# and another small cell study



## BEES4U (Oct 10, 2007)

We conclude that small-cell comb technology does not impede Varroa population growth. 

That just about concludes that hopeful IPM!
Thanks,
Ernie


----------



## Countryboy (Feb 15, 2009)

You forgot to include some relevant info - the disclaimer.

Their results are only for the time period they tested under. And I believe their test was only for one year.

And their results are the same as many small cell beekeepers. After one year, there was little (if any) noticeable difference. But many small cell beekeepers will tell you it is the second year where they saw a difference. This small cell study ended after one year.

I don't consider this study definitive - I consider it incomplete for the things they were testing for.

But seeing as how the study showed small cell had higher bee population, and higher bee populations mean a larger foraging force to make honey - isn't that reason enough to go to small cell?


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Countryboy said:


> You forgot to include some relevant info - the disclaimer.
> 
> Their results are only for the time period they tested under. And I believe their test was only for one year.


I'm not sure that I 'forgot' anything. I quoted the abstract in its entirety. Anyone familiar with professional research understands that the data collected are specific only to the conditions of the study. To avoid any conflict with the publisher I am only willing to place the abstract into the public domain. You understand, I'm sure.

This study was an extension of the study you're referring to, I believe. 2006, 2007, 2008.
Higher bee population in the small cell hives was only significant in the first season. In the study's end the varroa population was significantly higher in the small cell....mites in brood, per centage of mite population in brood and mites per 100 adult bees.



Countryboy said:


> This small cell study ended after one year.


Nope.



Countryboy said:


> I don't consider this study definitive - I consider it incomplete for the things they were testing for.


Your perogative.


----------



## TwT (Aug 5, 2004)

Countryboy said:


> And their results are the same as many small cell beekeepers. After one year, there was little (if any) noticeable difference. But many small cell beekeepers will tell you it is the second year where they saw a difference. This small cell study ended after one year.


well I don't know or care much for these studies but I can say these hives they studied are owned by Bill Owens, he has used small cell for years now, these hives they are studying I would bet that most of these hives aren't first or second year hives, bill doesn't lose many hive's if any most of the time, he does many removals year round and also does a lot of work with UGA and thats the 2 sources where his stock comes from ( I think he even help them stock).


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

TwT said:


> Bill Owens, he has used small cell for years now, these hives they are studying I would bet that most of these hives aren't first or second year hives, bill doesn't lose many hive's if any most of the time,


Which is quite funny to me. "The study" showed that the "varroa population was significantly higher in the small cell....mites in brood, per centage of mite population in brood and mites per 100 adult bees." So Bill is managing his bees (sc) that produce higher mite loads. Either it (mite load) has no significant impact on SC bees (as Bill would be losing hives right and left) or there are other factors going on with SC that still aren't understood and a "study" focusing only on mite counts would have no bearing on.


----------



## TwT (Aug 5, 2004)

I agree Barry, seems like this study is for only counting mite loads, since bill does so many removals and this is the main source I think he gets his bee's, is SC really why he has success with survival rates, I don't think so myself because my bee's do very well on regular foundation, I got 10 italian nuc's last year just to steal brood from while raising some of my queens, I only have 4 left now after this spring but 6 of my hives are going strong and they are in the same yard, so there is something going on and I am not one to do any studies, UGA honey bee program has great success on their hives with regular cell so there is something there that makes a difference, what I would like to see is someone buy some commercial italians and put them on SC and a yard on regular cell and see if there is a difference after a year. I just always thought it was the bee's themselves and not cell size, but if it is then that would be great to find out.


----------



## slickbrightspear (Jan 9, 2009)

my question is if the bees survive with higher mite counts and make honey does it really matter why.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Let me ask a question to your question. If those using SC don't have to treat with chemicals or drugs, is the same true for those not using SC?


----------



## slickbrightspear (Jan 9, 2009)

If you do not crowd the bees or place to many in one area like a feed lot and do not stress them by moving them constantly I have some large cell hives that are 4 years old no treatments.


----------



## Countryboy (Feb 15, 2009)

I watched the video presentation Jennifer Berry gave about this study. They put bees onto bare foundation, and the bees had to draw all their comb - both the small and large cell bees in the study.

Simply placing the bees on bare foundation will interrupt the mite reproductive cycle since the queen stops laying until the bees have drawn enough comb to lay in. Both groups of bees start with a small population of mites. The mite population grows exponentially - it stands to reason that population growth differences may be minimal when they start out.

Having to draw out the foundation can place added stress on the bees too.

I wonder how the study would go if they put bees on fully drawn comb for an extended amount of time.

In the video, Jennifer said she had her personal bees on small cell. ( didn't know the Owens guy was small cell too.) I thought it interesting that the researcher used small cell, but her study didn't provide the results she gets in her own apiaries. That told me something was lacking from the study - and if the guy who supplies the bees also is small cell, that only reinforces my opinion.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Countryboy said:


> I watched the video presentation Jennifer Berry gave about this study. They put bees onto bare foundation, and the bees had to draw all their comb - both the small and large cell bees in the study..


In the first series, the one covered in her talk a year or so ago, the traditional cell foundation was predrawn in traditional hives and the small cell was predrawn in Billy Bob's small cell hives.



Countryboy said:


> In the video, Jennifer said she had her personal bees on small cell.


It just aint so. Jennifer uses uncoated, plastic, traditional sized cell foundation in her own hives.


----------



## Billy Bob (Nov 3, 2001)

...and I thought we were done talking about this study.

1) The study was done to find if small cell impeded mite populations.

2) The study found that mite populations were higher in small cell colonies. (sorry, I was there and the small cell hives had more mites than the regular cell hives)

3) I have run small cells in my colonies since 2001 or 2002 (I really can't remember which year)

4) I still have several boxes of small cell foundation and yes I plan on using it.

5) After my small cell foundation is used up I will most likely go back to regular cell foundation.

6) In the last 5 or 6 years I have lost on average 8-10% of my hives annually. About the same loss as expected prior to the varroa mites.

7) All of my personal colonies came from feral stock that I get from my bee removal business. (I honestly believe this has a lot to do with my success)

8) I run screen bottoms on all of my colonies.


Billy Bob
aka 
Bill Owens
Master Craftsman beekeeper
http://www.gabeeremoval.com


----------



## TwT (Aug 5, 2004)

Countryboy said:


> I watched the video presentation Jennifer Berry gave about this study. They put bees onto bare foundation, and the bees had to draw all their comb - both the small and large cell bees in the study.
> 
> Simply placing the bees on bare foundation will interrupt the mite reproductive cycle since the queen stops laying until the bees have drawn enough comb to lay in. Both groups of bees start with a small population of mites. The mite population grows exponentially - it stands to reason that population growth differences may be minimal when they start out.
> 
> ...


all foundation was drawn out and then frozen, then the study was started, 
the Georgia study went for 2 years


----------



## TwT (Aug 5, 2004)

Countryboy said:


> In the video, Jennifer said she had her personal bees on small cell. ( didn't know the Owens guy was small cell too.) I thought it interesting that the researcher used small cell, but her study didn't provide the results she gets in her own apiaries. That told me something was lacking from the study - and if the guy who supplies the bees also is small cell, that only reinforces my opinion.


she never has messed with small cell until the study hives, and doesn't now, she has regular cell hives, she even ask Bill why was he still going to use it and he said he had 40#of it and was going to use it until he ran out then probably switch back to regular cell.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

I don't have high Varroa mite counts. I can't find any to count in the spring and so far this year after opening more than a hundred hives (and a hundre nucs) several times and a lot of drone brood have only seen one in a drone pupa and none anywhere else.

So apparently the small cell doesn't work as advertised. I'm just not getting the extra Varroa. I'm sorry I'm such a failure...


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Billy Bob said:


> ...and I thought we were done talking about this study.


Not likely Billy Bob.




Michael Bush said:


> I don't have high Varroa mite counts.So apparently the small cell doesn't work as advertised. I'm just not getting the extra Varroa. I'm sorry I'm such a failure...


You’ve surely considered the possibility that your success has been the product of something other than the size of your brood cells.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

beemandan said:


> You’ve surely considered the possibility that your success has been the product of something other than the size of your brood cells.


I'm open to that. But the commonsense factor tells me that the one element that is the same between all those that have gone to SC is the SC comb. Beyond that, there are many variables.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Billy Bob said:


> ...and I thought we were done talking about this study.


You're too naive. 



> 2) The study found that mite populations were higher in small cell colonies. (sorry, I was there and the small cell hives had more mites than the regular cell hives)


Can I assume that this was different than what you were seeing in your SC hives prior to the study? I mean, if you were having high mite populations before the study, why did you continue with the SC?



> 5) After my small cell foundation is used up I will most likely go back to regular cell foundation.


Why? Will you also refrain from using any chemicals and drugs? (assuming you haven't used either with the SC hives)


----------



## TwT (Aug 5, 2004)

Barry said:


> I'm open to that. But the commonsense factor tells me that the one element that is the same between all those that have gone to SC is the SC comb. Beyond that, there are many variables.


that is something they were not studying, the whole story all along was that mite didn't breed in SC like they do in regular cell because of hatching out earlier, this was proven to be a wrong, 2 college studies have proved this, now like they also said why do people using small cell say they have done so much better with there bee's, they say that could be many things like smaller bee's grooming themselves better ect. but this was a study on mite population in SC hive's and if SC really reduced the mite population, I say if you believe in SC and it helps you use it by all means.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

TwT said:


> I say if you believe in SC and it helps you use it by all means.


I've heard Jennifer Berry say much the same thing on more than one occasion.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Barry said:


> But the commonsense factor tells me that the one element that is the same between all those that have gone to SC is the SC comb.


So that there's no misunderstanding. There are some who've tried small cell who haven't duplicated your success. I know, I'm one.


Barry said:


> Beyond that, there are many variables.


Indeed.


----------



## Billy Bob (Nov 3, 2001)

Can I assume that this was different than what you were seeing in your SC hives prior to the study? I mean, if you were having high mite populations before the study, why did you continue with the SC?

I don't count mites or mite loads. To be honest I never really have. If they died...good riddance. If they lived...congratulations.


----------



## Billy Bob (Nov 3, 2001)

Barry said:


> Can I assume that this was different than what you were seeing in your SC hives prior to the study? I mean, if you were having high mite populations before the study, why did you continue with the SC?


I don't count mites or mite loads. To be honest I never really have. If they died...good riddance. If they lived...congratulations.


----------



## Billy Bob (Nov 3, 2001)

When I went to SC it was the same time I started doing removals. This of course drastically changed the breeding stock in my operation. I almost never bought bees or queens from that point on. When I lost a colony I would replace it with a split or another removal.

When I think back to most of those that went to SC they allowed colonies to die off much like I did and they built their numbers back up with the stock that was left over. Wouldn't this inadvertently give an advantage to the stock that survived?

During the study we used queens from the same mother and they came from a run of the mill queen breeder not from a breeder that selects for SMR or hygienic stock. This would make a huge difference in the mite loads of the test hives and can easily explain why many of the beekeepers that use SC see very few mites.


----------



## beedeetee (Nov 27, 2004)

Did you buy queens or let them requeen themselves?


----------



## Billy Bob (Nov 3, 2001)

I haven't bought queens since 2005...may be earlier. 

Generally I allow them to requeen themselves including splits.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>You’ve surely considered the possibility that your success has been the product of something other than the size of your brood cells.

Of course. But since it was the only thing I changed between when I lost them all to Varroa (several times) and when I had no more losses from Varroa, I think that would be the cause. I have SINCE moved to feral stock, but at that time I had a couple of Russian hives a couple of Italians and a few Carniolans. All commercial stock.


----------



## DRUR (May 24, 2009)

Michael Bush said:


> So apparently the small cell doesn't work as advertised. I'm just not getting the extra Varroa. I'm sorry I'm such a failure...


Yes and the same for me, as I just did a count using trays with oil on screened bottom boards. I have one non regressed colony and they are the only ones that had mites (9) from evening 1 thru the morning of the 3rd day. Reckon I should go back to the 'regular' (unnatural) cells so that my other 4 colonies will at least show me some mites so I can monitor them?

By the way are 9 mites for this period of time, high?, low?, average? or what. Should I be concerned at this point.

Even worse should I be concerned that my small cells don't have any at all.


----------



## DRUR (May 24, 2009)

Billy Bob said:


> Can I assume that this was different than what you were seeing in your SC hives prior to the study? I mean, if you were having high mite populations before the study, why did you continue with the SC?
> 
> I don't count mites or mite loads. To be honest I never really have. If they died...good riddance. If they lived...congratulations.


1. Better yet why did you switch to begin with?
2. Did you treat on your small cell colonies?
3. What were your losses before you switched?
4. What were your losses after you switched?
5. How have the ferals affected your honey production?
6. If you have been having success on small cell (natural) why would return to the unnatural cells (so-called regular)?

Why in the world won't people share with others all the pertinent information for an informed decision.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

Why not requeen the small cell hives with Billy Bob's stock and see what happens and then go back to commercial stock and see what happens...


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi Danny and Everyone,

>Why in the world won't people share with others all the pertinent information for an informed >decision.

Please don't take this personal. Thanks :>)

Several on this board have been writing about and sharing their small cell experiences, both good and bad for 10 years now!

All the information is out there now. And has been for awhile.

I've repeated myself so many times concerning small cell, that when I start doing it again, I moan :>))) And I'm an old codger, who is quite adept at repeating myself in other areas without a pause. At least according to my wife. And I don't have any reason to doubt her.

That's probably why I and others, with a similar experience, have websites. It's just so much easier to refer, than it is restate everything again, much to the consternation of forum moderators.

I think it has much to do with the structure of the typical list/BBS/forum. They're very good for the immediate. But with time, information tends to disappear. Search functions alleviate some of the problems. But without a good understanding of the history, it's sometimes hard to know what to search for. Maybe Google Wave will change this somewhat.

I also think a visual mind map type interface for a Wiki would help. It appears Google Wave may implement something similar.

Until then, it will take a little work to mine those gems from the past. And that's sometimes not too easy as concurrent discussions were taking place across several groups/forums by the same individuals.

Regards
BWrangler


----------



## DRUR (May 24, 2009)

BWrangler said:


> Please don't take this personal. Thanks :>)
> 
> All the information is out there now. And has been for awhile.
> 
> ...


I was referring to more information on the aforementioned 'study' results. On several occasions several have posted derogatory statements concerning small cells, but when more information is desired for a more detailed reflection it is not forth coming.

1. I didn't take it personal, I have stared death in the face and would have welcomed it, I am not easily offended; but I do get peturbed.

2. Not the information which I requested regarding this particular study.

3. I have been to your website and found it very informative, and I want to thank you for taking the time. Again I was referring to this particular study and if a complete analysis of this study is available, why not let us know where it is. Let's not just leave it to the one bringing it forward to interpret.

4. I have 'mined' these little gems from this website using the search engine and reading the pertinent websites. I have even read studies done in Asia regarding the mites, done in consideration of the importation of Russians.

BWrangler, what peturbs me is that a completed overview of these studies should be provided, wherein one can consider the limitations. 

With kindest regards


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Sorry Danny and Everyone,

I missed the context. As some say, my bad.

So, not only do I repeat myself, ad nausium. I do it out of context! 

Now you know what my wife and friends have to put up with :>)))))

Regards
BWrangler


----------



## beedeetee (Nov 27, 2004)

Drur,

When I read post No. 1 in this thread I assumed that the study would be published soon and that he was just giving us the abstract.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

DRUR said:


> I was referring to more information on the aforementioned 'study' results.


Are you talking about the UGA study? If so, let me remind you that those published studies are copyrighted. Since abstracts are commonly released into the public domain, I wasn't concerned with copying that. On the other hand I have no intention of placing myself at legal odds with the publisher by posting their proprietary material here. You can find any of the professional entomological journals in the science library of most good sized universities.



DRUR said:


> On several occasions several have posted derogatory statements concerning small cells, but when more information is desired for a more detailed reflection it is not forth coming.


I'm not clear on which derogatory statements you're referring to.


----------



## DRUR (May 24, 2009)

beedeetee said:


> Drur,
> 
> When I read post No. 1 in this thread I assumed that the study would be published soon and that he was just giving us the abstract.


Following e-mail is from Jennifer:
"Danny,

I am behind on several deadlines. The paper is in press at this time, scheduled for release in Apidologie in Sept. I believe. There will be a pdf file on our website www.ent.uga.edu/bees as soon as it is published.
How I handled the study is in the Methods and Materials and the written analysis is in the results and discussion section. After you read the paper, any questions you have please send along.

Sorry, but I've gone over this a million times with others and am tired of re-hashing it all over again.

take care
jennifer"

So let's us please wait until the whole study has been made available. Then us laymen, we can go and tell the experts why their studies were biased and prejudice against our pre-concieved ideas. 

I wonder why everything has to be so confrontational? I personally trust the integrity of Jennifer, based upon my e-mail contacts with her and especially based upon the support given by her friends and associates, Hah, the beekeepers from Georgia. 

Thanks Jennifer for the hardwork and dedication you did on this study. I may or maynot agree with your conclusions, our logic may not agree, but my respect should not be affected by our differences.


----------



## DRUR (May 24, 2009)

beemandan said:


> I'm not clear on which derogatory statements you're referring to.


My request was made concerning Bill Owens' (aka Billy Bob) participation in the study. He states he was not going to continue using so-called 'small cell'. Read my direct requests towards him concerning statements that Bill made concerning the study. Don't take it out of context.

Dan,
Many times we make decisions based upon some logical sequence of events. I am trying to determine all the facts for his decision. I then, may or may not agree with his logic, and/or maybe his decision was made upon emotion and/or incomplete data (which then I would probably reject his conclusions). Or maybe my logic will just disagree with his, or maybe just possibly we can reach some sort of agreement on his logic. My statements were not meant as a condemnation. Ask me why I went with small cell and upon what I based that decision and I will share (as I have) that logic. 

Dan, 
I assume you are on the so-called 'standard' cell. Do you treat? If so, then we can never agree, because I WILL NOT TREAT. If I have to treat, I will find another trade and I will not consume honey. I really don't understand why 'natural cell' is so condemned by those using 'standard' cell. Do you have some reason to believe it is detrimental to beekeeping? Am I missing something here?


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

DRUR said:


> My request was made concerning Bill Owens'


From your earlier description I wasn't sure. Since you clarified it I understand. 



DRUR said:


> I really don't understand why 'natural cell' is so condemned by those using 'standard' cell. Do you have some reason to believe it is detrimental to beekeeping?


I use standard cell. I challenge you to find any statement I've ever made that condemned someone for using small cell.


----------



## DRUR (May 24, 2009)

beemandan said:


> I use standard cell.


Dan, thanks for your answer, and didn't mean to imply that you in particular did, but I can see how you got that implication. 

Just curious, do you treat? and if so, do you know of anyone using 'standard' cell size that does not?

Kindest regards


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Danny, I know you're relatively new here. This entire line of discussion has been rehashed countless times. 
I'll treat my hives as I see a need. Probably around 30%. I'll likely use ApiGuard this year. I know several traditional cell beekeepers who don't treat. 
Beyond saying that, I will not get drawn into one of those endless and useless dialogs that always seem to result.
I posted the abstracts. If I came across new studies that showed favorable results for small cell I would post those as well.


----------



## Billy Bob (Nov 3, 2001)

DRUR said:


> 1. Better yet why did you switch to begin with?
> 2. Did you treat on your small cell colonies?
> 3. What were your losses before you switched?
> 4. What were your losses after you switched?
> ...


1. Like many I switched because I refused to continue treating
2. No, I never treated my small cell, except for two years that I used FGMO.
3/4. On average about the same losses, except no treatments...I did a short spell with FGMO right after I swtiched for about 2 years then decided to stop all treatments that was around 2002/2003.
5. Honey production is about the same with the ferals. Of course I believe honey production has a large baring on colony management.
6. Have I been having success with small cell or is it the feral stock? I agree that "regular" cell size isn't natural, but is small cell? 

I'd be more apt to give the colonies a starter strip and let them build a "natural" cell size, which would vary throughout the colony.


----------



## Billy Bob (Nov 3, 2001)

Michael Bush said:


> Why not requeen the small cell hives with Billy Bob's stock and see what happens and then go back to commercial stock and see what happens...


Great idea, but that would be another study.


----------



## Billy Bob (Nov 3, 2001)

DRUR said:


> My request was made concerning Bill Owens' (aka Billy Bob) participation in the study. He states he was not going to continue using so-called 'small cell'. Read my direct requests towards him concerning statements that Bill made concerning the study. Don't take it out of context.
> 
> Dan,
> Many times we make decisions based upon some logical sequence of events. I am trying to determine all the facts for his decision.
> ...


Why should I continue to use small cell if a study has shown that it (small cell) does not control or limit mite production?...that's my logic. Why are you convenced that it is small cell controling your mite levels and not something else?

I to have never condemned anyone for the cell size they use.

One thing is for sure Danny, I believe you and I both agree that beekeepers shouldn't treat their colonies. It's something I gave up and I still believe it was one of the best decisions I have ever made within my operation.


----------



## Countryboy (Feb 15, 2009)

_Why should I continue to use small cell if a study has shown that it (small cell) does not control or limit mite production?...that's my logic. _

The study did say the small cell bees had a higher bee population, and higher bee populations mean higher honey production.

Even if someone doesn't use small cell for mite control, isn't the population boost a value?

I sometimes wonder if beekeepers are blinding ourselves to other positive benefits by only trying to look at mite control aspects of small cell.


----------



## Billy Bob (Nov 3, 2001)

Countryboy said:


> _Why should I continue to use small cell if a study has shown that it (small cell) does not control or limit mite production?...that's my logic. _
> 
> The study did say the small cell bees had a higher bee population, and higher bee populations mean higher honey production.
> 
> ...


That is a good point but the higher population was only found in one of the three studies.

Abstract
In three independently replicated field studies...In one of the studies, ending colony bee population was significantly higher in small-cell colonies (14,994 " 2494 bees) than conventional-cell (5653 " 1082).


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Billy Bob said:


> Why should I continue to use small cell if a study has shown that it (small cell) does not control or limit mite production?...that's my logic.


In my way of thinking, being on SC myself, why would I change what I'm doing if I'm at the very least having no more negative results than those on LC, despite what the study shows about mites?


----------



## Billy Bob (Nov 3, 2001)

It is not my intention to persuade anyone to change what they are doing. By all means if you believe that SC is working for you then you should continue to do what you're doing. I believe it was others that are frustrated with me because I've decided to switch back (after I run out of SC foundation). If switching bring negative results to my operation then I will gladly switch back and of course spread the word that SC is the way to go.


----------

