# Regressing bees to small cell



## Ravenseye (Apr 2, 2006)

So long as they have 5.4mm foundation in place, they'll use that in its original size. You can regress down by adding foundationless frames along with your larger cell size comb and gradually keep pulling your old stuff out. There are a variety of ways to do this but I did it by moving the larger cell frames towards the walls and, when the brood hatched out, the queen didn't work them again. That's when I pulled them. It wasn't a big deal and I was lucky. I don't know about switching to 1 1/4" frames. Perhaps someone here has done that and can give you advice.


----------



## Mike Gillmore (Feb 25, 2006)

It's a terrific idea doing a side by side comparison with 5.4 and small cell. It will be great to hear your results. Don't be surprised if it takes a couple of seasons to get them fully down to small cell. 

Another approach would be to buy some small cell foundation for all of the frames you will be adding. Have extra foundation on hand because you may need to go a couple of rounds to get them down to 4.9. Ravenseye had a great point in moving the frames you are replacing to the outside where the bees will be using them for honey storage rather than brood.


----------



## JPK (May 24, 2008)

Or, you could go ahead and buy some Honey Super Cell which is fully drawn out plastic frames and not give them the opportunity to take liberties with what you give them.

Be sure to leave a frame of normal foundation or foundationless frame for them to draw brood cells in.

This way you get them to small cell a whole lot quicker with fewer "detours" and a lot less wasted time/energy on your part and theirs.

-J


----------



## dickm (May 19, 2002)

Another recent study, well done, has shown the size of the cell to be unimportant and of no benefit. Jerrry Hayes, the guy who does the "Classroom" in ABJ, was part of it. Also, Ellis and Ellis, 2 top researchers. Master the basics before you get into the fads. It's hard enough as it is.

dickm


----------



## pilothawk (Apr 16, 2009)

I have read a lot of convincing evidence that small cell is beneficial to the colony. But I am also going to try and keep one of my hives at 5.4 and see if there are any significant differences among the 2. It will probably take a couple of years to find out, but I'll be keeping track of how everything progresses.


----------



## summer1052 (Oct 21, 2007)

My $0.02 from the For What It's Worth department.

When I hived my packages last year, I simply hived them all on small cell. The only thing in the hive larger was one frame of drone comb sized wax for varrora control. 

The bees never skipped a beat, and promptly began drawing out comb -- EXCEPT on the frame of drone stuff. They won't touch it. :scratch:

Interestingly, my girls won't touch a comb sprayed with Xentari, either. I guess my bee girls are just like my daughters. PICKY, PICKY, PICKY. inch:

:lookout:
Summer


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

dickm said:


> Another recent study, well done, has shown the size of the cell to be unimportant and of no benefit.





pilothawk said:


> But I am also going to try and keep one of my hives at 5.4 and see if there are any significant differences among the 2.


Now that's what I call a beekeeper. Not afraid to venture outside the boundaries that studies can create. :thumbsup:


----------



## Countryboy (Feb 15, 2009)

_As long as I am trying to regress the bees should I also switch to 1-1/4" frames?_

I know Michael Bush has said he feels bees draw small cell faster when they are on 1 1/4 frames.

I am in the process of going to 1 1/4 frames in my brood chambers. While I do hope to gain some benefit from small cell, I am primarily going to narrow frames for other reasons. It only takes one layer of bees to keep brood warm with narrow frames. I want to see if there is any overwintering benefits by the frames being closer together. Also, you have 10% more frames in the brood nest - and a bigger broodnest can cut down chances of swarming.

_I would like to regress one of them because before I realized I wanted to do this I had already purchased a bunch of foundation and frames. 
_

You can always cut the foundation into starter strips.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>With the the bees I'm trying to regress, will they regress with the original nuc frames in place (5.4mm foundation) and the addition of foundationless frames?

Somewhat, but I would try to rotate the 5.4mm out as soon as you can without stealing their brood. Move them to the outside edges as you can until they have honey in them and then harvest them.

> Would something like the plastic predrawn small cell like "super honey cell" be advised?

It is an instant way to get them regressed. I've found them quite willing to draw the PF100s and PF120s from Mann Lake the first try and also get instant regression. They are much cheaper.

>As long as I am trying to regress the bees should I also switch to 1-1/4" frames?

I like them. They are not required, but with natural comb they will help. With the Mann Lake PF100s they will draw it 4.95mm as it's layed out just fine.

>Should I just leave well enough alone, and go with what is the status-quo?

The status quo is boring and it's failing. 

>I am in the process of going to 1 1/4 frames in my brood chambers. While I do hope to gain some benefit from small cell, I am primarily going to narrow frames for other reasons. It only takes one layer of bees to keep brood warm with narrow frames.

That's my bigger reason for them. But at the root of it is that it's natural spacing.


----------



## pilothawk (Apr 16, 2009)

Instant regression, I hope. I called my mentor this morning and he told me he had a swarm. I instantly offered to buy the swarm if we could get it into a box. He is also a dealer of bee stuff so I put a deep brood box together with 4.9mm wax foundation.

I am hoping that by providing the swarm with the 4.9mm foundation they will regress in one generation...that is if I can get them to draw it out without leaving.

This was a sizable swarm with probably 4-5 pounds of bees. We also saw at least 3 queens...one nice black carniolan, and 2 italians, one of which was in the process of being balled. I know we got at least one queen into the box, but I'm not sure which. I hope the girls decide to stay!

http://s647.photobucket.com/albums/uu199/pilothawk/?action=view&current=042509swarm.jpg


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Ravenseye said:


> So long as they have 5.4mm foundation in place, they'll use that in its original size.


What's so magical about 5.4mm? Why not smaller? If 5.4 is good, why wouldn't 5.2 be better?

I see pilothawk is using 4.9mm. Same question. Why not smaller? Or is this as small as bees will go? If you try to force them to go smaller, what happens?


----------



## pilothawk (Apr 16, 2009)

I am learning a lot. We worked over 40 nucs today to see which ones were ready and which one weren't. You can sure learn a lot more about bees and what to look for when you are working with an experienced beekeeper. Reading and research is good, but there is no replacement for OJT!


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

What does your OJT tell you about small cell? And small cell regression?


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>I am hoping that by providing the swarm with the 4.9mm foundation they will regress in one generation...that is if I can get them to draw it out without leaving.

No reason they should leave if the queen is there.

>What's so magical about 5.4mm? Why not smaller? If 5.4 is good, why wouldn't 5.2 be better?

Since smaller is what the bees build, I think it would be.

>I see pilothawk is using 4.9mm. Same question. Why not smaller?

I don't know of any foundation available that is smaller. But I have seen natural comb from feral bees in Pennsylvania that is 4.4mm and mine are often 4.6mm so smaller works fine. But since it's difficult to get 5.4mm bees down to 4.9mm it's another step or two to get them down to 4.4mm. 

> Or is this as small as bees will go? If you try to force them to go smaller, what happens?

They get smaller. The standard foundation in Italy in the late 1800s was about 4.4mm.


----------



## pilothawk (Apr 16, 2009)

The ladies were all in the hive by dark. They had balled another italian queen before I shut them up for the night, so they must be working with the darker carniolan queen that we saw. Their new home is facing SE with afternoon shade and on the SE side of my garage. I sure hope they like their new home and can figure out how to draw the 4.9. I have watched and read about too many advantages of going to smaller cell bees to not want to try it!

Since I am working with the 4.9mm foundation I didn't want to introduce a frame of 5.4mm brood so I hope the queen stays put. I was thinking about placing a queen excluder under the brood chamber to keep her from leaving. Any thoughts on this? 

Thank you Mr. Bush especially (Your website is extremely well put together, and has lots of data to support your conclusions.), and others for your input. My mentor thinks I'm crazy, but he is very interested in seeing my results. I am hoping I can keep this colony drug free, and not have them crash on me.

If they start drawing this foundation out well, the next brood box will be a medium with starter strips in the frames so the bees can draw their own foundation, and I will also use 1-1/4" top bars. I've gone this far with this experiment why not keep going right?

I've got pictures of my bee yard and the water source I cobbled together for my girls, but I'll post pictures later when I go get the camera out of the truck.

Thank you everyone for being part of a fantastic site!


----------



## Bud Dingler (Feb 8, 2008)

dickm said:


> Another recent study, well done, has shown the size of the cell to be unimportant and of no benefit. Jerrry Hayes, the guy who does the "Classroom" in ABJ, was part of it. Also, Ellis and Ellis, 2 top researchers. Master the basics before you get into the fads. It's hard enough as it is.
> 
> dickm


I have kept bees for 50+ years and agree with Dick that small cell is a passing fancy with no proof it works at all. 

You really got to wonder about someone who would pooh pooh a scientific study. If you don't believe in research I'm curious what you do believe in? You like your computer that allows you to be on the internet? Where do you think that came from? How about medicine? Prefer the natural method of curing cancer or maybe go to Mayo or a specialist? :scratch:


----------



## pilothawk (Apr 16, 2009)

I have yet to see this study that shows that cell size doesn't matter? There is a mention of it, but no information on where to find it other than one of the co-authors names? I have not poo-pooed scientific data by any means. There are 2 sides to any argument, and I have chosen to try the one side that I have found that has at least some merit when it comes to small cell comb. I will be more than glad to read any data on bees and scientific studies if you can tell me where to find them.

Bud Dingler, I would also like to thank you for the wonderful welcome to beekeeping you have provided. I have an opinion I am entitled to and you have yours. Did I tell you that you were wrong for using the "standard" cell size? I didn't think so. So if you don't mind sir, don't post about who or what you think I am until you have met me. I have yet to claim that small cell is the answer, but that something that is worth trying to see if it works as some of the research indicates it will.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

dickm said:


> Another recent study, well done, has shown the size of the cell to be unimportant and of no benefit.


Really? Can you quote the conclusion from that study here please? I will be extremely surprised if that is how it's worded. I'll bet it's prefaced with conditions, as with the Berry study, that as far as mites are concerned, there was no statistical difference between the LC and SC hives [within the time frame of the study.]


----------



## odfrank (May 13, 2002)

I have been running side by side comparisons for six years and have seen no advantages. Large cell bees die, small cell bees die.


----------



## Ravenseye (Apr 2, 2006)

Nothing magical about 5.4mm. I meant to say that if 5.4mm foundation is there, they'll continue using it at that size even if other frames have smaller cell foundation in place. I had a hive all last year like that. If you want them to use smaller cells you need to eventually pull all the larger cell comb that's in there.


----------



## Countryboy (Feb 15, 2009)

Are any of these studies showing ANY negative benefits to small cell, or are the conclusions that there was no difference the researchers found? (Just because researchers haven't found a difference doesn't mean that the difference does not exist.)

I look at it this way. I am going to small cell, simply because it is natural. Unless I see that I am worse off by going to small cell, I am going to let the bees make the comb they are most comfortable with.

Ever get a new car, and arrive home at night and reach for the door handle and couldn't find it? You got comfortable with the old location, and with a new car, the handle is moved and you need to turn on the interior light just to find the door handle. While the different location for the door handle doesn't affect the performance of the door at all (researchers would say there is no difference) you can feel a difference because the unfamiliar location is an aggravation.

Get enough little aggravations on that car, and it becomes a royal pita, and you become a nervous wreck trying to deal with all the problems that car has. (I can remember a buddy's car when I was younger - you would hit a bump on a back road and the driver's seat unlatched and slid back all the way while you tried pulling on the wheel to get close enough to touch the pedals again without losing control.) What little aggravation is the straw that broke the camel's back, and you finally ditch that deathtrap car and warn everyone else to stay away from it? It is difficult for anyone to really pinpoint the exact issue that broke the camel's back, even if they can find a few things that aren't quite right. (Kinda sounds like CCD huh? The bees abandon the hive, and warn all the neighboring bees to stay away. It takes a couple weeks for the warnings to subside, and bees will then rob the abandoned hive out...and researchers can't find an exact cause for the colony collapse, just several little things that aren't quite right.)

I don't want any unnecessary aggravations or stresses on my bees. If the bees are more comfortable with small cell, I'm going to let them make it. Even if the maximum benefit I see is calmer bees and I don't get stung as often - small cell is worth it to me.


----------



## dickm (May 19, 2002)

1) Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Plant Industry, Bureau of Plant and Apiary Inspection, Apiary Inspection Section, 1911 SW 34th St, Gainesville, FL 32614-7100, ETATS-UNIS
(2) Honey Bee Research and Extension Laboratory, Department of Entomology and Nematology, University of Florida, Bldg. 970 Natural Area Dr, Gainesville, FL 32611-0620, ETATS-UNIS


Sorry I didn't include this earlier. Lazy. With this you can find the full study.

Country boy said: "Just because researchers haven't found a difference doesn't mean that the difference does not exist."

Since the study will have no effect on your thinking...I suggest you not read it.


Résumé / Abstract
Due to a continuing shift toward reducing/minimizing the use of chemicals in honey bee colonies, we explored the possibility of using small cell foundation as a varroa control. Based on the number of anecdotal reports supporting small cell as an efficacious varroa control tool, we hypothesized that bee colonies housed on combs constructed on small cell foundation would have lower varroa populations and higher adult bee populations and more cm2 brood. To summarize our results, we found that the use of small cell foundation did not significantly affect cm2 total brood, total mites per colony, mites per brood cell, or mites per adult bee, but did affect adult bee population for two sampling months. Varroa levels were similar in all colonies throughout the study. We found no evidence that small cell foundation was beneficial with regard to varroa control under the tested conditions in Florida.
Revue / Journal Title
Experimental & applied acarology ISSN 0168-8162 CODEN EAACEM 
Source / Source
2009, vol. 47, no4, pp. 311-316 [6 page(s) (article)] (3/4 p.)


----------



## Countryboy (Feb 15, 2009)

_but did affect adult bee population *for two sampling months*. Varroa levels were similar in all colonies throughout the study. We found no evidence that small cell foundation was beneficial with regard to varroa control under the tested conditions in Florida._

So what exactly were the tested conditions? Aside from a short 2 month span?

Were these bees regressed to small cell, or did the researchers just throw small cell foundation into a large cell hive? Small cell foundation may have been used, but what size cell did the bees actually draw? Bees can remake cells larger than the foundation if they want to. (ie, drone comb on 5.2mm Pierco.)

What kind of mite load from surrounding hives?

_Country boy said: "Just because researchers haven't found a difference doesn't mean that the difference does not exist."

Since the study will have no effect on your thinking...I suggest you not read it._

You assume to know what affects my thinking, and methinks youthinks wrongly.

I believe the results are inconclusive, simply because the data sample is too small. IMO, the researchers should do testing for a minimum of one complete year to allow for seasonal differences too.

I stand by what I said before. Just because researchers haven't found a difference doesn't mean that the difference does not exist.

In that 2 months of data sampling, how long did it take to get the foundation drawn, and how many brood cycles were completed after it was drawn out? :scratch:


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Before anyone starts making judgment calls about the study, the complete study needs to be made available for all to read. Unfortunately, one has to pay to acquire it. When it's free and I can read it, I'll comment further on it.


----------



## dickm (May 19, 2002)

Thanks Barry and all.

Here is a slightly longer excerpt. I'm not holding out on you. This was posted on Bee-l some weeks ago. It's all I have.

dickm

> Due to a continuing shift toward reducing/minimizing the use of chemicals in honey bee colonies, we explored the possibility of using small cell foundation as a varroa control. Based on the number of anecdotal reports supporting small cell as an efficacious varroa control tool, we hypothesized that bee colonies housed on combs constructed on small cell foundation would have lower varroa populations and higher adult bee populations and more cm(2) brood. To summarize our results, we found that the use of small cell foundation did not significantly affect cm(2) total brood, total mites per colony, mites per brood cell, or mites per adult bee, but did affect adult bee population for two sampling months. Varroa levels were similar in all colonies throughout the study. We found no evidence that small cell foundation was beneficial with regard to varroa control under the tested conditions in Florida.

> In April 2007, we established 15 full-size, Langstroth colonies for both treatments (30 total colonies). All colonies started with a sister queen and a 1 kg package of bees on new foundation. Small cell colonies received packaged bees prepared from existing small cell colonies, while standard colonies received packaged bees prepared from existing standard colonies. All bees were mixed race European We located all colonies on the same research farm but in separate apiaries separated by approx. 0.68 km.

> We tested the effects of foundation type (standard or small cell foundation) on adult bee population, cm2 total brood, total mites per colony, mites per brood cell, and mites per adult bee. Despite the anecdotal support given for small cell foundation and some positive data suggesting that cell size might play a role in varroa choice, we found no evidence that it was an efficacious varroa control under the tested conditions in Florida. We cannot recommend its use as a tool in an integrated pest management program aimed at controlling varroa.


----------



## Countryboy (Feb 15, 2009)

_we hypothesized that bee colonies housed on combs constructed on small cell foundation would have lower varroa populations and higher adult bee populations and more cm(2) brood. To summarize our results, we found that the use of small cell foundation did not significantly affect cm(2) total brood, total mites per colony, mites per brood cell, or mites per adult bee, *but did affect adult bee population for two sampling months.* _

In what manner was adult bee population affected? Increased or decreased population?

Why did they hypothesize more cm^2 brood? An equal number of brood will fit in a smaller area with small cell. Equal total area of brood is a higher number of brood on small cell, simply because you can fit more in the same amount of space. Also, bee larva develop about 10% faster, so one _should_ hypothesize that small cell bees can have 10% less developing brood at any given time while the adult bee population would be the same.

_we found no evidence that it was an efficacious varroa control under the tested conditions in Florida. _

What manner were they using to evaluate effectiveness? Total mite population? Ratio of mite to adult bee? If total mite population remains the same, but one group has increased adult bee populations, the ratio of mite to bees decreases. It is very possible for mite load to decrease while mite population remains constant.

Did they find any evidence that small cell was NOT an efficacious varroa control? Simply because their results did not find evidence to support their theory does not mean a lack of evidence disproves their theory either.

I still say there is too much information missing from their information to provide a definitive conclusion one way or the other.

The way I see it - if small/natural cell works, I win. If it ends up being a bogus fad, I save money by not buying foundation, and save the time installing and wiring the foundation. Sounds like a win/win situation to me.


----------



## dickm (May 19, 2002)

>>>>>>>>>>>>two sampling months. <<<<<<<<<<<<<

I suspect this means 2 out of many where there was no difference. 

Countryboy,
You would be a great"devils advocate." Your questions are the ones that the experimenters would expect. Reading profesional studies is boring for this reason. They lay out what they did, how they measured and how they reach their conclusions. Find the study and I think you will be satisfied. 
I know Jennifer Berry and Jerry Hayes. These people deplore the overuse of pesticides. They would love to prove small cell works. Or anything else for that matter. Jennifer is pushing something that I started doing last year.: Putting a cup of powdered sugar in a package of bees and rolling them in it to get the mites off before hiving. They LIKE non-chemical treatments. They are on your side.
Another note on small cell. Dave Mendes, one of the biggest beeks in the country (10,000+) told me that he has something like 400 colonies devoted to small-cell. That was last year. It's time to call him.
Lastly: I did a small cell trial (8 colonies) with poor results. Not scientific but I did once believe in it.


Peace,

dickm


----------



## Bud Dingler (Feb 8, 2008)

*there has been*

an undercurrent of scientific disdain is often found in the small cell advocates arguments in the thread and others. 

i cant help but wonder how many of these folks have ever spent any time with a real university researcher or working in a lab? 

ignorance is bliss they say.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Bud Dingler said:


> i cant help but wonder how many of these folks have ever spent any time with a real university researcher or working in a lab?
> 
> ignorance is bliss they say.


i cant help but wonder how many of these [university researcher] folks have ever spent any time with a real beekeeper or working in a real apiary that uses SC? 

ignorance is bliss they say.


----------



## crazytranes (Apr 7, 2009)

*Your local University PROBABLY has a copy...*

A agree with Barry. We can't discuss a study in an educated manner without getting a copy of the study itself. If you want a copy of the study, I would be willing to bet you could get one from your local University. I did.

Countryboy is raising good questions. Here are the answers as best I can express them:

*Countryboy:* _In what manner was adult bee population affected? Increased or decreased population?_

*crazytranes:* the small cell hives had a higher population in the first and last month of 4 monthly samples (July 2007 and October 2008). However, during the middle 2 months of sampling (Oct 2007 and Feb 2008)the populations were about the same.

*Countryboy:* _Why did they hypothesize more cm^2 brood? An equal number of brood will fit in a smaller area with small cell. Equal total area of brood is a higher number of brood on small cell, simply because you can fit more in the same amount of space. Also, bee larva develop about 10% faster, so one should hypothesize that small cell bees can have 10% less developing brood at any given time while the adult bee population would be the same._

*crazytranes:* from the study: "Based on the number of anecdotal reports supporting small cell as an efficacious varroa control tool, we hypothesized that bee colonies housed on small cell foundation would have smaller varroa populations and therefore larger adult bee populations and more cm2 brood than colonies housed on standard foundation since pressures from varroa will be reduced."

*Countryboy:* _What manner were they using to evaluate effectiveness? Total mite population? Ratio of mite to adult bee? If total mite population remains the same, but one group has increased adult bee populations, the ratio of mite to bees decreases. It is very possible for mite load to decrease while mite population remains constant._

*crazytranes:* ratio of number of mites per bee, number of mites per brood cell and number of mites per colony.

*Countryboy:* _So what exactly were the tested conditions? Aside from a short 2 month span?_

*crazytranes:* I can see where you are getting the "short 2 month span," but that is based on incomplete data. The full test was from April 2007 to May 2008, a full year. Conditions: 30 Langstroth colonies: 15 standard cell, 15 small cell. All from package bees (1kg package, 2.2 lbs package for us in the USA). The packages for standard cell came from standard cell hives, the packages for small cell came from small cell hives. Hives were managed for honey production. They sugared the packages before hiving them to get as many varroa off of the bees as possible. All colonies were on the same research farm but in seperate apiaries 0.68km apart. "We put them in the same area to minimize environmental/local effects but in different apiaries to reduce the horizontal transmission of varroa between the two groups. We realized that differences within each apiary, such as the amount of sun or shade, could potentially confound our results but every effort was taken to equalize apiary sites. No other colonies were located at the research farm. Within each apiary, colonies were placed side by side on stands." There's more, but my fingers are getting tired of copying stuff down.

*Countryboy:* _Were these bees regressed to small cell, or did the researchers just throw small cell foundation into a large cell hive? Small cell foundation may have been used, but what size cell did the bees actually draw? Bees can remake cells larger than the foundation if they want to. (ie, drone comb on 5.2mm Pierco.)_

*crazytranes:* see above for most of this question. The bees did draw the correct sizes. Standard bees drew 5.4mm cells +/- 0.01mm on the standard foundation. Small cell bees drew 4.9 +/- 0.02mm cells on the small cell foundation.

*Countryboy:* _What kind of mite load from surrounding hives?_

*crazytranes:* I am satisfied that the study was conducted to limit this factor as much as possible. See above remarks about testing conditions.

*Countryboy:* _In that 2 months of data sampling, how long did it take to get the foundation drawn, and how many brood cycles were completed after it was drawn out?_

*crazytranes:* The two month figure comes from limited data before. The hives were managed for a full year. Times for drawing out foundation and number of brood cycles are assumed to be the same as for any other hive in a standard year. This is not expressly stated in the study, but all hives were treated equally.

After having read the study, I still want to try foundationless and with foundation with my hives. I'll go with what works for me.


----------



## Countryboy (Feb 15, 2009)

_an undercurrent of scientific disdain is often found in the small cell advocates arguments in the thread and others._ 

It is actually proper to view scientific studies with some skepticism. Scientific studies should never be accepted as fact on face value. Besides, if you start out with an invalid hypothesis, no matter how perfect your evidence to back it up, you will still have a flawed result. 

_i cant help but wonder how many of these folks have ever spent any time with a real university researcher or working in a lab? _

Such as an uncle who while I was growing up, had a PhD in entomology specializing in honeybees, was a college research professor in Guelph, Wisconsin, and Washington, before he finally went into commercial beekeeping in South Dakota?

Nope. never been around anyone like that. 

Crazytranes, thanks for the extra info. It helps when you see a bigger picture, than when someone just shares tidbits.

_we hypothesized that bee colonies housed on small cell foundation would have smaller varroa populations and therefore larger adult bee populations and more cm2 brood than colonies housed on standard foundation since pressures from varroa will be reduced._

And I still have no idea what rationale was used to support the hypothesis that small cell colonies would have more cm^2 of brood. It runs counter to logic when you consider shorter development time, and less cm^2 needed per larva.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

I did acquire a copy of the study. Thank you!
One thing I did notice between this study and the Berry study was that there was a difference in mite loads. This study shows no difference between the SC hives and the LC hives regarding mite loads. Both were the same, whereas the Berry study showed a greater mite load in the SC hives.

The conclusion that the study comes to is:

"We found no evidence that small cell foundation was beneficial with regard to varroa control under the tested conditions in Florida."

One has to ask themselves, do those "tested conditions" accurately reflect the conditions of those who are seeing positive results with SC.


----------



## summer1052 (Oct 21, 2007)

If ignorance is bliss, why aren't more people happy? 
:lookout:

Summer


----------



## Bizzybee (Jan 29, 2006)

Barry said:


> One has to ask themselves, do those "tested conditions" accurately reflect the conditions of those who are seeing positive results with SC.


In what sense Barry? Do or would you be implying their management tactics in addition to SC?

My reluctance to get behind SC has been in the issue of the SC itself. Does it as a device slow, stop or prevent the advancement of mites? I haven't read this study but do know the Berry study. I don't personally think that any other criteria needs to be considered in a SC study other than a direct comparison between it and LC comb.

For last 20 or so times this has been brought up, I always wind up hearing it is a integral part of pest management and that SC alone isn't the answer. Yet there is no evidence in support of that assertion. I'm OK with the management aspect and recognize that it is likely more than one thing that tips the balance.

But now it appears that we have two documented and complete studies with similar results. In both cases the constant was the management (assuming on the second study) practices and the variable was the SC. And in both cases, the variable had no positive affect.

If SC in itself was an affective device then what difference would management style have to do in the equation other than the overall loads would be higher or lower. But in any style of management if SC has any effect, would you not expect the loads to be lower in those hives?

I'm not doubting these people that stand so steadfast behind their belief in SC and that they have lower or no mite loads. But I'm personally believing in their management practices. Not their use of SC.


----------



## Countryboy (Feb 15, 2009)

_One has to ask themselves, do those "tested conditions" accurately reflect the conditions of those who are seeing positive results with SC. _

I agree completely. One factor I think may have some influence is climate. Michael Bush sees positive results from small cell, and he has winter in Nebraska.

The Florida study didn't show benefits. But do they really have winter down there? Are Florida hives ever empty of drones and drone larva, the way Northern hives are during winter? That would seriously affect mite reproductive ability if mites have access to drone brood year round.


----------



## Bizzybee (Jan 29, 2006)

What does temperature or length of winter have to do with small cell? SC is only effective if you live in the correct climate? 

Oops, sorry! Didn't read very well. Drones are in a hive as a result of population growth and dictated by resources as much if not more than climate. Unless beeks in FL are feeding I have no doubt they have longer dearths and no brood production at all that could be compared to cold northern climates.

Just because it's warmer in the south doesn't mean that bees are continually expanding and being productive. July to December here in north GA is all about bees eating and not producing anything at all. If there isn't feed on the bees, there is no brood production of any kind. Hard on the pocket buying sugar, but a blessing for mite control. None of which has anything to do with SC comb however.


----------



## NeilV (Nov 18, 2006)

Didn't Jennifer Berry have the help of a small cell beekeeper on her study (who in fact supplied the small cell bees for the study)? 

For the people who are critical/doubtful of the studies, what is your specific criticism?

FWIW, I started out with two hives on small cell and small cell bees from a small cell beekeeper. One hive did poorly and I combined them. I had low mite counts in the hives.

However, I then requeened the same hive with a queen that was not from a small cell outfit. Within about two brood cycles after changing queens (late summer) my 24 hour mite drop on the small cell hive went from 1 to 18. Powdered sugar dusting has kept them under control so far.

I have also had some Russian hives on large cell with relatively good mite drops using powdered sugar. 

I'm thinking that small cell beekeepers may deserve credit -- for breeding better bees by keeping chemicals out of the mix. Also, there are IPM methods that do not involve chemicals that are easy and effective.

All things considered, I would not recommend that a starting out beekeeper include regressing bees in the program. There's already too many things to keep up with when you are starting out. For the same reason, I would recommend against letting the bees draw their own comb without foundation. 

I would recommend that for the first 2 hives, you get some regular wax foundation, a screeened bottom board, monitor for mites and use powdered sugar dusting and maybe drone comb removal and thymol only if needed. 

Just my 2 cents,

Neil


----------



## Countryboy (Feb 15, 2009)

It's my understanding that mites will reproduce in worker cells too. They prefer drone cells, but that does not mean they won't lay in worker cells. With large cell worker cells, the development time is long enough that mites can have reproductive success by laying in worker cells. By having small cells, that reduces the mites ability to successfully reproduce in the worker cells as the bee emerges before the mite is developed enough to survive.

When mites can reproduce successfully in both worker and drone cells, you have a recipe for raising mites.

If you can prevent the mites from reproducing in SC worker cells, and limit them to only laying in drone cells, that reduces reproductive opportunities for the mites.

If mites are unable to reproduce in SC worker cells, and drone laying has ceased, that interrupts the mite reproductive process.

If you remember, one of the first things beekeepers noticed was that split hives (that made their own queens) had a much higher survival rate against mites, since the lack of a laying queen interrupted the mite reproductive cycle.

If the mites can't reproduce in SC worker cells, and there is no drone brood for extended periods of time during the winter, I believe (pure speculation) this has a similar effect on mite reproduction as a walk-away split.

_Just because it's warmer in the south doesn't mean that bees are continually expanding and being productive._

But due to a milder winter, the lulls are less than in areas where it is so cold that there will be times when it is too cold to fly for a couple months at a time. My neighbors are a retired couple who spend their winters in Frostproof Florida. (It is called Frostproof for a reason.) My neighbors are passionate about flowers, and have flowers in bloom nearly year round. 

We had a stretch of 27 or 28 days last winter when temperatures never got above freezing here. The winter in Florida versus a winter here is night and day different. Overwintering and bee reproduction occur differently due to different climates - and mite reproduction is dependant upon bee reproduction.

There is a saying here. The bees that make the honey don't eat it, (summer bees) and the bees that eat the honey (winter bees) don't make it. How many winter bees are there in warm climates?


----------



## pilothawk (Apr 16, 2009)

Since I started this mess let me respond by saying. I have definitely learned, and that is important. I really appreciate everyone's input.

Here is what my plan is:
1. Since I have read anecdotal evidence that small cell beekeeping in addition to other strategies can be beneficial why not use it? I got a swarm 4 days ago, and while I haven't inspected the hive yet, the colony has not absconded from the hive started on 4.9mm wax coated plastic foundation. My mentor had a swarm that I offered to buy and he took me up on the offer. He treats for mites as well as uses drone trapping.

2. I am using screened bottom boards.

3. The beekeeper I am getting my nucs from has not medicated, according to him, in seven years.

4. I plan on using powdered sugar shakes, and sugar rolls to control and count mite loads.

5. Beekeeping for me is/will be a *HOBBY*. I see it as an opportunity to learn about bees, and possibly reap the benefits of a successful hive or 2.

6. As a hobby I am not afraid to let what happens, happen! If I can in some small way contribute a little to the community with my results that will be fantastic. I see that this "experiment" is a win win situation for all involved, and even those not so involved. If small cell works for me, then more might see if it will work for them as well. If small cell doesn't work for me, then other beekeepers won't necessary be so willing to join the latest "fad" in beekeeping. Either way the local beekeeping community wins. If I fail in my "experiments", I am the one who loses....I'm out one or more colonies that I will have to replace.

I apologize for touching nerves that appear to have been inflamed in the past, but I can and will draw my own conclusions from data that has mixed results, either scientific, or anecdotal.

Thanks,
Chris


----------



## Roland (Dec 14, 2008)

Is it possible we have our cause and effect arrows confused???? Is it possible that the Small cell people have sucsess not because they are using small cell, but rather that they have selected bees that will work small cell, that ALSO have a linked trait that makes them more hygenic, or mite resistant, than bees that make larger cells?? Can all bees live with the same level of mites? Is it possible that the bees that can live in small cell co-exist with a higher level of mites than those in large cell? Maybe mite level is NOT a good comparison, or judgement of mite resistance, but rather that survival is a better benchmark. Why is it that the feral bees in this part of the world do not survive in large cell, and all seem to look like the old "German bee"?????


Roland


----------



## NeilV (Nov 18, 2006)

"Since I have read anecdotal evidence that small cell beekeeping in addition to other strategies can be beneficial why not use it?"

There is probably little harm, and maybe the studies are flawed somehow and there is some good. The potential problem is that you may get weird comb. Just because it's a swarm does not mean they will be small bees, and they may need to "regress," which you don't need to mess with while just figuring out how to do this. Have your mentor look at the comb that they are drawing to see if he thinks its a problem. Also, don't assume that because you have small cell that you have licked the mite problem, because you may not have done so. 

"I am using screened bottom boards."

Good idea.

"The beekeeper I am getting my nucs from has not medicated, according to him, in seven years."

Great idea.

"I plan on using powdered sugar shakes, and sugar rolls to control and count mite loads."

Great idea. 

"Beekeeping for me is/will be a HOBBY."

Yeah, that's what I was saying about 3 years ago. Now I'm sneaking out of my office to try to catch swarms. 

"As a hobby I am not afraid to let what happens, happen!"

That's the right attitude. You have no "problems," just "learning opportunities." 

"I apologize for touching nerves that appear to have been inflamed in the past, but I can and will draw my own conclusions from data that has mixed results, either scientific, or anecdotal."

No need to apologize. This is about the 1,000th time that this discussion has happened, and the people who get to yapping on this debate are mostly friends, nothing personal. Remember that good beekeepers can do things in different ways, argue about it and everybody have good results. 

Plus, Barry shut down Tailgater, so some folks have been itching to have an argument. If you want to "touch some nerves," start posting on the Tailgater. 

Welcome to Beekeeping and Beesource


----------



## crazytranes (Apr 7, 2009)

Chris,

I applaud you for starting on a new hobby and wanting to learn as much as you can. :applause: 

A saying that I have seen over and over in my 3 years lurking here on the forums is, "Ask 10 beekeepers the same question, get 11 different answers." Just about any question that you ask is going to generate lots of debate :lookout: because most everyone who posts here are passionate about beekeeping. It's not inflamed nerves, it's passionate people.

Read up, keep asking questions, and make up your own mind. It sounds like you are willing to learn from your mistakes, so feel free to try different things. Don't let impassioned discussion scare you away from the forum, sometimes I have fun just sitting back and enjoying the show. opcorn:

edit: and NeilV beat me to it and said it better than I could.

-Aaron


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Bizzybee said:


> In what sense Barry? Do or would you be implying their management tactics in addition to SC?


The way I see it, we're all faced dealing with the SC issue in three ways.
1) We have several researchers now that put together a hypotheses and then set out to prove it as they are trained to do, in a controlled lab like fashion. They have narrowed the sum total of SC down to counting mites and have concluded that SC has no bearing on mite loads, thus, SC has no value.
2) We have unknown numbers of beekeepers who changed to SC and report that their bees manage fine on their own and the use of chemicals and drugs are not used.
3) We have those who simply judge SC based on the witness of the studies and the firsthand experience of beekeepers using SC.

I fall into #2. My experience does not line up with the study in the sense that I never kept both LC and SC together at the same time. I've kept SC colonies for years, not just months. Initially, I experienced difficulty regressing bees down. I experienced a high percent loss of colonies. Once I managed to get combs of SC and bees on it for more than a year, I saw a marked change in colony survival. Got past the chewing out of pupa stage and I stopped seeing mites in my casual observations. (I'm not saying that there were no mites anymore, but I know the difference between seeing mites in the hive when I was on LC and treating with Apistan every year to what I was seeing in the SC hives. It doesn't take detailed counting or trapping methods to see it.

I've said before, I have no problem accepting the results of both studies done so far. It fits right in with what I experienced. The time frame that the studies covered fit nicely with what happened to my bees in the same time frame. The difference is, I kept the bees and didn't move on to something else.



> My reluctance to get behind SC has been in the issue of the SC itself. Does it as a device slow, stop or prevent the advancement of mites? I haven't read this study but do know the Berry study. I don't personally think that any other criteria needs to be considered in a SC study other than a direct comparison between it and LC comb.


In my experience, initially no, but in time, yes. I don't know if it's the device, but my common sense tells me that the SC is the one factor that I changed, so that would be a good idea as to the cause of mite level change. Who determines what the proper length of time should be for a study to fully prove the hypotheses? Do you think people would continue to support the use of SC if their hives consistently had high mite loads and the hives collapsed? There is still a gulf between what we are seeing the the studies and what users of SC are seeing for themselves, beyond one year.



> For last 20 or so times this has been brought up, I always wind up hearing it is a integral part of pest management and that SC alone isn't the answer. Yet there is no evidence in support of that assertion. I'm OK with the management aspect and recognize that it is likely more than one thing that tips the balance.


I'm personally not one of those saying that. I have never used other IPM practices. I don't manipulate combs or supers, no SBB, no dusting, no new queens. I let them do their thing.



> But now it appears that we have two documented and complete studies with similar results. In both cases the constant was the management (assuming on the second study) practices and the variable was the SC. And in both cases, the variable had no positive affect.


Yep. We will all have to take the results of the study and apply it to our own reality of beekeeping. For me, to the degree that the studies went, they are not in conflict with my own experience.



> If SC in itself was an affective device then what difference would management style have to do in the equation other than the overall loads would be higher or lower. But in any style of management if SC has any effect, would you not expect the loads to be lower in those hives?


I would expect mite loads to drop in time as this is what I experienced as well as others like Dennis and I think Michael.



> I'm not doubting these people that stand so steadfast behind their belief in SC and that they have lower or no mite loads. But I'm personally believing in their management practices. Not their use of SC.


My management practice is a minimalist approach. I won't bad mouth either study, but I do try to make sure that the baby isn't thrown out with the bath water. Remember, the focus of these studies has been mite loads on bees for one year. I have no problem with that.


----------



## Bizzybee (Jan 29, 2006)

Awwww dadgumit!!! Your forcing me into hurrying up with reading this study!! I zonked out early last night and didn't get a chance yet.

Neil, I already did mention by beef with SC specifically and you didn't address it specifically. And that is, specifically, what affect does small cell contribute to the hive? 

I "can" be convinced but I have yet to hear the explanation to get me there. :waiting:

You do realize that after the next post, I will be at about 2-1/2 posts. That's a whole nickle!


----------



## NeilV (Nov 18, 2006)

Bizzy,

At this point, I don't consider myself a proponent of small cell. 

I don't know (or claim) that SC does add anything to the hive. At this point, I am more inclined to think that small cell beekeepers are mostly just employing a "live and let die" method. In other words, they don't treat, they have a "regression period" where mites decrease and then they have more fit bees at the end of the day. Maybe its not so much that they are doing something extra (using SC) but are instead stopping something else (Apistan, for example). 

One of my local beekeeper friends and mentors has not treated for 9 years. He has some small cell stuff and some large. As I understand it, he concluded that the cell size was not important. His hives now are somehwat mixed up. He just views comb as being comb. There was a poll on here not too long ago which indicated that there are lots of people who are not treating for varroa and their hives are living without SC. I've been on four swarm calls in the last week, and those were definitely wild bees on three and they were not particularly small looking and were certainly not of SC foundation. In short, I think if everybody in American quit treating for four years, after an initial collapse, the bees would be fine. That is happening and will happen anyway, with the Apistan crowd slowing it down. 

(That is not a criticism of commercial beeks who treat and cannot afford to lose 90% of their hives. However, the queen breeding community needs to quit treating, IMO.)

My small cell hive had more mites when I changed queens from a queen that I bought from a small cell beekeeper to a queen from a regular beekeeper. 

Also, the studies (which use small cell stock on both the large and small cell) show that the cell size does not matter. However, in the Berry studies, both groups of bees had fairly low mite counts. Again, the best explanation, IMO, is that she was working with varroa resistant bees and the cell size was unimportant.

Given the state of the evidence and my own observations, my personal opinion is that newbees should: (1) not mess with regressing bees as the first thing they are trying to do; (2) should try to get queens from breeders who don't treat and at least breed for hygenic behavior; and (3) should monitor for mites and use non-toxic methods like sugar dusting and drone brood removal as a first line of defense. Bottom line, to me, is that even if SC provides some benefit, there is insufficient evidence to recommend to newbees that they take on an additional task of regressing bees when they start. Learning to keep bees properly is hard enough as it is. The SC proponents, IMO, forget that they mostly were experienced beeks when they started regressing. Of course, it can be done by a newbie, but it is not the first priority, IMO.

That being said, I also recognize that this is complicated and I recognize the possibility that SC does have a benefit. For people who are doing it and like, it seems obvious that they should keep at it. Why fix what ain't broke? For experienced beeks who want to give it a go, have at it. Probably won't hurt anything and might help (but you better monitor for varroa). If going to SC has the side effect of getting people to quit using Apistan, then it will be a benefit in the long run for sure.

I feel the same way about natural cell, although I have not done it. For experienced folks, the worst that can happen is you save money on foundation. However, I don't think a newbee needs the headache of trying to get bees to draw straight comb on their own. They should at least start the hive with foundation. Can the bees also screw up on foundation? Absolutely. But they have much more opportunity to goof up on a starter strip. (FWIW, I have no opinion on whether bees who draw their own comb actually draw smaller cells on average.)

As to how SC might, as a physical matter, work, the possibilities I see are:

1. Shortening the time that varroa mites have in cells to develop. In theory, and according to some people in practice, smaller cell bees develop faster. 

2. Maybe it reduces the number of drone cells in a hive. I know that when I first put some large cell on my small cell hive in a honey super, they seemed happy to have access to large cell sized and drew out a couple of medium frames of drone comb. Maybe small cell represses drone creation. (On this particular one, I really am speculating completely.)

3. Maybe SC hives make more (but smaller) bees on the same resources, and can "outproduce" the mites better. 

Neil


----------



## pilothawk (Apr 16, 2009)

As a "newbee" why not try and go for the gusto in one shot. I've gotta figure it out anyway, and I am also a firm believer that you will learn more from mistakes or errors than getting the bees to do everything "right" using the status quo.

Do not misunderstand that this is something that I will solely be concentrating on. I decided to do this with the swarm I got on 4/25 because of the sole fact that they had to draw all new comb to start with instead of regressing them one frame at a time.

If none of this works and all I end up with is a bunch of dead bees and empty boxes, using both large and small cell, I will have learned something. I don't know what that something is, but I will have learned, and I hope I will have enjoyed the process.

Also as a "newbee", I understand that the bees are gonna do what they do, and I can only influence how they do it. Whether I use small cell or large cell has little impact on how they perform as shown by the "studies".

Again, I am not in this to get rich or prove to the world that I can set up a few boxes, raise a few bees, and call myself a beekeeper. I am doing this because I find it interesting, and I might see a small honey crop as a result.

I should have kept my mouth shut!


----------



## Bizzybee (Jan 29, 2006)

Yeah, what you said Neil! 

Can't talk now but pretty much concur with what you are saying top to bottom.


----------



## Bud Dingler (Feb 8, 2008)

*the new ABJ*

page 462 Kirk Webster the "Pope of No Treatments" points out the irrelevance of cell size on successfully keeping bees with no mite treatments.


----------



## gloodinofdoodin (Feb 1, 2008)

I switched to foundationless for one main reason. I HATE putting foundation into frames. The bees rarely mess up the comb--definitely no more than foundation. I'm with Michael Bush on this on...the less work the better.


----------



## NasalSponge (Jul 22, 2008)

For what it is worth I am with you Pilot.....I am going to regress my bees and see what happens....and enjoy them while I do it.


----------



## mgmoore7 (Jul 6, 2007)

Bizzybee said:


> What does temperature or length of winter have to do with small cell? SC is only effective if you live in the correct climate?
> 
> Oops, sorry! Didn't read very well. Drones are in a hive as a result of population growth and dictated by resources as much if not more than climate. Unless beeks in FL are feeding I have no doubt they have longer dearths and no brood production at all that could be compared to cold northern climates.
> 
> Just because it's warmer in the south doesn't mean that bees are continually expanding and being productive. July to December here in north GA is all about bees eating and not producing anything at all. If there isn't feed on the bees, there is no brood production of any kind. Hard on the pocket buying sugar, but a blessing for mite control. None of which has anything to do with SC comb however.


I am in Tampa, FL area. I have been through 2 winters with my bees and have found that there is no time of the year that they are broodless. In the winter (I can't really call it a winter), the brood does decline but not to zero as is the case in northern climates.. Drones can be found year round as well. 

Now, to further complicate matters, I can go 30 miles to the east where the orange groves are and where thousands of hives are and those bees have little to nothing to forage on during the winter or even summer compared to my urban area. 

That being said, a very large beekeeper about 30 miles NE of Tampa considers the start of spring as around Christmas time as that is when some of the trees start to bloom and I would agree. My hives were building up rapidly by the middle of the Jan. This is just a few short months off of the fall bloom. 

I already extracted my orange honey and had swarms before the north was even doing 1st spring checks of hives.. At least in FL, it is very different here. 

So you can see that at least in my area, there is hardly much a time for them to even go broodless. This also makes it difficult to treat with anything at all due to the need to be broodless or near broodless and have the temperature in the right ranges. 

I wrote all of this to suggest that the location may have an impact on the study vs if the same study was done in the north. 

I am quite inconclusive myself on the small cell at this time. I do wonder if the live and let die method or other factors has as much to do with it as anything else.

Just like trying to determine the cause of CCD, there are many factors and the true cause or factors may not be part of the study......


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

The problem with the assumption that Small Cell people are merely breeding mite resistant bees is that many are not breeding bees at all. I recommend it, but just as much to have locally acclimatized bees and bees that can successfully requeen themselves and bees that can handle things like Nosema and Chalkbrood, but many of us, me included, saw a major change JUST by going to small cell with commercial queens.

Half of my hives have solid bottom boards, and half are screened bottom boards. None have any significant number of Varroa. I think the SBB is irrelevant to mite loads.

I don't know of any IPM method that most Small Celll beekeepers are doing. A few might be doing SBBs but no one I know of who is doing Small Cell is advocating that as being necessary.


----------



## NeilV (Nov 18, 2006)

*Comments and a question*

Pilot, 

Everything you said is fine excep the "I should have kept my mouth shut" part. This is a good thread, and everybody is basically playing nice. If beekeeping were so simple that everybody knew everything, and everybody agreed, there'd be no need for Beesource and beekeeping would be boring.


gloodinofdoodin,

Your suggestion that natural cell is better because you don't have to fool with foundation has a great deal of appeal. So much that I just resolved to give it a go myself and see how I like it. If they draw a frame of drone comb, then I have a quick way to do drone comb removal if sugar dusting does not get 'er done.

I think I will start by putting some frames with starter strips in between some drawn frames. As I understand it, you can wire them and the bees will incorporate the wire. Is that right?


For anybody who cares to answer:

As to natural cell, if the idea is that bees on natural cell have a built in defense to varroa because they build smaller cells, then how do explain the collapse of feral bee populations in trees? Not meaning to be argumentative, but that does not make sense to me.

Neil


----------



## Roland (Dec 14, 2008)

Yes, the feral populations did collapse, but not to zero, and are beginning to rebuild. Funny thing(not really) is that they all seem to be small and dark, and very hygenic. They will take 20 minutes to clean themselves if you get them dusty or sticky . Coincidence? I think not.


Roland


----------



## Countryboy (Feb 15, 2009)

_I don't know of any IPM method that most Small Celll beekeepers are doing. A few might be doing SBBs but no one I know of who is doing Small Cell is advocating that as being necessary. _

I would hope they are still checking for pests as part of their IPM. We should all be checking our hives, even if we have a gut feeling no treatment/adjustment will be necessary. I'd hope everyone is proactive, rather than having a dead hive and wondering what happened.

As for SBB, I believe they offer a greater benefit of improved ventilation than mite benefits, and I do advocate SBB for added ventilation. Any varroa benefits are just icing on the improved ventilation cake.

_For anybody who cares to answer:

As to natural cell, if the idea is that bees on natural cell have a built in defense to varroa because they build smaller cells, then how do explain the collapse of feral bee populations in trees? Not meaning to be argumentative, but that does not make sense to me._

Not all feral bees are fully regressed. When a swarm from a 5.3mm cell hive turns feral, it probably won't draw 4.9mm cells or smaller. It may draw 5.1mm or so. Once the bees have raised brood on the 5.1 or 5.2mm, then those emerging brood will draw smaller cell if they have the opportunity.

If a feral swarm draws out a brood chamber with 5.1mm cells, and then varroa wipes them out...the next swarm coming along and taking over that abandoned comb in that tree - they may reuse that 5.1mm comb, and get wiped out by varroa again. Even if it was a fully regressed swarm, they can still draw out larger cells, and they will reuse old comb. 

Bee trees don't last forever though, and those combs don't get reused indefinitely. As more trees rot and become hollow, and old bee trees have rotted to pieces, the surviving partially regressed bees (or fully regressed bees) are drawing out more combs of small cell, and we are finally starting to see feral hives coming back. I had several farmers tell me they saw more bee swarms last year than they have seen in the past 20 years.

That's my opinion on feral hives were impacted by varroa.

I wish all the SC beekeepers healthy and productive hives. If you achieve that, good for you. :thumbsup:
I wish all the LC beekeepers healthy and productive hives. If you achieve that, then good for you too. :thumbsup:
That is what is really important - healthy productive hives.


----------



## Kelbee (Jan 3, 2006)

Very interesting thread. While we should all maintain an open mind, I commend those who are skeptical of a single study which challenges their beliefs. I have yet to see a study that does not have at least some degree of bias (intentional or otherwise).

Although I haven't read either of the articles, from what has been posted here I can detect several flaws.

First, are they asking the right question? A study, however well designed, can only measure what it's designed to measure.

Are they measuring the right variable? While mite loads are important, they are only really important as they relate to the "real" issues that plague beeks. Namely, what are the hive survival rates? How about honey production per hive? Swarm rates? Others?

Then there is the issue of climate effects and variations in seasonal brood shutdown that several have alluded to, as well as the issue of duration (may take longer than 1 year to get to the end state).

Also , the issue of sample size. 15 hives in each group is pretty small, and it would take a quite large difference between the groups to detect a statistically significant difference. Country Boy is correct in his assertion that "Just because researchers haven't found a difference doesn't mean that the difference does not exist." This study’s design would only detect a large difference between the groups. A small or modest difference would not be detected.

In order to definitively answer the LC vs SC debate another larger study is needed. Perhaps with a similar setup but more hives in each group, with several groups placed in several locations in several different climates, followed over several years, with several varieties of bees. Mite loads could again be measured, but the above more important variables should be measured as well.

I suspect funding would be an issue with this much larger study. However, until such a study is conducted, the question of SC vs LC will never definitively be answered. Meanwhile, we'll all incorporate this limited study into our databases of anecdotal information and each make the best "guess" we can.


----------



## KQ6AR (May 13, 2008)

About a month ago the wife & I installed 2 packages & a swarm on the mann lake PF-105 small cell frames. All 3 hives are drawing out nice looking small cells. Its funny to see them draw the green drone frame next to the small cell frame.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

> how do explain the collapse of feral bee populations in trees?

http://www.bushfarms.com/beesnaturalcell.htm#feralbees

The problem is that this question typically comes with several assumptions.

The first assumption is that the feral bees have all but died out. I have not found this to be true. I see a lot of feral bees and I see more every year.

The second assumption is that when some of the feral bees did die, that they all died from Varroa mites. A lot of things happened to the bees in this country including Tracheal mites, Nosema cerana, insecticides and viruses. I'm sure some of the survival from some of this is a matter of selection. The ones that couldn't withstand them died.

The third assumption is that huge numbers of mites hitchhiking in on robbers can't overwhelm a hive no matter how well they handle Varroa. Tons of crashing domestic hives were bound to take a toll. Even if you have a fairly small and stable local population of Varroa, a huge influx from outside will overwhelm a hive.

The fourth assumption is that a recently escaped swarm will build small cell. They will build something in between. For many years most of the feral bees were recent escapees. The population of feral bees was kept high by a lot of recent escapees and, in the past, those escapees often survived. It's only recently I've seen a shift in the population to be the dark bees rather than the Italians that look like they are recent. Large bees (bees from 5.4 mm foundation) build an in between sized comb, usually around 5.1 mm. So these recently swarmed domestic bees are not fully regressed and often die in the first year or two.

The fifth assumption is that small cell beekeepers don't believe there is also a genetic component to the survival of bees with Varroa. Obviously there are bees that are more or less hygienic and more or less able to deal with many pests and diseases. Whenever a new disease or pest comes along the ferals have to survive them without any help.

The sixth assumption is that the feral bees suddenly died. The bees have been diminishing for the last 50 years fairly steadily from pesticide misuse, loss of habitat and forage, and more recently from bee paranoia. People hear about AHB and kill any swarm they see.


----------



## pilothawk (Apr 16, 2009)

Inspected the swarm colony that I hived on 4/25 today. This is the second time in two weeks that there are "supercedure" cells all over the place! I counted at least 9 before I quit counting. These bees are on 4.9mm comb, and it sure isn't the prettiest I have seen. The brood pattern is fair, definitely not "solid". I didn't see the queen so I left the supercedure cells alone this time. Last week when I inspected there were 6 or 8 supercedure cells as well, and I tore all of these down. If my bee math is correct the capped supercedure cells have only been capped a day or so. If this is right then a new queen should be laying in just under 3 weeks. I'm not sure why the bees have decided to requeen, but requeen they are going to do.

On another note, the comb the bees have built on the 4.9mm foundation is very wavy and not perfectly even (the cells are not all perpendicular to the foundation). I'm thinking that this might have a little to do with the bees not being used to drawing out 4.9mm foundation, and may also be a contributing factor to them wanting a new queen.

I believe that I need to correct this "wavy" comb but I'm not sure if it is necessary. Does anyone have any suggestions on this?


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

The nature of combs spaced 1 3/8" or more is that it will be somewhat wavy as it's spaced wider than they need for brood, so the honey gets a bit thicker than the brood. This is exaggerated in small cell as they build even thinner brood comb. 1 1/4" would be correct. I wouldn't worry about it.

http://www.bushfarms.com/beesnaturalcell.htm#combwidth
http://www.bushfarms.com/beesframewidth.htm


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

Countryboy said:


> _I don't know of any IPM method that most Small Celll beekeepers are doing. A few might be doing SBBs but no one I know of who is doing Small Cell is advocating that as being necessary. _
> 
> I would hope they are still checking for pests as part of their IPM. We should all be checking our hives, even if we have a gut feeling no treatment/adjustment will be necessary. I'd hope everyone is proactive, rather than having a dead hive and wondering what happened.


i think you are missing the point that many of us are making. ipm does nothing except breed for bees that require whatever ipm stratagies one is using. i do check drone cells for mites from time to time....sometimes i find one, never more than one in a cell. we have a good bee inspector who is convinced that our bees will colapse from varroa. for sure, we have lost hives, but he has never been able to find more than the odd mite here and there....last year he spotted "one mite" out of 20+ colonies, and he inspected a couple of backyard hives the other day while we were not around....he tested for varroa, and didn't find any. also, when dee first regressed to sc, dr erikson was driving down to her place to count mites. he stopped bothering, as there were never enough mites to count. so, what's the point of counting something that is not an issue?

as for ipm, i personally have no use for it. i want bees that can take care of themselves.

deknow


----------



## Countryboy (Feb 15, 2009)

_he stopped bothering, as there were never enough mites to count. so, what's the point of counting something that is not an issue?

as for ipm, i personally have no use for it. i want bees that can take care of themselves._

How do you know there are not enough mites to count, if you don't check for them? A large influx of varroa from an infested hive may overwhelm a weaker hive.

A good farmer checks on their livestock and keeps an eye out for predators.

I wish you the best for bees that can take care of themselves. I choose to try to keep obstacles from being unnecessarily difficult for my bees to overcome - I feel keeping a watchful eye on my bees is part of being a good farmer.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

Countryboy said:


> A good farmer checks on their livestock and keeps an eye out for predators.
> I wish you the best for bees that can take care of themselves. I choose to try to keep obstacles from being unnecessarily difficult for my bees to overcome - I feel keeping a watchful eye on my bees is part of being a good farmer.


well, it depends on what you are trying to accomplish. if you are content with either continually buying genetics, or breeding for bees that require whatever treatments you do use, then it's fine. this would be like buying beet seeds every year and growing beets.

if you want to breed a better beet...one that can survive without watering, for instance, you need to start with a wide variety of genetics, and grow them, stressing them by not watering them (as this is the end result you are looking for). the most important part of such a program is culling the unsuitable, and selecting for those that can do what you want.

deknow


----------



## Countryboy (Feb 15, 2009)

_if you want to breed a better beet...one that can survive without watering, for instance, you need to start with a wide variety of genetics, and grow them, stressing them by not watering them (as this is the end result you are looking for). the most important part of such a program is culling the unsuitable, and selecting for those that can do what you want.

well, it depends on what you are trying to accomplish._

I choose to minimize stresses on my bees. (My beets too - drought tolerance is not the end result I'm looking for.)

And why would you start with a wide variety of genetics? Would it not be easier to start with one line, and then breed out any unfavorable characteristics, and breed in favorable ones - as opposed to getting a wide variety of genetics and hoping something great falls out of the mix?

Do you spray Raid on the bees, to provide stress from pesticides? (since you advocate adding stress to breed resistance)

I wish your bees the best.


----------



## Kelbee (Jan 3, 2006)

"And why would you start with a wide variety of genetics?"

You should review Darwin's theory "Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection". The largest possible genetic pool to begin with will increase the likelihood of one bee (or bee line) of possessing the trait you're trying to select for.


"How do you know there are not enough mites to count, if you don't check for them? A large influx of varroa from an infested hive may overwhelm a weaker hive."

One performs a test if they intend to use the test results to dictate a certain action. If one has already decided not to intervene regardless of the test results, why would one need to perform the test (other than curiosity's sake)?

Beeks who want survivor bees intentionally allow weak hives to die off (eliminate bad genes), and strong hives which manage diseases, mites, etc. on their own without our help reproduce (increase good genes).


----------



## Countryboy (Feb 15, 2009)

_You should review Darwin's *theory* "Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection". _

Why? It's a theory, and even Darwin admitted it was badly flawed. If you start out with a false inference, no matter how good your logic, you will always end up with a flawed answer.

Darwin couldn't explain honeybees. An individual bee would quickly die off. (survival of the fittest) 

_One performs a test if they intend to use the test results to dictate a certain action. If one has already decided not to intervene regardless of the test results, why would one need to perform the test (other than curiosity's sake)?_

But that isn't the situation here. People have decided to intervene (use small cell) and then won't do periodic followup checks. The reason for doing periodic checks is to make sure problems don't become catastrophes before they get addressed.

Beekeepers who want true survivor bees without human interference keep their bees in bee trees, and remove little or no honey.


----------



## Kelbee (Jan 3, 2006)

"Why? It's a theory,..."

Just answering a question you'd posed. If you understand the Darwin principles, you'll understand why a larger gene pool is preferred.

"But that isn't the situation here. People have decided to intervene (use small cell) and then won't do periodic followup checks. The reason for doing periodic checks is to make sure problems don't become catastrophes before they get addressed."

What future intervention do you believe a small cell or survivor bee enthusiast should make based on mite counts?

What is the "catastophe" which you keep saying we should be trying to avoid? Are you referring to having some weak, nonsurvivor hives die? How is that a catastrophe, since it's what we're actually trying to do? How else do you propose we eliminate the bad genes from the pool?


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

Countryboy said:


> But that isn't the situation here. People have decided to intervene (use small cell) ...


but the intervention was the enlarging of the cell size to 5.4mm. i don't think you can find a single reference from 1900 or before that says that worker cell size in natural comb is any bigger than 5.08. i've posted many references here before (from root, langstroth, dadant, erikson, morse, etc).

deknow


----------



## Natalie (Jan 14, 2009)

Just to go back a little to something that was said earlier.
I have no idea why people discourage new beekeepers from doing anything they consider to be off the beaten path or even over the heads of new beekeepers.
I hate when people recommend that you do things the "typical way" and then when you get that down you can change over all of your beekeeping methods to the one that you really wanted to do in the first place.:scratch:
I started out beekeeping with several hives, not the normal 2 that is recommended, a few langs and a couple of topbar hives. gasp, even a 2 queen hive.
My langs are all foundationless, I have never used a sheet of foundation in any hive.

I have all of my bees on natural comb and some of them came from someone that had already regressed all of his stock on small cell and natural comb.
I have also had zero problems doing this.
Why would this be harder than using foundation other than the fact that you keep an eye on wayward comb and take care of it during an inspection?
I have never had any major comb problems.
From what I hear on the forums foundation has its own set of problems.

I have no intention of using any type of chemicals in my hives either.

All of my stock came locally and not packages down south.
I also did not start out with italians that everyone recommends to new beeks.

Why does anyone think this would be so overwhelming to a new beekeeper?
If anything I think having to worry about wiring frames or medicating would be more stressful to a new beek.
I don't think anyone else's bees are going to survive any better than mine and my methods are certainly not stressing me out or causing me grief.
Maybe if someone learns beekeeping a certain way and then has to change their ways its overwhelming to them, but if you start out doing something and its the only way you know....

I would have been very disappointed to have not done things the way I wanted when I began.
The recomendations that have been made to me before I started"
Get italians, don't start with more than 2 hives, medicate your hives at such and such times and intervals, use only foundation etc.
The complete opposite of everything I wanted to do and I have done, thankfully I am not easily swayed.
If I listened to everyone that has been doing it for a few years I would be spending alot of time and money switching things over.

Getting off my soapbox now.


----------

