# Disadvantage off Smaller bees



## ikeepbees (Mar 8, 2003)

http://website.lineone.net/~dave.cushman/aerodynamic.html


----------



## tony350i (Jul 29, 2005)

thanks Rob

i whish i had read that before i had gone to the bee club


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

I'm told that larger bees work alfalfa better, and fly at lower temperatures. My bees have very little alfalfa anyway, so I don't worry much about tongue length.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

> smaller bees and the disadvantage my early spring build up

What disadvantage? A tighter brood nest with more bees in it and a shorter brood cycle? It must be new math.

> and honey yield would be due to the bees carrying smaller amounts nectar and pollen and having to work so much harder

How about more areodynamic healther bees?

>Will I see a noticeable drop in my honey surplus?

No. While regressing you MIGHT. Afterwards they will be more productive.

>I'm told that larger bees work alfalfa better, and fly at lower temperatures.

Mine didn't get that memo. I've seen them flying at 42 F on a sunny day and I think alfalfa is one of their main flows.

>My bees have very little alfalfa anyway, so I don't worry much about tongue length.

That might make a difference on red clover, but not alfalfa.

>Do larger bees out perform smaller bees 

No. Quite the opposite.


----------



## tony350i (Jul 29, 2005)

Thanks Michael I was hoping you were going to say something like that










Tony


----------



## Bill Ruble (Jan 2, 2006)

I think small cell bees are going to be the comming thing. However, i have not raised them yet so my openion is not really worth too much at this time. All I can say is, because there seems to be conflicting openions, it seems wise to me to try both at the same time in the same location with the same care. That is exactly what I plan to do this year. Long story short, ask me my openion in another year or two. As I have heard some small cell people say, just give it a try. Ok, i take that challenge and will do just that.
Bill


----------



## Bill Ruble (Jan 2, 2006)

Oh, and BTW, one way I plan to do that this year is by using the permacomb dipped into wax in order to get the small cell bees quickly. Then after the first few broods are raised, i will put in some foundationless frames for them to draw and grow from there.


----------



## Sundance (Sep 9, 2004)

To me SC is a no brainer. Really nothing to lose by going that way and everything to gain.

Everything I have read points to increased honey harvest with SC. Mainly due to strong healthy populations is my guess.


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi Guys,

I haven't noticed any difference in production between bees on small cell comb and bees on large cell comb, as long as the comb was clean. See:

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

I think much has been speculated concerning bee size , flight speeds, load carrying capacities, foraging preferences, etc. without any real evidence for or agin. Do smaller bees fly faster? If so, how much faster is fast enough? Do larger bees carry more? If so, how much more would make a difference? :>)

The real difference concerns the overwintering ability, longevity, health and fecundity of queen and colony.

From my measurements, there's really not much size difference between bees on either large or small cell comb. See:

http://bwrangler.litarium.com/seasonal-bee-size/ 

So, don't worry about the size debate. Go for healthy bees. And keep them healthy by keeping the broodnest clean.

Regards 
Dennis


----------



## Finman (Nov 5, 2004)

In my experience large bees carry more honey.

But first of all hive need good pastures and short dintances to fly. Yield is often 3-fold and even 5-fold depending just on pastures. No matter how good are your bees if there are enough nectar in flowers.

Over crazing often drops the yield. 
.


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

B Wrangler,

Great website. I think I may have to steal one of those images for my desktop.


----------



## Keith Malone (Dec 16, 2003)

Hi Finman,

> In my experience large bees carry more honey.
>

You say with your experience large bees carry more honey. Please tell us your experience regarding your history with large cell beekeeping verses Small cell beekeeping? How long have you kept bees on large cells and how long have you kept bees on small cells?


----------



## Bill Ruble (Jan 2, 2006)

what i want to know is how you know how much each bee caries?????? Ask her??? Weigh her????

How do you know if the differnce is the queens, or the feild, or WHAT????? I'd ask the bee!!


----------



## Brittsbiz (Feb 27, 2006)

Hi, I am just starting beekeeping this year and reading as much as I can about all aspects of beekeeping. At an Intro to beekeeping class I am taking, a master beekeeper rejected the sc theories, telling me I am reading too much. He also argued that the small cell sizes made perfect homes for African bees and if they came thru they would take over. Am I too ambitious trying to start on small cell as first colonies (I am planning to get two packages on April 8th and introduce them to sc foundation)? Thank you, John


----------



## drobbins (Jun 1, 2005)

>telling me I am reading too much.

maybe he's part taliban  

seriously, what you shouldn't do is use small cell and assume the mite problem is taken care of
you must always assume you have a mite problem and monitor it and decide if anything needs to be done
I just started last year and I'm going small cell
maybe it will work maybe not but enough people are getting good result to try it
read all you can, this forum is a great source of info

Dave


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>At an Intro to beekeeping class I am taking, a master beekeeper rejected the sc theories, telling me I am reading too much.

You can confuse yourself with the wealth of information available. But how can you read too much?

>He also argued that the small cell sizes made perfect homes for African bees and if they came thru they would take over.

I think that position would be very hard to support. If AHB are taking over hives, I seriously doubt they are measuring the cell size.

>Am I too ambitious trying to start on small cell as first colonies (I am planning to get two packages on April 8th and introduce them to sc foundation)?

Not at all. It's much simpler to start on it than to change over later.

As Dave has pointed out, you always need to monitor to see how things are going. Even people using the "standard treatments" need to monitor as they often fail. Don't take it on blind faith that everything is fine. Measure it. Learn to do a powdered sugar roll and use a tray in a SBB or a sticky board on a regular bottom board, from time to time. Try to quantify the problem. You will always see mites if you are looking hard enough. The question is how many and how rapidly is it increasing or is it staying the same.

[ March 14, 2006, 02:53 PM: Message edited by: Michael Bush ]


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi Guys,

I always thought the Master part of Master Beekeeper meant that a person was proficient at beekeeping. But maybe it means Master as in terms of master and slave. Don't want the slaves getting out of bounds by reading too much :>))))

Nahhh... It still must refer to proficiency. Maybe that Master Beekeeper is just confused and needs to read alittle bit more for himself!

Regards
Dennis


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

No, it only means that someone took a test and got a certificate. Sorta like an MBA. You don't have to have bees or have experience with bees to have a Master Beekeeper Certificate. Just like with an MBA. You can get one before you own or run a business. Like my AAS in Commercial Beekeeping. Which I had before I had a commercial outfit. 

I know plenty of successful commercial beekeepers who wouldn't be able to obtain a Master Beekeepers Certificate. And wouldn't care to either. They're too busy being Master Beekeepers to have time or inclination to take a written test. They don't need to.

The Master Beekeeper who said that John Brit was reading too much, how did he get to be a Master Beekeeper? By reading, I'll bet. But the Master Beekeeper that I know of from MD has kept bees for quite some time, too. So he would be the exception to my "rule".


----------



## Brittsbiz (Feb 27, 2006)

It sounds like such an easy choice to start right with small cells, yet even the vendors seem to discourage it. Dadant sells sc foundation, yet they preface it with "Suggested for use by experienced beekeepers only". I was not intending to put down master beekeepers in general and especially not the one I was talking to but just point out that many beekeepers with years of experience do not seem to see the benefits of sc, even though some have used it successfully for years.


----------



## drobbins (Jun 1, 2005)

I shouldn't have made a comment like that but the line

>telling me I am reading too much.

made me spew coffee all over my keyboard








you have to understand that when you get into these issues your falling into the squabble between people who want to control nature and people who want to work with her
I'm really not doing small cell
I'm doing natural cell
just give em a narrow strip of foundation to get em started and then let em build what they want
I don't have much experience but I have read a lot and my take on the issue is this
humans for the last 200 years have been doing stuff to make the bees do what we want
we put em in boxes like we want
we give em frames of foundation so they build nice straight combs that are convinient for us to manipulate
we steal there food and feed em sugar water
the list is long
all these thing stress the bees
up till recently, they handled it ok
now the t and v mites come along
the bees are getting pounded
the stuff we do ain't helping
maybe we should back off and let the bees do what they want a little 
maybe we can help em a bit and they'll figure out how to handle the mites
I might be all wrong but I sure like this idea better that trying to find a better pesticide to put in hives to kill mites, thats just not a road I want to go down 

I'm sure the master beekeeper was just trying to help you get started without getting you to confussed with alternative ideas, but read all you can here and you'll find many folks who don't want to be on the pesticide bandwagon and are looking for a way off

Dave


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

A friend of mine, Dale Morse, hasn't used pesticides for over 5 years. He makes splits with the colonies that survive the winter and adds Hardeman Russians to them. He makes a crop of honey and doesn't worry about his mite counts.

Of course you could join the Natural Beekeeping Club and only harvest honey from feral colonies in trees or building spaces. Then you wouldn't be trying to make the bees do what you want them to.


----------



## Branman (Aug 20, 2003)

I'm hearing of more and more people who can maintain their bees on 5.4 without chems now and still get great yields. This is all just from passing comments so I have no empirical date, but it sure seems like maybe bee genetics are catching up with the varroa problem?

I personally can't say from experience because I've been all SC from day one. But it stands to reason that natural selection will eventually produce mite resistant bees on its own. I can say that I've never done anything in regards to varroa anyways as the small hive beetle is 100 times worse of a problem than varroa for me.

edit: whoops I just noticed there's a thread in diseases exactly on this topic

[ March 20, 2006, 11:30 AM: Message edited by: Branman ]


----------



## Sundance (Sep 9, 2004)

Eventually, maybe, bees will evolve to exist with mites. I don't think it will happen for quite a bit. Until them I use hygenics on small/natural cell.

Better safe than sorry seems to fit here.


----------



## Finman (Nov 5, 2004)

To Malone "You say with your experience large bees carry more honey. Please tell us your experience regarding your history with large cell beekeeping verses Small cell beekeeping? How long have you kept bees on large cells and how long have you kept bees on small cells?
"

I have nursed bees 45 years. I have had many races and many size bees. I live on 60 north latitude = Alaska Anchorage. My average yield is now 160 lbs. Every hive survived over winter. Varroa makes no harm.

My best colonies have been large size. I don't remember any good hives which have had mini size bees. I have no reason to use mini cells or mini bees.


----------



## wayacoyote (Nov 3, 2003)

Sundance pointed out:
"Eventually, maybe, bees will evolve to exist with mites. I don't think it will happen for quite a bit."

I have to agree, especially since it will take the existence of genetic material to accomplish this, and as the professionals in genetics point out, that material/information has to exist in order to be passed on to the new generation. I suppose there is the extremely rare examples of mutations. But most all that I've heard of being documented with are more likely detrimental mutations rather than beneficial mutations. But perhaps we Could get that to happen if we exposed them to a burst of Gamma radiation. 

Then again, we wouldn't be able to run the risk of making them mad because they would turn green, rip their hives apart, and thrash the neighborhood.
Oh, yeah, and split their pants.
Waya


----------



## Finman (Nov 5, 2004)

.
People forget that mite evolves faster than bee, because it produces faster generations. Beginners seems often hope that they are just the one which resolves huge problem. And they are adult people.


----------



## Dick Allen (Sep 4, 2004)

Finman, are you also Finsky from the Beemaster's International forum?

If you are, I have read that you use only oxalic acid trickling for mite control with good success. Have you experimented with any of your hives since you began treating hives for varroa by not treating after a few seasons?


----------



## Finman (Nov 5, 2004)

I am same.

I killed first varroa hive 1982. 

I use normal commercial queens and I do not try raise no varroa resistant stocks or any my own stocks. It is nonsence if you want good honey yields. 
I have studied so much genetics in University that I do not try achieve any gloria with "varroa resistant bees". It is not easy to anybody. If you live on tah earea of Africanized bees then you succeed.

I know one in Finland who use small cell and Elqon bees and he says that he do not use treatment ( Monticola blood from Africa.) But in South Africa varroa has destroyed hives fast.

Varroa is not a problem here if you take care of bees. Almost all feral bees have vahished here. 

Things go well with trickling.
.


----------



## girl Mark (Oct 25, 2005)

> I'm hearing of more and more people who can maintain their bees on 5.4 without chems now and still get great yields. This is all just from passing comments so I have no empirical date, but it sure seems like maybe bee genetics are catching up with the varroa problem?
> 
> I personally can't say from experience because I've been all SC from day one. But it stands to reason that natural selection will eventually produce mite resistant bees on its own.


Branman,

I got into beekeeping about 6 years ago (and later took a few years off), and it seems to me that today, I've heard of more beekeepers in my town who claim to see no varroa problems (ie no dieoff or major weakening of the colony from PMS) than when I started. These are people who have been using foundation (conventional large cell) and not treating in any way. 

This is not universal in any way (Marshall's Honey, which is a largish cottage-industry semi-commercial outfit, reports that they lose half of their (small) organic line to mites every year, and they seemed to know nothing about small cell or soft treatments) 

My top bar hive friends here (and I) also report the same thing, but I"d assume this has to do with natural cell use to some extent and therefore natural cell sizing. BUt it surprised me when I recently met owners of several Langstroth large-cell-foundation hives who have healthy colonies that overwinter well without major Varroa problems.

[ April 07, 2006, 12:41 AM: Message edited by: girl Mark ]


----------



## Finman (Nov 5, 2004)

girl Mark:"But it stands to reason that natural selection will eventually produce mite resistant bees on its own. "

May be but not during your life time. There are 100 times more evidence that varroa continues spreading than it becomes rare.


----------



## Flewster (Nov 3, 2003)

Question is this: Will the bees evolve to survive the mites OR since mites have faster generations will the mites evolve to survive the bees........see it is of no use for the mite to kill the colony as then their generations die too.......a parasitic mite can only survive if its host survives so one must surmise that the mite will evolve first to adapt to the bees.

IMHO my small cell bees are in their 3rd year no treatment and going strong (even stronger than all the others)


----------



## Keith Malone (Dec 16, 2003)

Hi Flewster,

> IMHO my small cell bees are in their 3rd year no treatment and going strong (even stronger than all the others)
>

But how can that be, Finman claims small bees do not do as well as bigger bees? Maybe Finman has it wrong or has not experienced true small cell beekeeping, or perhaps Flewster does not know his own experience. I am confused. c]:~)>

Also on the topic if the mites that kill their colonies were let to die instead of nursing them along with treatments all the bad mites will die and all that will be left are mites that allow the bees to survive or at least you will get bees that are mite resistant.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

Or mites that are coexistant.


----------



## Flewster (Nov 3, 2003)

I really think that the best solution is a coexistant mite as Michael says.....there is no way to eliminate them and so the best choice is to breed bees to be more hygenic and also to let the mites survive that do not kill our colonies......sounds weird but these mites have been coexisting with other bees for millinia so why not honeybees?......I am against chemical treatments and have found small cell beekeeping a joy as I don't worry as much about mites now....I have two small cell hives that are thriving and plan to split them this year or put on heavy feed and have them draw small cell frames for putting in my oher hives witht he goal of being all small cell in a few years.....works for me and of that I am certain no matter what others say........and BTW bees seem to start out tiny but "fluff" up to be a uniform size like i see in all my other hives so What i get are regular size bees hatching 1 day earlier and surviving the mites.......now would someone please refute my own observations and tell me that I am wron in what I am observing......I also have a natural comb observation hive that is thriving with the mites too......they coexist due to the shorter capping time which must break the mite cycle or at least keep it in check because I can see mites but they do no harm to this hive either.....great project and learnign tool for sure to observe the coexistance of mites and bees and to see the bees doing so well......


----------



## Keith Malone (Dec 16, 2003)

Hi,

> I really think that the best solution is a coexistant mite as Michael says
>

I agree, this is just what I was eluding to with my statement of; "if the mites that kill their colonies were let to die instead of nursing them along with treatments all the bad mites will die and all that will be left are mites that allow the bees to survive".
So besides using small cells perhaps, just what else, or simply what, would be the best way to achieve this with the resources we have at our disposal?
I do not put much credence in what Finman says about the situation because I firmly to not think he has given small cells a good go or try and he gives all credence to established treatment methods. Finman has never as of yet explained his experience with the use of smaller cells in his beekeeping as I asked him earlier in this thread.  His methods gives way for bad genetics, super mites, and bees that survive because he allows them to by default of his methods.
The topic of the subject here is "Disadvantage off Smaller bees", so someone who knows and has used small cells wholesale please explain the disadvantage of smaller bees and the use of smaller cells in the brood nest?
I am using and have used small cells since 2002 and I see no disadvantages.

I edited this post for misspelled words and I added to one sentence for clarity.

[ April 20, 2006, 12:21 AM: Message edited by: Keith Malone ]


----------



## Finman (Nov 5, 2004)

Hi Malone. First: I have studied genetics in Helsinki university. I am master in science in bioloby. What I say that people here talk about evolution and they just don't understand the basics. 

People do not understand the work what beekeepers have done to select varroa resistant bee stock during tens of years. Where they have succeeded so that you may say that it is mite tolerant.

We say that Russian bee tolerate varroa, but a lot of beekeepers say that varroa destroyed their Russians. 

Africanized colonies are contaminated with mites and they are alive. To be alive and gather honey is different question.

When you read about Apis cerana and Apis mellifera selection, you may find that commercial bees are bigger than their feral relatives. WHY? because beekeepers have selected best producing stocks and best producing are bigger.

I handle now mites with oxalic acid trickling. It not problem to me. Thanks to mites they killed feral bees. Now beekeeping is very calm job comapred with 20 years ago.

It is all the same what you think about my sayings. I manage really well with my bees. Average yield 80 kg per hive on 60 northern latitude is surely good and if get better with small bees please let me know.

The secret of good yield is good pastures. It is the same what bees are I there are not enough nectar in flowers. You are talking too much about mite and cell size. 

I use only commercial, usual bees. I do not even try to breed my own stock. It is difficult even for professionals who has 500 hives. 

The dream that every boy may find his own varroa tolerant bees stock is nonsence. Beginners who has not even any hive are ready to breed their own stock. 

And no one speak that mite is more stronger now in USA than ever. Why ? In most European countries varroa is any more problem but here very few speak about small cells or small bees.


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

Finman,
You have a keen understanding of both biology and and management. Unfortunately many of the details of science seem to get lost or ignore on the WWW. People can't or don't wish to distinguish between single genes, phenotypes and production outcomes. All to often the main problem in an apiary has a first and last name. Its easy to blame bees, breeding industry, mites pesticides etc. Most of us would proud to have 1/2 of you honey production with any bee, at any latitude


----------



## Finman (Nov 5, 2004)

To Aspera:

My last wepon in beekeeping is that I put only 3 hives in one point and poit is really good. Even if you put one good hive in one bad pasture point you get no proper honey. 

My strategy is that bees get heavy load and fly short distance. This strategy means 3 or 5 fold yield compared to another point just 3 miles away where soil is dry. You loose 50% of yiled if bees must fly over 1 km. 

You alone put hives there where they are. You cannot buy "good pastures" like good queens. It is only you. You cannot blame others.

Honey yields's biggest enemy is swarming, not varroa. You can get slow swarming stock and you may do many things if you know what to do. 

When you look USA's honey yield during period of varroa, it is same from year to year even if 30% of hives has gone. The rest bees have foraged same nectar from fields. It means over pasturing. Too many hives have been charing same yield.


----------



## Keith Malone (Dec 16, 2003)

Hi Finman,

> Hi Malone. First: I have studied genetics in Helsinki university. I am master in science in bioloby. What I say that people here talk about evolution and they just don't understand the basics. 
>

Still did not answer my question on small cell experience.


----------



## Finman (Nov 5, 2004)

I have no experience about small cells. But those arguments what people use they are imagination. I don't use to try all tricks what people offer. I use to get best practice and small cell or small bees are not. I need not small cells.


----------



## Keith Malone (Dec 16, 2003)

Hi Finman,

> I have no experience about small cells.
>

Thank you for replying Finman. This is good to know so we/I can judge what you say about Small Cell Beekeeping.

> But those arguments what people use they are imagination.
>

Except by those beekeepers who use small cell comb wholesale and have seen the RESULTS first hand with their own experiences. Beekeepers who comment against Small Cell Beekeeping with no first hand experience are the ones truly using their imagination.

> I don't use to try all tricks what people offer.
>

Using small cells is not necessarily what I would call a trick, unlike using chemicals would be, I would call using smaller cells simply getting back to nature or traditional beekeeping. You of all people, seeing you are well studied, should know that the honey bees were artificially enlarged in the recent past as documented in Older Books. It was a trick that began the enlarging of the honey bees which in turn enabled other things that were not so good for the honey bees health. 

With all your studying or reading on honey bees can you produce just one document that can prove that the artificial enlarging of honey bees enabled honey bee colonies to produce more honey than honey bees born on natural size worker comb?

> I use to get best practice and small cell or small bees are not.
>

Forgive me Finman, I am having a little problem understanding this statement above.

> I need not small cells.
>

Because you get the results you want from acids, but are acids what the bees want? 

This issue of large cells verses small cells, it is not a simple matter. A beekeeper who wishes to contemplate this issue must be aware of the history and not consider the facts as hogwash. The facts I am speaking of are those that are found in the Older Bee Books and not facts of modern scientific studies that do not take in to consideration the historical facts.

Finman, when you have studied the historical facts and experienced small cell beekeeping or traditional beekeeping on some kind of a wholesale method then you can claim that you have no need for small cells. Because until you have experience with the methods you just may not know what your bees need compared to what you think you need your bees to need. You like to argue against the use of small cells but you have never used them, I see your arguments shallow for this reason. I would love to be able to respect what you have to say against small cell usage but I find it very difficult seeing you have absolutely no experience with the usage of small cells in the brood nest.

OK everybody, What are the disadvantages of smaller bees? I would like to hear from those beekeepers who have actually USED smaller cells in the brood nest not from those who imagined what it would be like to USE smaller cells.

[ April 20, 2006, 03:18 PM: Message edited by: Keith Malone ]


----------



## Ian D (Jan 13, 2006)

Hi all
Kieth on an earlier post you said Finman's methods would lead to super mites. Could you please explain this.

Regards Ian


----------



## Keith Malone (Dec 16, 2003)

Hi Ian,

> you said Finman's methods would lead to super mites. Could you please explain this.
>

First thing I stated "His methods gives way for bad genetics, super mites, and bees that survive because he allows them to by default of his methods."

Super mites were the cause of what I call "The Great California Bee Hive Crash of 2005". The result of this crash was large losses of colonies, a shortage of Package Bees, and prices for of package bees and Almond pollination hive rental fees increasing. Super mites were caused by the usage of chemicals. It was a result of beekeepers dependiong on chemical treatment to control mites instead of relying on the bees natural abilities to control mites on the bees terms. 

I did not say that Finmans methods would lead to super mites but they give way, meaning it can happen if a beekeeper, not necessarily Finman, but if a beekeeper was to miss use the same methods Finman uses, it could very well produce a mite that no longer responds as the beekeeper intended. The results a mite that will not die using the described method of the use of a particular chemical.

So, What are the Disadvantage of Smaller bees, or using smaller cells?

Just trying to stay on topic here a little instead of describing the disadvantages of using chemical treatments like suddenly it has turned into. I am sure that no real beekeeper really wants to use chemicals like acids and the such in a hive on honey bees, do they?


----------



## Ian D (Jan 13, 2006)

Hi all
Keith: I am sorry to say you don't appear to have a grasp of the basics of some of the treatments mentioned above. You've classed the acids as 'chemicals' and I presume you think thymol is the same. I believe Apigaurd has been approved for use in some US states.

The above treatments are actually classed as organic and not chemical!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Both these forms of treatment have been in use in Europe for many years, long before varroa appeared in the US, and no sign of resistance has appeared. 

Thymol has a multi site action when attacking varroa.

Acids actually dissolve the proboscis of the mite itself and unless they start wearing body armour resistance will not occur. As effective forms of treatments I have no problem in using these methods.Because of the way these treatments attack mites misuse of these products which does happen with chemicals will simply result in fewer mites killed and no resistant build up. 

It has also been proven that thymol and acids do not leave residues in wax. 

You mention the historical facts of bee keeping. Old English skep bee keepers would be lucky to average 10 to 15lbs of honey from a skep. Going back to pre-war and the first wide spread use of frames hives this rose to about 30. Nowadays for the average hobby beekeeper, the norm is approx 80. Personally, I'd stick with the modern day! 

I sympathise with your beliefs in reduced chemicals in any products that we consume but, as I use organic products in my treatments, I don't see a problem. In the UK at the moment we are only just seeing widespread mite resistance to the old favourites like Apistan and Bavorol.

With regard to small cell I have yet to see any hard evidence of it's success. There are studies that have been carried out in Europe, South America and most recently in New Zealand. NONE HAVE COME OUT IN FAVOUR OF SMALL CELL.

Before you ask, I will quite happily admit to not having used small cell myself. However, as a treatment of varroa, I have looked into it. Judging by the losses stated in the research produced by those actively supporting it, I would be a fool to use it. 

A guy I know is one of the largest queen producers in Europe. He put about 100 colonies onto small cell and, over a period of time, lost the lot. A colleague of his swapped over to small cell on mass and went bankrupt. 

A large number of the big commercial beekeepers from both sides of the pond are in contact with each other. It has certainly been whispered that small cell success increases in areas of AHB. AHB has a shorter brood period which reduces the varroa breeding cycle and is a smaller bee. Its aggressive nature is also thought to help grooming parasites and ridding the hive of pests.

There also appears to be a distinct lack of research being done by many of the US universities. As many of these lead research in bee related issues worldwide, I find this very puzzling. 

If small cell can be proven to work, I would welcome its addition but, at the moment, there is a lack of evidence. I'm sure this post will get the replies rolling in (!) and look forward to reading them.

Best regards
Ian


----------



## Finman (Nov 5, 2004)

Hi Keith

You use such terms that it seems that you want to understand objective world. There are no "supermites". They just become fluvinat tolerant like any other pests. I do not know any other supers. I had Apistan tolerant mites and now I use oxalic acid. You use block term "chemicals". It is nothing. All life is full of chemicals. 

Small cell is proven to work on area where is africanized bees. That is why US universities do not reseach question because they know the answer.

Varroa history is so short that it is not a history. BUt USA has know whole time that resolution? Why you don't use it? - Because it is not a way how you resolve honey industry problems. 

It is same as you say that "since now all medicins are forbidden with cattle". 

And small cell people cannot not understand that mite adapts all the time and faster than bee. Mite is a winner if you want it. Mite does not order my honey business. It is under control.


----------



## Keith Malone (Dec 16, 2003)

Hi Finman,

> Why you don't use it?
>

Why I don't use what it?

> There are no "supermites". They just become fluvinat tolerant
>

You say "fluvinat tolerant", I say "super mites", they are one in the same, and soon to be "Acid Tolerant Super Mites" next in your neighborhood soon. 

> Varroa history is so short that it is not a history.
>

History of Varroa not what I referred to, History of cell and bee size I was.

> Mite does not order my honey business. It is under control.
>

for now until your acid fails on Varroa as it will adapt to it and out grow it as you say.

Substances used to control varroa or any ailment in a bee hive is considered a medicine. 

> That is why US universities do not reseach question because they know the answer.
>

Strange, they know the answer before the study, with no research.

> Small cell is proven to work on area where is africanized bees.
>

Funny, there are those even on this list that will I am sure to dispute this statement above you mentioned. M.B., J.W., D.M. to name a few, with initials, that have there own proof that Small Cells do perform outside Africanized zones in the USA, and in Scandinavian countries there is E.O., and H.O.. There are others I know of but do not participate on email lists.

I guess it's no use explaining the small cell beekeeping scene to you Finman, you already know all there is to know, it just does not work does it?

Finman, I can tell you do not understand the Honey bee varroa mite biology. There is yet a lot of reading and understanding to be had by you, start here.
http://www.bushfarms.com/bees.htm
then here;
http://www.bushfarms.com/beesnaturalcell.htm
then finally here;
http://www.beesource.com/pov/lusby/index.htm
take your time so you get it right. It is a wonder others here are not commenting on your misunderstandings.  Perhaps they conclude the effort is useless, I am beginning to think so too. Sorry for the effort.


----------



## Finman (Nov 5, 2004)

>Finman, I can tell you do not understand the Honey bee varroa mite biology.<

I can teach u bee biology if you is able to learn. I have not ever heard acid tolerant super mites. 

Have u used acids or have you mites? I have used only 3 winter. There are many acids which are used: oxalic, formic, lactic. And they are used in different way.

I manage splendid with bees and with varroa but not with your imagination. I have had mites since 1982. 

I have debated with Michael tens of time. I know Michaels stories and they cannot stand usual fact in beekeeping. He has a lot arguments which are not true. 

>take your time so you get it right. It is a wonder others here are not commenting on your misunderstandings. Perhaps they conclude the effort is useless, I am beginning to think so too. Sorry for the effort.<

They are your bees. Do what you want but don't deliver your knowledge because do not know what you are doing. My mission is deliver facts for beginners and protect their hives against vain hope. 

Keith! I know that small cell system work with some beekeepers which have a beestock which identify mite as enemy. But over 90% of beekepers have not such bees and mite will destroy their hives. That have happened in nature in every country where varroa come. Africanized bee in America is an exception. Even in South Africa feral bees vanished very quickly or are in bad condition. In New Zeland varroa killed feral bees in 3 yars. 

I just tell that you are wrong Keith. There are studies which tell against you. But keep flag up! You need it. Dont' let varroa jump to your nose.


----------



## Sundance (Sep 9, 2004)

Finman..... 

As a biologist (BS) I agree with you that acids will not yield resistant mites. It acts on a physical external level rather than an absorbtion and central nervous system disruption. You can't become resistant to acid (at least not to my knowledge).

This same logic tells me that small cell and the bees shortened period to emergance will, and does disrupt the mite cycle. It does not eradicate them, just suppresses the numbers to a managable level.

I respect your views and wish you continued success.


----------



## Finman (Nov 5, 2004)

To Sundance: Acids are used so little time that resistancy has been developed. Time is few years.
Tens of stuff have used against varroa. I bought 1983 from Yogoslavia stuff which was higly casinogenic to beekeepers lungs. I just visited there.

Authorieties make a lot of work to sieve best practice from trials. Small cell is not a solutions which saves honey industry.

And when you read from New Zeland queen breeder's articles, they want not a single gene from American varroa resistant bees. They are afraid that they get Africanized stock in their nature. So they want pick resistancy from Europa. 
http://www.queenbees.co.nz/view4.shtml

In USA they have founded yet varroa tolerant bee
http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/projects/projects.htm?ACCN_NO=407275


http://www.bee-l.com/biobeefiles/pav/scstudy.htm

"By Michelle Taylor
Hortresearch 

Smaller honeybee cells neither reduce the reproductive success or the amount
of cells infested by the Varroa destructor mite, according to a New Zealand
study."

Same study was done in Sweden and answer was negative.


----------



## Keith Malone (Dec 16, 2003)

Hi Finman,

> Smaller honeybee cells neither reduce the reproductive success or the amount
of cells infested by the Varroa destructor mite, according to a New Zealand
study."
>

Come on man, that test was bogus and you know it. It did not test a colony on small cells it tested a bunch of different cell sizes on one comb which did not prove anything about how a colony controls varroa when a colony is on small cells. That test only proved that a scientist can claim anything he wants to about a bogus study and get paid for proving nothing. If they were really out to prove if Small cells work or not in a bee hive to control varroa they would have regressed a number of colonies and run the test on them as colonies on small cells, that test they did failed to keep bees on small cells, but instead they run this colony on a patch of small cells only a couple of inches square. Finman, you have to do better than this test to prove small cells do not work, you can not honestly tell me that this test proves small cells do not work.


----------



## Keith Malone (Dec 16, 2003)

Hi Ian,

> Keith: I am sorry to say you don't appear to have a grasp of the basics of some of the treatments mentioned above. 
>

Thank God for that, I put no foreign substances for pest and disease control in a hive that I can not swallow. Acids burn. I have a grasp but I see you do not.

> The above treatments are actually classed as organic and not chemical!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>

Maybe classed as Organic Standard but it is a chemical and a nasty one at that that burns.

> You mention the historical facts of bee keeping. Old English skep bee keepers would be lucky to average 10 to 15lbs of honey from a skep.
>

I did not and was not referring to Skep Beekeeping, please do not put words in my mouth.

> I use organic products in my treatments, I don't see a problem.
>

"Whitewashed Organic" standards set up so chemical treatments are allowed are not honestly Organic. You go ahead and use the trumped up "Whitewashed organic" treatments if you wish and I will use my own no chemical treatment allowed beekeeping standards I use. Government certified "Whitewashed organic" standard treatments is not in my opinion really organic. Unfortunately most of the ignorant public will buy into the "Whitewashed Organic" standards and you will benefit monetarily from it's creation but I do not have to buy it or use it in my beekeeping.

I have a grasp but do you? I think you are grasping at chemical treatments.


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

<<That test only proved that a scientist can claim anything he wants to about a bogus study and get paid for proving nothing>>

Keith, a good scientist does not attempt to prove anything. S/he is employed to formulate a testable hypothesis which can help answer questions. The goal is to perform procedudres and communicate results, not to validate dogma on what is or is not good beekeeping practice. Personally, I feel that there is stronger evidence that resistant bees make small cells, rather than small cells making resistant bees. Does that mean its not worth a try?. No, of course not. Just don't "try" it by paying premium prices for someones's Africanized feral queens.


----------



## Finman (Nov 5, 2004)

Keith, you are totally right if you get your hives alive over winter. It suits for me.


----------



## Keith Malone (Dec 16, 2003)

Hi Aspera,

> Just don't "try" it by paying premium prices for someones's Africanized feral queens. 
>

OK, do you know something that your not telling? Where, when, and how has the above statement ever happened? Who is selling Africanized feral queens? Are these bees produced by these queens all a beekeeper would like to see in bees; Gentle, productive, hardy survivors, etc....? If they are good queens, that produce good bees, that survive without treatments, let me know a contact so I may possibly obtain some to test in a real good environment.


----------



## Keith Malone (Dec 16, 2003)

Hi Finman,

> Keith, you are totally right if you get your hives alive over winter. It suits for me.
>

Really, then just what was it you were so adamantly arguing about? Oh yea, your the savior of all new beekeepers who might not be able to think for themselves, so you were just keeping balance and giving a convincing argument for the other side of beekeeping. I am sure that your efforts are appreciated by the newest of beekeepers.


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

There is at least one well known advocate of the small cell approach (not on this forum) whose success is most likely attributable to the use of Africanized bees. I suppose even this would be acceptable if the breeder in question acknowleged that this is a problem, and that the bees must be selected primarily for temperment before shipping queens off to unknowing hobbiests. This is why I am such a strong proponent of USDA stock. I do think that Olympic Wilderness has taken a fairly responsible approach to breeding surviver stock, although I have never tried their queens.


----------



## Dick Allen (Sep 4, 2004)

>Come on man, that test was bogus and you know it.

If the 'bogus' test had come to different conclusions, i.e. small cell bees have been shown to render mites ineffective would it still be claimed to be 'bogus' or would it be held up as scientific proof about the success of small cell? hmmm, I wonder......


----------



## Keith Malone (Dec 16, 2003)

Hi Dick,

So what did you think of that research? To me it did not give the small cell comb a fighting chance amongst all the other comb, the dynamics of small cell combs in a colony is what helps enable the colony to control varroa. With the experiment that this research presented of course there will be lots of varroa in the cells they had no where else to go. Every one doing the experiment neglected to have the necessary drone cells present to attract the varroa and the accompanying small cell comb with brood producing the workers in sufficient numbers to create division of labor so there would be the workers to do the job of uncapping drone cells to chew out the mites. That experiment failed by default and that is why it was bogus. it did not prove anything but how misunderstood small cell beekeeping is. 

to answer your question; >If the 'bogus' test had come to different conclusions, i.e. small cell bees have been shown to render mites ineffective would it still be claimed to be 'bogus' or would it be held up as scientific proof about the success of small cell? hmmm, I wonder......>

Yes, by the exponents not in favor of small cell beekeeping.  All will not be pleased.


----------



## Keith Malone (Dec 16, 2003)

Hi All,

what are the disadvantages of smaller bees as the topic of this thread asks besides it causes great debate? Perhaps that is the best thing about it, the controversy. Actually, the question should be what are the disadvantages of smaller cells in the brood nest, if there are any?


----------



## tony350i (Jul 29, 2005)

Hi,
Well I am sold on the idea off small cell/natural cell in the brood nest, but there seems to be some for it and some that are against it, but for those that are undecided why dont you make a nuc up and have a go and see for your self if it works or not. But if you do it you wont have anything to argue about.








I am going through the process of doing it now with empty frames and wax coated pc comb, and impressed how quickly the fames have been draw out all the way down to the bottom bar.

Tony


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>It is a wonder others here are not commenting on your misunderstandings.

I've had this conversation with Finman already.

>I have debated with Michael tens of time. I know Michaels stories and they cannot stand usual fact in beekeeping. He has a lot arguments which are not true. 

See? I have done these things and obvserved the results myself. He has not done any of these things and has not observed the results. Therefore what I say is not true. It's simple logic.  

>There is at least one well known advocate of the small cell approach (not on this forum) whose success is most likely attributable to the use of Africanized bees.

But she was succeeding for a decade and a half before anyone mentioned Africanized bees in the area. I know of no one who is saying the bees in AZ were Africanized back in the 80's and early 90's.

Try looking at the quoted small cell studies. Which one followed Dee's protocol for how to regress bees? None. Which one met the criteria of a brood nest of 4.9mm cells or below? None. Which one set up even ONE hive and regressed it and left it with a small cell brood nest and measured the overall results in a normal hive setting in the long term for even one year? None.

http://www.bee-l.com/biobeefiles/pav/scstudy.htm

The new Zeeland one is small pieces of comb patchworked together will all the comb that would have been useful for the study:

"Frame of 4.9mm sized cells inconsistently drawn out. This frame was not used in the trial, as there were no suitably drawn sections."

Then ten frames with small sections of various sized cells is put into the brood nest of ten nucs of unregressed bees for 20 days and then they were all uncapped and the Varroa inside counted. How does this prove that you can't create a natural system with small cell comb? This was not a hive of small cell bees on small cell comb! They only measured one thing of any real value. I'd like to know when it was capped when it was uncapped. I'd like to know how a hive of bees on that size comb do as a unit. Of course I do. But I would think that's the question you want to answer.

You can't disprove that a protocol works if you refuse to follow the protocol. You should at least take one aspect of the protocol and follow it if you have any hope of proving anything. Dee's methods are three basic things. I don't see them following even one of them.

There are several simple experiments I challenge ANYONE to try. Put a package of bees in a five frame nuc on 4.9mm foundation. Move them up to a ten frame and then two ten frame boxes. Measure the comb and find the smallest comb you have and put these in an observation hive. Map out the sizes so you know the areas that are larger and smaller. In particular the areas that are 4.9mm and below. Mark on the glass when the queen lays in the cells with a number or letter and write the date/time in your notebook. Do this for as many as you like. In seven days start watching carefully to note if there is open brood in the cells and when they get capped. Once they are capped around day 18 start watching closely to see them emerge. Feel free to do this also on a frame of 5.4mm comb. Compare the results. You only need an observation hive (which every beekeeper should have) and a package of bees.

Another simple experiment is simply set up a few hives and use nothing but 4.9mm foundation in the. Monitor the mites while regressing and continue to until you have the brood nest down to 4.9mm or below. For a beekeeper with more than a few hives this is a simple experiment.

After you have done the above experiments, let's all have a open discussion on the results.


----------



## Sundance (Sep 9, 2004)

Obe Wan........ I bow to you







. Well put.


----------



## Keith Malone (Dec 16, 2003)

Hi Michael,

The principles of small cell beekeeping are, for me at least, easy to understand and perform. I find it funny how the more complex minds have difficulty understanding the simplicity of beekeeping as it was done long ago. The beekeeping industry surely has made a hard and difficult job of beekeeping today and most beekeepers seem to not want to do anything but make it even harder, not so with us who look at traditional methods and keep it simple.

Michael, I know for a fact that you simply keep bees and do a really good job of it. You do it without the treatments that others use and some of them say you got it wrong. Some folks know so much they can not be helped. I have never used an observation hive but with what you present as an experiment I just might have to build one to have some fun so I too can see what you have seen so I can with first hand experience tell more of what Small Cell Beekeeping has to offer in benefits.

Glad you posted, thanks.


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

I didn't mention anything (nor to I know much about) about Dee Lusby, mites in the 1980's etc. I did mean that tests causally demonstrating the efficacy of small cell have been confounded by the use of resistant Africanized stock, and poor experimental design, etc. Furthermore, it is ILLEGAL if not immoral to export Africanized queens from and endemic area unless you can prove that they are not Africanized. This means that the burden of proof is on the breeder, not the enforcement agencies or purchaser. Small cell is probably a great idea, but nothing about it constitutes scientific truth. Africanized bees are a terrible idea, as has bee demonstrated by repeated demonstrations of their propensity to sting en masse.

[ April 22, 2006, 02:12 PM: Message edited by: Aspera ]


----------



## tony350i (Jul 29, 2005)

Yes well put MB,

I wonder how much a year beekeepers spend on chemicals lets say in the USA for a example $$$$$), and maybe this has been some of the reason why test on small/natural cell is done over a sort time instead of a year or so and then turn round and say it doesnt work.

I hope it isnt but it could be all down to money that they are making from the sell of the chemicals.


Tony


----------



## Sundance (Sep 9, 2004)

Aspera...... 

Why do you keep linking AHB with small cell??? My bees are on small cell and there is no AHB here at all. I have mostly NWC's. Are you saying NWC's are bred with AHB?


----------



## Bob Russell (Sep 9, 2003)

>Try looking at the quoted small cell studies. Which one followed Dee's protocol for how to regress bees? None. Which one met the criteria of a brood nest of 4.9mm cells or below? None. Which one set up even ONE hive and regressed it and left it with a small cell brood nest and measured the overall results in a normal hive setting in the long term for even one year? None.

http://www.bee-l.com/biobeefiles/pav/scstudy.htm

In fairness to our New Zealand researchers the above report is only the results of what they were asked to perform to the funding provided.I had the opportunity to see the comb sections from the trial first hand.They did qualify that in order to draw cells out to the same width,a gradual step-down process from 5.4-4.7 would have been required taking maybe a couple of seasons.

The greater majority of New Zealands 3000 plus beekeepers know these researchers on a first name basis and interact on a regular basis at meetings and field days through out the country and are always willing to listen and do trials where funding is provided.I do intend to donate a small cell hive to the researchers if they don't revisit it.

New Zealand is an ideal place to carry out research as we are free of Africanised bees.A number of us are doing private research with resistant bees as are the above researchers and many others who are not affiliated to any of these forums.

Contary to reports our feral bee trees are repopulated (upper North Island) and in my own operation I trapped 20 of those a couple of seasons ago and from the observations set up a seperate small(er) cell project.The large cell resistant/high production bee project (5.4 mm)is now in year 6.

Observations noted paved the way to set up the small(er)cell project last season.The queens used were not from my resistant/high production lines.The results and obsevations thus far are very encouraging and will be accelerated next season as we are entering the winter season now.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Furthermore, it is ILLEGAL if not immoral to export Africanized queens from and endemic area unless you can prove that they are not Africanized. This means that the burden of proof is on the breeder, not the enforcement agencies or purchaser.

Hmmmm. An awful lot of bees are shipped by BIG producers from AHB endemic areas and I don't see them proving anything.

>Africanized bees are a terrible idea, as has bee demonstrated by repeated demonstrations of their propensity to sting en masse.

Which is why all us Nothern beekeepers should stop buying bees from the South. Particularly areas know to be africanized. Like Texas, and California, and instead raise bees that are acclimatized to our area and are not going to be AHB or bred to AHB drones.

But it is still a mystery how anytime "Small Cell" is mentioned AHB seem to come up in the conversation. I know of no one who is purposely raising AHB or wants AHB. Most of the small cell people I know are in the North are are trying to raise NORHTERN feral survivors that are acclimatized to a Northern climate.


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> But it is still a mystery how anytime 
> "Small Cell" is mentioned AHB seem to 
> come up in the conversation.

No mystery at all Michael - the "Housel Incident"
in Florida, where "small-cell bees" from marked
queens supplied by one of the more well-known
names associated with the "small-cell" movement,
became "very very hot", so hot that their
small-cell beekeeper owner called the State
Apiarist. The DNA tests done on the bees, an
objective way of determining such things, not
open to debate or argument, forced everyone to
admit that these were Africanized bees.

This is not the only such incident where queens
from these apiaries have tested as both "way hot"
and "AHB".

> An awful lot of bees are shipped by BIG 
> producers from AHB endemic areas and I 
> don't see them proving anything.

Talk to any state apiarist, and I think you will
find some healthy skepticism about self-certification
and an increasing interest in the use of DNA
testing rather than FABIS or "aggression tests".

> I know of no one who is purposely raising AHB 
> or wants AHB.

Not in the USA, of course.
There are some beekeepers in South America who
seem to prefer them. There are many heated
debates between advocates of AHB and advocates
of "Euro-bees".


----------



## Dick Allen (Sep 4, 2004)

>Which is why all us Nothern beekeepers should stop buying bees from the South.

Right Mike. As you'll likely remember, I've asked you a couple of times about getting some of your queens later on this summer. Make sure you don't send me any of those Afrikaners, ok?


----------



## Sundance (Sep 9, 2004)

The fact that a small cell hive went AHB in the south seems no more relevent than a standard hive going AHB. 

I just don't get the surprize factor at all. I would be surprized if a hive in AHB areas did not get taken over.

Are you saying the small cell hives, by virtue of their cell size, are more likely to be taken over by invading AHB?

Willing to listen.........

[ April 22, 2006, 11:05 PM: Message edited by: Sundance ]


----------



## Keith Malone (Dec 16, 2003)

Hi Sundancer,

> Are you saying the small cell hives, by virtue of their cell size, are more likely to be taken over by invading AHB?
>

A quote from Jim's post, to clarify his claim below. Truth or fiction? I have not known Jim to tell tails. It helps to stay in context in understanding the claims and conversation.  

""small-cell bees" from marked
queens supplied by one of the more well-known
names associated with the "small-cell" movement"


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> The fact that a small cell hive went AHB in the
> south seems no more relevent than a standard 
> hive going AHB.

> I just don't get the surprize factor at all. I 
> would be surprized if a hive in AHB areas did 
> not get taken over.

Re-read what I wrote. This was not a usurpation
of a hive by AHB, this was a hive *still headed* by
a queen marked by the beekeeper, the one taken
out of the queen cage by the beekeeper, the one
received in the mail by the beekeeper.

The beekeeper was assisted by the staff of the
State Apiarist in doing all the obvious things
like looking for a 2nd (AHB) queen in the same
hive, and so on. Why was he assisted? Because
he realized that he had a hive that was too hot
for him to handle.

There have been similar incidents popping up,
with one in California being still under scrutity.
It is unclear if the usual paperwork required for 
interstate shipping of bees was done or not, but 
no one really cares too much about such details.

This is *NOT* to say that bees regressed
to a smaller size somehow "become Africanized"
or any other such nonsense. It is simply a
data point that illustrates that even experienced
beekeepers can be fooled when keeping bees in
an AHB-infested area, and fooled to the point
of unwittingly sending AHB to innocent civilian
hobby beekeepers as "good stock".

It has often been noted that many of the traits
claimed for "small cell bees" are also found in
AHB, such as the smaller cell size and the ability
to avoid varroa collapse. This is _also_ not
to accuse all small-cell bees of being AHB.

Small-cell supporters are understandably very
touchy about this issue. I view the matter as
a "problem" only when and if "hot hives" start
appearing in the suburban back yards of beekeepers
who are away at the office when they swarm.

After all these years, I still don't enjoy being
stung, so any hive that gets feisty with me
without a very good reason gets a new queen of
pedigree stock from a reputable breeder faster
than you can say "genetics". If the queens are
delayed, I'll move the "hot" hive out of its
yard, waaaay back in a far corner of my orchard 
in dead of night, and slow the hive down with a 
one-bee-at a time entrance reducer and a push-in queen cage.

Hot hives suck.
Life's too short, and so on.


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

>After you have done the above experiments, let's all have a open discussion on the results.

I'm taking the challenge.


----------



## Sundance (Sep 9, 2004)

Thanks Jim...... That is why I posited it as a question, not a challenge in the least Keith.


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

As stated by Jim, the relationship between feral bees, small cell, and Africanization is not necessarily causal. However beeks, especially those selling queens should be aware that Africanized bees have the following traits:
1)they swarm frequently and are often found as feral colonies
2)they tend to build small sized/nutural sized cells
3)They are often hardy bees and good producers
4)they are varroa resistant

Some of the traits attributed to small cell overlap with some of the traits of AHB. This is less of a problem in the north, but I think we can all agree that mail order queens, migratory beeks and the spread of AHB should make it everyone's concern.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

<<No mystery at all Michael - the "Housel Incident"
in Florida, where "small-cell bees" from marked
queens supplied by one of the more well-known
names associated with the "small-cell" movement,
became "very very hot", so hot that their
small-cell beekeeper owner called the State
Apiarist. The DNA tests done on the bees, an
objective way of determining such things, not
open to debate or argument, forced everyone to
admit that these were Africanized bees.>>

Jim -

Are you saying as fact that Dee Lusby sent Housel one or more of her queens, and the state determined that at least one of them was an africanized queen? Did they test the queen or only the worker bees? What percent equals africanized? What is the baseline or standard for bees when doing DNA testing?

- Barry


----------



## Finman (Nov 5, 2004)

The biggest disadvantage of small bees is that small bee breeders are not after big honey yields. As a breeder if you have not that goal you will not achieve it. 

If your goal is back to nature and all bee races in same formula (4,9 mm) it has nothing to do with nature. Siberian official comb size is now 5,6 mm. Have you heard that miten resistant Russian bees manages better with varroa in small cells? 

When we look basics of breeding we may take what ever plant or domestic animal and select small individuals. So small individual cross and we get small size stock. It is selection. But we do not know basicly what makes that small size? Lack or hormones or what?

To me swarming is the worst habit of bees which destroy the yield. Small beekeepers do not care that. They say that swarm queens are good. - But they have that natural swarming tendency.

Small beekeepers say that wax exrecetion does not consume honey. Of course it does, allways had. When you draw up Langstroth box without foundations, bees need 32 lbs honey to exrecete 4 lbs wax. Good hive needs 5-6 boxes, and it is a lot honey.

When we breed something it takes from breeders tens of year to achieve something. Many achiev nothing. To small beekeeprs it just happens! All good together. Is that strange? Beginner or not, it just happens.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>If your goal is back to nature and all bee races in same formula (4,9 mm) it has nothing to do with nature. Siberian official comb size is now 5,6 mm.

How does oversized comb in Siberia show what natural comb size is?

> Have you heard that miten resistant Russian bees manages better with varroa in small cells?

From everyone I've heard who is trying Russians on small cell, yes.

>When we look basics of breeding we may take what ever plant or domestic animal and select small individuals. So small individual cross and we get small size stock.

Exactly. And bantam chickens are the hardiest.

> It is selection. But we do not know basicly what makes that small size? Lack or hormones or what?

From my experience, in the case of bees, it does not have so much to do with selection. It's cell size and cell size is controled by foundation cell size.

>To me swarming is the worst habit of bees which destroy the yield. Small beekeepers do not care that. They say that swarm queens are good. - But they have that natural swarming tendency.

I've never seen them swarm if I was doing my job, and I've never seen bees that won't swarm if I didn't do my job and keep the brood nest open. So I don't see swarming as a "tendency". Swarming is what bees do if we don't intervene properly, and what they don't do if we do intevene properly.

>Small beekeepers say that wax exrecetion does not consume honey.

I have never said that. I don't know any other small cell beekeepers who have even commented on the subject. I HAVE said that there is no scientific proof of the numbers generally quoted, and pointed out that it's not the amount of honey to the pounds of wax, but the total production of the bees that counts. I have quoted other notable beekeepers who share my view, including Richard Taylor.

http://www.bushfarms.com/beesharvest.htm

No, Richard Taylor was not a small cell beekeeper.

> Of course it does, allways had. When you draw up Langstroth box without foundations, bees need 32 lbs honey to exrecete 4 lbs wax.

I have heard numbers from 16 pounds to 8 pounds for a pound of wax and never seen a study to prove any of those numbers.

>When we breed something it takes from breeders tens of year to achieve something. Many achiev nothing. To small beekeeprs it just happens!

I'm trying to breed survivor bees that are sucessful. Reality does a pretty good job of that without me. Propping up bees with chemicals, that can't do that on their own, just breeds failures.

> All good together. Is that strange? Beginner or not, it just happens.

The good is from having healthy bees in a stable healthy system. Genetics is helpful, but it's not the main issue. Healthy bees produce honey. Bees that are not healthy do not. Queens that are marginally healthy and marginally fertile do not do well and the chemicals in the wax is causing them to be marginally healthy and infertile.


----------



## Finman (Nov 5, 2004)

To Michael
ME: Of course it does, allways had. When you draw up Langstroth box without foundations, bees need 32 lbs honey to exrecete 4 lbs wax.

M: I have heard numbers from 16 pounds to 8 pounds for a pound of wax and never seen a study to prove any of those numbers.

Your figures are against 2 lbs= per kilo

My figure 32 lbs is for 2 kg wax. L-box has 1 kilo foundations and 1 kg cell walls. 

There are real studies from that and I have gived those to you links. You just read them.


----------



## Bob Russell (Sep 9, 2003)

Clint
It's pleasing to know there are many of us in practice with private research/trials with this topic around the globe that don't have a private agenda.After many years of selecting and breeding bees for high honey yield (3 times the national average)with large cell bees on 5.4 mm I decided to select for varroa resistant bees following the varroa incursion to New Zealand in 2000.Observasions in high yielding varroa resistant untreated (all season)large cell bees lead to the inclusion of feral and smaller cell size into the project in the past year.Though I am not promoting small cell,the results from last seasons work suggest that I need to accelerate work in this area for next seasons spring in New Zealand.What you have experienced with honey production on your small group of small cell bees Clint is further encouragement as this will be included in next seasons project.Feral bees were wiped out in the North Island of New Zealand progressivly as varroa spread down the Island.At this time the South Island after 6 years of varroa in the North is still free of varroa.North Island ferals are now repopulating again.Ferals that I am monitoring are still alive from our past season at this time,now into early winter.


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi Guys,

Back when the NZ study was done, the small cell camp stressed that varroa couldn't reproduce in the smaller cell size. At that time, most of the emphasis on varroa resistance focused on varroa behavior versus small cell size. The NZ study was a good test of this. Unfortunately, it was the wrong focus.

Often, when discussing bee size, cell size, etc., it's easy to get confused, as these terms are commonly substituted for a wide range of management protocols associated with 'small cell beekeeping'.

In the broadest sense, having a clean broodnest, a natural cell size, and an adapted, properly nurished bee are the essense of biological beekeeping. And, regardless if I think that the large or small sized cell/bee debate is a human invention, getting a small cell sized broodnest core has produced great results. My bees are mite tolerant. They overwinter much better. And they produce more honey.

However, I think that many of the small cell beekeeping protocols, often promoted as necessary steps to get bees clean, healthy, productive and mite tolerant, only complicate and make the process more difficult. And some of them are quite impossible to achieve, if you have other beeyards in your area.

These protocols, themselves, are the main disadvantage of keeping small cell bees. Some of them are very counter productive and actually work against the natural propensities of the bees. That's why it's so hard and expensive to get small cell bees the small cell beekeeping way. 

Any beekeeper who would deny that the Lusby's bees aren't influenced by the AHB is living and thinking in the past. I think, that the downward drift in cell size, as reported by the Lusbys, testifies to this. But dozens of other beekeepers, including myself, have achieved remarkable results with a small cell broodnest core, without the Lusby's bees or African genetics.

Not because we all followed the small cell protocol to the letter, because most of us haven't. Or because we've achieved a small cell area of influence, an impossibility. But because we've given the bees a clean and much better approximation of a natural broodnest where they function best.

Regards
Dennis


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

bwrangler,

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the topic. Your post was clear, non-dogmatic, and informative.


----------



## Tom Chaudoir (Nov 20, 2005)

Barry asked, in part:


> What percent equals africanized? What is the baseline or standard for bees when doing DNA testing?


Hi Barry,

The question assumes that the AHB strain is being diluted by EHB genetics. In fact, that isn't happening. The strains can interbreed in the lab. In the wild it's not happening enough to measure. They make their mating flights at different times, for one thing. The AHB stock is staying pure.

[ April 29, 2006, 07:36 PM: Message edited by: Tom Chaudoir ]


----------



## Murphy (Jun 7, 2005)

I want to start by thanking Michael, Dennis, Clint and the many others who I believe have done so much of the research and incurred the expense of it. They willingly share their results be it good or bad.
This will be my first year of moving all my hives to:
1. Clean new wax
2. No chemicals to date
3. Replacing queens with queens from swarms from known feral hives, or queens bred from those swarms.
I as of yet do not know how this will play out, but I can only think that this 3 fold approach can help. I used the swarms that I knew to have come from feral hives (I have gotten swarms from these hives for several years) to build 4.9 wax foundation as well as combs from strips.
I have not measured for cell size as this is not the important thing for me, the important thing is to get away from chemicals.
I cannot honestly say using any chemical is ok for me, as I just do not want my kids to ingest anymore chemicals than they already are. I think that honey producers who say it is ok to use chemicals are thinking not of the people eating the honey but of the quick profit.

Again, I applaud all those who have made it a much simpler decision to do this.

Regards,

Kieran


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

Dave Robbins -

ABSOLUTELY AGREE! Totally with you on this - the 'old school' bks are mostly too stuck in their ways to see this - you should see the flak I attract on the BBKA board (http://www.bbka.org) when I say things like that! (often from Finman, BTW)

If you are interested, I posted my views on my blog at http://biobees.blogspot.com

>>you have to understand that when you get into these issues your falling into the squabble between people who want to control nature and people who want to work with her
I'm really not doing small cell
I'm doing natural cell
just give em a narrow strip of foundation to get em started and then let em build what they want
I don't have much experience but I have read a lot and my take on the issue is this
humans for the last 200 years have been doing stuff to make the bees do what we want
we put em in boxes like we want
we give em frames of foundation so they build nice straight combs that are convinient for us to manipulate
we steal there food and feed em sugar water
the list is long
all these thing stress the bees
up till recently, they handled it ok
now the t and v mites come along
the bees are getting pounded
the stuff we do ain't helping
maybe we should back off and let the bees do what they want a little
maybe we can help em a bit and they'll figure out how to handle the mites
I might be all wrong but I sure like this idea better that trying to find a better pesticide to put in hives to kill mites, thats just not a road I want to go down


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

I've been reading this one for a while, waiting to see if it ever comes back to the title of the thread. So far, no one seems to be listing an disadvantages, other than, possibly, SC bees produce less honey. Maybe, maybe not. Depends on who you ask, to judge from the nature of this thread.

Anyway, leaving that alone, and, speaking as someone who is not currently keeping SC bees, I see one big disadvantage: AVAILABILITY. I can't believe no one else mentioned it yet.

Take foundation, for instance. SC foundation is far less common than "commercial-sized" foundation. I know, I know, you can still find SC foundation or just let the bees make their own, but what if you want a plastic foundation for some purpose? Commercial-sized foundation is far more available than SC foundation.

And look at bees themselves. Again, I know that you can "regress" pretty much any bee into SC bees, but let's just say that you already have SC bees and want to add some bees of different races. Could you find packages of SC bees, especially in certain races? I know you could always replace queens or regress bees, but I still think SC bees are far less available than commerical-sized bees.


----------



## Sundance (Sep 9, 2004)

Availablity of foundation is no longer an issue at all. Dadant has both wired and unwired. Honey Supercell now has fully drawn plastic comb.

As far as small cell packages....... there are some but I never have had the need.

Overall I don't see availability as a problem, at least not for me.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

I knew someone would say such things! And I see your point, Bruce, but I'm not sure it contradicts what I was saying.

For example, (you live in the Dakotas, too, so you'll see easily what I'm saying) I drive common vehicles in part because of the availability of parts. If I drove a Ferrari or a Maserati (or any other uncommon type of vehicle), I could still get parts, but they're not stocked around here. In other words, they're not readily available.

I know you can order SC foundation and comb, and I realize you might even be able to order SC packages, but that doesn't make them as available as commercial-sized foundation or bees.

Am I understanding correctly, you find it just as easy to find SC comb, foundation and bees as commercial-size? Do you find any disadvantages to SC, or is it all positive? If it's all positive, why did we ever switch away from it, and why isn't everyone using SC bees now?


----------



## MichaelW (Jun 1, 2005)

http://www.princeton.edu/~spratt/Publications.htm 

The fourth publication down at the above link, references research that suggests construction of comb cell sizes are somewhat dependant on the size and amounts of each size of cells the workers come in contact with. Actually they're talking about drone vs. worker cell sizes, but I think is could be relavent.

More importantly beekeepers on this site have reported not having good luck with small cell packages drawing small cell comb. Then think about statements about the regression process in itself.

I conclude that "regressed bees" or "small cell bees" has more to do with the size comb the bees have in the hive. Not any learned behavior that has been developed in the bees. It seems like to me "regression" is selecting out the large cells which leaves smaller cells that the workers base future comb building on. I would NOT suspect small cell packages to be useful. Small cell nucs should give you small cell comb to start with however and this should help.

[ June 13, 2006, 02:27 PM: Message edited by: MichaelW ]


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>And look at bees themselves. Again, I know that you can "regress" pretty much any bee into SC bees, but let's just say that you already have SC bees and want to add some bees of different races.

If you have SC bees, then, by definition, you have SC drawn comb. If you have SC drawn comb, then you merely put any size or any race of bees on it and in three weeks, you'll have small cell bees.

> Could you find packages of SC bees, especially in certain races?

In my experience, you can't find ANY packages in ANY size in certain races. You can only find packages of Italians workers with various races of queens. Put them on small cell drawn comb and you're done.

> I know you could always replace queens or regress bees, but I still think SC bees are far less available than commerical-sized bees. 

Of course. But once you have small cell drawn comb it's irelevant. And NOW you can buy fully drawn small cell plastic comb. Put any package on them and you'll have a small cell hive from the git go.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

"If you have SC drawn comb, then you merely put any size or any race of bees on it and in three weeks, you'll have small cell bees." -Michael Bush

Really? I thought the larger workers would have trouble working with the small cells, so would be likely to tear them down and remake them into larger cells. If it's that easy, why do beekeepers claim it takes three years to fully "regress" bees?

Aren't small cell bees smaller as adults than commercial-size bees? Don't smaller bees tend to build smaller cells and larger bees build larger cells? 

I know you CAN buy fully drawn small cell plastic comb now, as well as foundation, but that still doesn't make it as common (readily available) as commercial-size.

And what about SC nucs? Are they available commonly?

If all those factors work out, then the next disadvantage that I see is the perception among other people that your SC bees are somehow Africanized.


----------



## amymcg (Jan 13, 2005)

The key word in MB's comment was "SC DRAWN COMB" If it's already drawn they will just use it. If it's foundation, then yes, they will re work it if they have not been regressed.

"I know you CAN buy fully drawn small cell plastic comb now, as well as foundation, but that still doesn't make it as common (readily available) as commercial-size."

It's getting more and more common every year. Deep wired small cell wasn't available last year, now it is. Thank you Dadant.

SC nucs are hard to come by. But as more people regress, the easier they will be to get. The trend is becoming more common. It probably won't be long before you can find all of these items "commonly" available.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Really? I thought the larger workers would have trouble working with the small cells, so would be likely to tear them down and remake them into larger cells. If it's that easy, why do beekeepers claim it takes three years to fully "regress" bees?

Because no one has had a stock of drawn comb. I've put commercial Italians, Russians, Buckfasts and Carniolans on wax coated PermaComb and you have instant regression. The brood from day one is raised in small cells and they soon replace any wax builders that are not small.

>Aren't small cell bees smaller as adults than commercial-size bees?

Sure, but that has nothing to do with the bees using small cell comb and nothing to do with the gestation period of the bees and nothing to do with varroa reproduction.

> Don't smaller bees tend to build smaller cells and larger bees build larger cells? 

Yes. But if they have drawn comb who's building comb? In a few weeks all the wax makers will be small bees.

>I know you CAN buy fully drawn small cell plastic comb now, as well as foundation, but that still doesn't make it as common (readily available) as commercial-size.

If it's available and I can have it in a week, then it's available. What would it take to make it MORE available?

>And what about SC nucs? Are they available commonly?

Commonly, no. But feed in some wax coated PermaComb or some drawn small cell wax or some Supercell and you'll have the core of the brood nest small in a very short time.

>If all those factors work out, then the next disadvantage that I see is the perception among other people that your SC bees are somehow Africanized. 

No one who has worked my bees has ever had that thought.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

"What would it take to make it MORE available?" -Michael Bush

Well, I can simply pick up commercial-sized foundation locally. To my way of thinking, that makes it MORE available. I don't have to order it. (I go back to my exotic-car example -- if you can order any car part you need, why not drive strange, imported cars? By that standard, parts for all makes of cars are equally available.)

"No one who has worked my bees has ever had that thought." -Michael Bush

No, I know it. But, c'mon here, Michael! You know what I'm saying. Why do you get concerned about people insinuating that all SC bees are somehow AHB? I think it's because the perception (mistaken as it may be) is out there. I've read enough of your arguments to know that you're concerned about inspectors or others believing that your bees might be AHB, and, even though people who have worked your bees know differently, isn't it a disadvantage to face that perception among some of the public and some other beekeepers?


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Well, I can simply pick up commercial-sized foundation locally.

I guess I've never been used to having beekeeping supplies available locally. I've been ordering it most of my life.

>But, c'mon here, Michael! You know what I'm saying. Why do you get concerned about people insinuating that all SC bees are somehow AHB?

I don't know why they do except there is this connection in their mind between small cells and AHB. I am afraid that if small cell doesn't get common there will be a problem with misidentifying bees. But so far I haven't heard of it happening.

>I think it's because the perception (mistaken as it may be) is out there. I've read enough of your arguments to know that you're concerned about inspectors or others believing that your bees might be AHB

I have worried about it, yes. But the inspector inspects them every year and has not had that impression.

>isn't it a disadvantage to face that perception among some of the public and some other beekeepers? 

Probably.


----------



## Hillside (Jul 12, 2004)

After reading the posts, I'm beginning to think the biggest disadvantage to small cell bees is fending off the attacks of other beekeepers who disagree with your methods!

That and the process of regressing them. I bought some extra frames last fall and just started this spring to regress a hive on foundationless frames. It's not that it's all that difficult to do, but it's one more task that needed to be done this spring. I suppose once you have enough comb started, it's a non-issue.

Time will tell how well this is working for me. This year I've had trouble with hives suddenly going queenless on me for no reason that I can determine. The hive I'm regressing is still going strong. I'm thinking I should have started regressing more than one just to be sure.

I don't have any preconceived notions about small cell. My plan is to try it and see for myself.


----------



## Sundance (Sep 9, 2004)

As put so well in earlier posts, small cell foundation is as available as any other foundation for me.

There are no stores on the corner here that sell any style or kind of foundation, frames, or any beekeeping items for that matter. I order, it comes, it's available.


----------



## GeeBeeNC (Aug 23, 2005)

OK this thread is confusing me. I have understood from our past discussions of regressing that an intermediate cell size would be built by the bees and a second frame switch would be required to get to nc. This thread seems to imply if not state that regardless of size the bees will make natural cell immediately.

Is this true only using sc foundation? If that's the case, is it a better management practice to regress using new foundation rather than starter strips or one of the other "foundationless" methods?

Edited to correct spelling error.

[ June 15, 2006, 08:26 AM: Message edited by: GeeBeeNC ]


----------



## GeeBeeNC (Aug 23, 2005)

Luke seems to be asking the same question from a little different angle.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

The way I interpreted Michael's comments, the bees with use SC immediately if you provide them with only fully drawn plastic SC comb. This stuff isn't plastic foundation with wax comb built on it, the whole thing is plastic. The cells are plastic from top to bottom, but coated with a very thin layer of wax. The bees can't tear them down and start over.

I don't have any experience with this system. I've never tried it. Just guessing, I would have said that commercial-sized bees would not use SC comb, but the experiences of others show my thoughts were just plain wrong. Interesting stuff; I intend to try it for myself.


----------



## MichaelW (Jun 1, 2005)

The small cells don't need to hold the larger bees, if in fact they are larger which is questioned/contradicted by Bwrangler's observations. All the cells need to hold is a tiny egg, or some honey, or pollen. I don't see why the bees would tear them down if they were wax instead of plastic. I've never heard that reported either.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>This thread seems to imply if not state that regardless of size the bees will make natural cell immediately.

No. They won't MAKE it. But they will use it if you give it to them. If you put any bees, large cell, small cell etc. on small cell comb you will have a small cell hive. Because they will raise their brood in the comb they have, which is small cell and that brood will build small cell. The only reason for regression is to get bees that will BUILD small cell. If it's already built, it's not a issue.

>Is this true only using sc foundation? If that's the case, is it a better management practice to regress using new foundation rather than starter strips or one of the other "foundationless" methods?

Regardless of sc foundation or starter strips the bees will still only build it so small. They mess up the starter strips less because it's difficult to cheat 4.9mm into 5.1mm cells. So the 4.9mm comb on a first regression sometimes looks like a "crazy quilt".

>The way I interpreted Michael's comments, the bees with use SC immediately if you provide them with only fully drawn plastic SC comb. This stuff isn't plastic foundation with wax comb built on it, the whole thing is plastic.

That's ONE way.

>The cells are plastic from top to bottom, but coated with a very thin layer of wax.

I coat the PermaComb to get small cells. It does not comb coated. The SuperCell is not coated and doesn't really require it.

>The bees can't tear them down and start over.

The bees WON'T tear them down and start over. They are perfectly happy with 4.9mm cells or evern 4.7mm cells or even 4.4mm cells if they are drawn and there. Wax, plastic, whatever. They will not tear them down and rebuild unless they want drone comb.

>I don't see why the bees would tear them down if they were wax instead of plastic.

They will not tear them down.


----------



## GeeBeeNC (Aug 23, 2005)

_They won't MAKE it. But they will use it if you give it to them._

Yes! thanks, Mike.


----------



## MichaelW (Jun 1, 2005)

Going back a few pages here,

The _Percieved_ link between small cell beekeeping and the use of Africanized bees probably has something to do with this.

http://www.beesource.com/pov/ahb/tcjun93.htm


"These beekeepers say they will not make any effort to keep the Africanized honeybees out of their domestic hives after they arrive here later this year. They will instead allow them to interbreed freely with their domestic European bees."

[ June 15, 2006, 02:13 PM: Message edited by: MichaelW ]


----------



## Keith Malone (Dec 16, 2003)

Hi Kieck,

> Just guessing, I would have said that commercial-sized bees would not use SC comb, but the experiences of others show my thoughts were just plain wrong.
>

I have been putting large cell bees on drawn small cell comb since 2003. After a round or two of brood they draw small cell foundation fine. I have never had them tear down small cells a redraw to larger.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

Interesting. Thanks for the info, guys. I would have thought that bees too large to easily fit down into small cells to polish the cells would have simply tried to tear them down and rebuild with a size they could more easily work in. Obviously my assumptions were wrong.

As far as the perception that SC bees are AHB, I think it's pretty clear that the perception is out there, and SC beekeepers are already struggling with it. On threads about FABIS tests for AHB, I've read worries by SC beekeepers that their bees will test positive and be destroyed because they're "AHB." I know that's not the way FABIS testing works -- FABIS is simply a preliminary test to see if further testing is needed -- but SC beekeepers seem worried about it. If there's no confusion between AHB and SC bees (even among inspectors), why worry about SC bees testing through FABIS as AHB?


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>why worry about SC bees testing through FABIS as AHB? 

Apparently you don't live in the real world where an overreaction by a government representative could result in all your property (in this case hives) being destroyed without any due process. There have been posts on here by people whose hives were destroyed for AFB and the tests eventually (after they were already destroyed) came back as negative.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

Hmmmm. . . so is the perception of SC bees possibly being AHB a disadvantage? From what you stated earlier, Michael, I thought you were saying that people had no thoughts that SC bees might be (mistakenly) AHB, but now you're telling me that hives have been destroyed despite not being AHB. Seems to me that this COULD be a disadvantage.

Maybe I should reword it: "The potential for SC bees to be confused with AHB by at least some governmental representatives is a disadvantage of SC."


----------



## Keith Malone (Dec 16, 2003)

Hi Kieck,

He did not say that AHB hives have been destroyed but did state AFB hives were that later did not test positive for AFB, as copied below. Maybe the biggest disadvantage of honey bees period is overreacting government representatives and their fear and perceptions.

Kieck wrote;
> but now you're telling me that hives have been destroyed despite not being AHB. 
>
Bush wrote;
>> in the real world where an overreaction by a government representative could result in all your property (in this case hives) being destroyed without any due process. There have been posts on here by people whose hives were destroyed for AFB and the tests eventually (after they were already destroyed) came back as negative.
>


----------



## drobbins (Jun 1, 2005)

kinda makes this newbie wonder whether I want to let the inspector know I exist

Dave


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

Ah, yes, good catch, Keith. I missed the switch from "AHB" to "AFB." Maybe that's a disadvantage of using initials.  

It still seems as though I've read concerns by beekeepers on this board about SC bees getting confused by inspectors/governmental representatives/maybe even members of the non-beekeeping public (?) with Africanized honey bees. I thought that was one of the arguments against using FABIS tests presented by SC proponents on this board.


----------



## Sundance (Sep 9, 2004)

The confusion is a remote possibility IMO. Could it happen??? Sure anything is possible. Just walking up to a hive and knocking and doing the "follow me" test would give anyone a lesson on AHB vs SC bees.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

Kieth is correct. I was refering to AFB (American Foulbrood) as far as incidents of hives being destroyed, but the principle is identical. Officials often overreact, and do not wait for confirming evidence. So far, between the fact that no one has found AHB here, and the fact that my bees are quite docile, this had not been a problem. But what happens when someone finds some AHB in Nebraska? What happens if one of my hives goes hot just before the inspector shows up?


----------



## Tom Chaudoir (Nov 20, 2005)

> "follow me" test


Walk away and see how far they follow?


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>follow me test

Yes but I've seen hot EHB over the years too. That does not prove AHB, it just proves you have hot bees, which, in my opinion, should be requeened, but not destroyed.


----------



## Sundance (Sep 9, 2004)

For sure the "follow me test" is not infallable. EHB's when hot will follow, but not to the extent AHB will.

Just mentioned it as an indicator, much better than size IMO.

Nobody should be destroying any beekeepers bees until a scientific test is done. Unless those bees are extremely HOT and near a populated area.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>For sure the "follow me test" is not infallable. EHB's when hot will follow, but not to the extent AHB will.

In general, perhaps. But following is directly related to tempremant and not necessarily African genes.

>Just mentioned it as an indicator, much better than size IMO.

I agree. And requiring requeening of hot hives wouldn't hurt my feelings any.









>Nobody should be destroying any beekeepers bees until a scientific test is done.

Exactly. But what will that scientific test be?

>Unless those bees are extremely HOT and near a populated area.

In which case they should probably require them to be removed and requeened, not killed.


----------



## MichaelW (Jun 1, 2005)

>Unless those bees are extremely HOT and near a populated area

and who is deciding what is "extremely HOT"? Someone WITHOUT beekeeping experience most likely.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>and who is deciding what is "extremely HOT"? Someone WITHOUT beekeeping experience most likely.

At least in the State of New York.


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

>Nobody should be destroying any beekeepers bees until a scientific test is done.

Q: Exactly. But what will that scientific test be?

A: DNA sequencing is rapid and accurate. If it were my bees, this would be the test of choice unless the bees are aggressive enough to be a real threat


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>A: DNA sequencing is rapid and accurate. If it were my bees, this would be the test of choice unless the bees are aggressive enough to be a real threat 

And what is the baseline for this DNA? In other words, what was the source of the original DNA and are those "marker" genes specific to only Scutella? Only the crosses from South America? Or are they from some feral bees that had small comb that someone decided to use as a baseline? Inquiring minds want to know.


----------



## Keith Benson (Feb 17, 2003)

call the lab and ask??

Keith


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

I thought the SC proponents said SC bees wouldn't be confused with AHB. When I suggested that as a disadvantage, that idea was shot down.


----------



## Tom Chaudoir (Nov 20, 2005)

That depends on who is doing the confusing. I imagine there are a lot of people who consider any flying insect to probably be AHB.


----------



## MichaelW (Jun 1, 2005)

Other SC disadvantages

I'm trying out Natural Cells for Small Cell, ie. starter strips, for the first time this year. The biggest disadvantage I see this year is getting lots of large drone comb that will need to be culled out or saved for honey supers. My bees are building very large cells on frames that are strictly honey frames. Also in the early spring they liked raising lots of drones. But they are also building some very nice, uniform comb that I have not measured yet. The drone comb is a disadvantage, but not an extreme disadvantage as far as I can tell. 

From what I understand, this does not change once "regressed".


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

The mitochondrial PCR test is based on sequence analysis of bees taken from every geographic region of the world. The term "baseline" is not applicable because the test examines the percentage of genetic resemblence to varieties of bees (monticola, scutella, lingustica, lamarkii etc). This was an accurate test 10 years ago and remains so. My personal opinion is that aggressive colonies should not be tolerated regardless of their parentage.

Mol Phylogenet Evol. 1996 Jun;5(3):557-66.


----------



## Keith Benson (Feb 17, 2003)

[ June 20, 2006, 08:43 PM: Message edited by: kgbenson ]


----------



## Keith Benson (Feb 17, 2003)

Thanks aspera - sounds like a good test.

Do you have access to the article?

Keith


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

Yes, I just read it. It was published by some scientists from USDA-ARS in Beltsville. They did an excellent job even though its not that great of a journal. They showed some interesting relationships between various types of honeybees. Most notably, moticola and saharensis have been isolated populations for a long time.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>The drone comb is a disadvantage, but not an extreme disadvantage as far as I can tell. 

It's actually an advantage in disguise. If you keep it on the outside edges of the brood nest, it will discourage the queen from wandering up into the supers looking for drone comb to lay in. It will satisfy their need for drone comb and they will then draw more worker comb. It will act as a magnet for mites to keep them from killing the workers and the small cell hives chew these out more, cleansing the brood nest of varroa without losing workers.

>The mitochondrial PCR test is based on sequence analysis of bees taken from every geographic region of the world. 

If that is, indeed, what they are using, that sounds like a valid test.

>My personal opinion is that aggressive colonies should not be tolerated regardless of their parentage.

Precisely.


----------



## Alienor (Mar 16, 2005)

I'm doing my 6th season with SC both on foundation and nature comb and can't see any disadvantage.
Foundation is 4.9mm and nature comb comes out wth 5.0-5.1mm. This maybe caused by my frames which have Hoffmann-side-spacers(?) and the length from middle to middle is 35mm.
Maybe natural comb can decrease to 4.9 or fewer if I change the distance to 30 or 32mm.

Since I switched to SC my bees are healthier, the brood nest is more compact and better to warm, the honey harvest increased incredible, and the colonies seem to live in better harmony.
Since I decided to make my living from the bees I can't afford not to treat against varroa what my first intention for SC was. Now I'm treating the 2nd year with OA-mist and it seems to work fine.

I'm a little bit heretical because my bees are allowed to rear drones ad libitum.
At the end they come up with 10-15% and their benefit for the hive is immense.
At cold days they stay at home and warm the brood so the foragers are free to fly and bring pollen and nectar in.
Without QE they can also go up to the honey supers and are helping to process and dry the honey.

In summary: I will never go back to the beekeeping I was taught in the past.
I'm teaching some newbees and they have a much better start with SC than their fellows which learn in the club.....


----------



## MichaelW (Jun 1, 2005)

"....magnet for mites.."

interesting, I'll move some to the outside edges then.
But, I will have more than that. I'll just use it for honey supers, or cut comb.

They could provide early spring heat too, good point Alienor.

Also the drones are necessary for queen rearing.

[ June 22, 2006, 07:55 AM: Message edited by: MichaelW ]


----------



## Keith Benson (Feb 17, 2003)

"Without QE they can also go up to the honey supers and are helping to process and dry the honey."

Interesting - I have never heard or read this. Is this your own theory, or is ther esome documentation to this claim?

Keith


----------



## Alienor (Mar 16, 2005)

This was an observation of Br.Adam and he mentioned it in his books.
He also said that the drones NEED to have to go into the honey boxes for perfect sexual maturity.
But he didn't say why.
I haven't found a stidy yet but I'm sure there is one 
Will keep you posted.


----------



## Keith Benson (Feb 17, 2003)

Very cool - I shall ahve to break out my Br. Adam books again.

thanks!

Keith


----------



## Mr_Clean (Aug 31, 2013)

I am a new beekeeper and heard Michael Bush speak in person; he made a lot of sense. Finman in this thread has very good thoughts as well; if his hives can produce 160lbs of honey year, he is obviously doing something right. I realize this is an old thread, but to summarize the provable disadvantages of smaller bees:

1) Bees will have smaller tongues, so they may not be able to reach as many flowers as larger bees,
2) Bees MIGHT lose some productivity while regressing (but there is no clear evidence of this), 
3) If you use a starter strip instead of foundation, the honey comb will be more fragile and will need to be handled so the weight is perpendicular to the comb,
4) Bees will not be able to carry as much nectar as larger bees, but this is probably offset in improved better flight efficiency of smaller bees (due to Physics).
5) Bees will consume 8 lbs of honey to make 1 lb of wax if starter strips are used.

However, there are several advantages of naturally sized bees:
1) Possible increased resistance to Varroa mites,
2) Improved flight efficiency,
3) Possible reduced risk of CCD, and
3) Increased brood count due to greater density of comb.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>but to summarize the provable disadvantages of smaller bees:

I don't think any of them are provable, nor do you, apparently as you keep saying "may" or "might" etc.

>1) Bees will have smaller tongues, so they may not be able to reach as many flowers as larger bees,

I think the actual result is they can climb down into flowers that large bees can't.

>2) Bees MIGHT lose some productivity while regressing (but there is no clear evidence of this),

I have seen no such thing.

>3) If you use a starter strip instead of foundation, the honey comb will be more fragile and will need to be handled so the weight is perpendicular to the comb,

But this is not a disadvantage of small bees, rather one of foundationless frames.

>4) Bees will not be able to carry as much nectar as larger bees, but this is probably offset in improved better flight efficiency of smaller bees (due to Physics).

I've seen no evidence to support that a larger bee can carry more nectar.

>5) Bees will consume 8 lbs of honey to make 1 lb of wax if starter strips are used.

I don't believe this at all. No doubt drawn comb will make more honey than not having drawn comb, but my experience is that foundationless will make more honey than foundation, not because of some arbitrary number of pounds of honey per pound of wax, but because of how much faster they draw foundationless and then have somewhere to store the nectar.


----------



## Mr_Clean (Aug 31, 2013)

I think there is at least one theoretical disadvantage to smaller bees. Smaller bees will build smaller comb. In other words if you took a square inch of comb from bees with 4.9mm comb and a square inch of comb with bees with 5.2mm comb, there would be more cells per square inch on the 4.9mm comb. This would mean more surface area of comb walls. The increased surface area would decrease the amount of honey that could be harvested due to the viscosity of honey clinging to the increased surface area of the comb walls. Assuming the walls are of equal thickness, the increased number of cells would require more beeswax to make the walls, which would theoretically consume more honey.

That being said, I am switching to foundationless. I think the bees will be more efficient at their natural size, which should offset any other disadvantages.


----------

