. When one compares those general observations, one sees that they seem to follow the same trends....and that bees raised on artifically large comb size do not follow these trends.



> Sure, granted, but understanding what, if any real meaning it has, or application to current beekeeping is not as simple as some might wish to think.


Um, ok....I was responding to your request for data that showed smaller bees were denser. I've presented it. I've explained it. Didn't you say you found this interesting (you said you did)? What do you find interesting about it?




> Eeeewww! Scary thought. I'm leaving.


Hey, I got away with buying a "Microscope Built for Two" (a student microscope with 2 eyepieces) for Valentines day (chocolate wasn't an option, as she has unlimited access to the chocolate we produce commercially).

deknow


----------



## Allen Dick

> absolutely correct...but they also do have a lot in common, In this particular case, one can deconstruct the length/weight ratios among similar (but differnet sized) insect and independantly deconstruct the length/weight ratios among similar (but different sized) airplanes.

To do that with any degree of subtlety and confidence is simply far too complex for anyone of us to be able to do without a great deal of preparation and reference. They are so very different. I spent enough time studying engineering to realise I know very little and to exercise great caution -- and large safety factors.

> When one compares those general observations, one sees that they seem to follow the same trends....and that bees raised on artifically large comb size do not follow these trends.

I must be stupid. I just don't get it. What I see are bunch of experiments conducted by artificial means with interesting conclusions that may or may not apply to anything in my world.

> Um, ok....I was responding to your request for data that showed smaller bees were denser. I've presented it. I've explained it. Didn't you say you found this interesting (you said you did)? What do you find interesting about it?

Everything. It seemed anomalous. It also relates to the question of the amount of feed deposited in cells of various sizes, but that opens up another question, and I really do not want to go there today.

I have to admit that I have a life away from this keyboard and really have to get back to it. I appreciate the discussion, but I have work to do.


----------

