# what does small cell do...?



## hummingberd (Aug 26, 2006)

Hello-

New beekeeper here, and even newer to biological beekeeping. I am planning on regressing my hives in the spring. I konw that small cell is a solution to help our bees win the fight against varroa. A colony that is not being overwhelmed by varroa would naturally be less stressed than a colony that is overwhelmed by varroa. Bees that are under less stress are naturally healthier. I am wondering:

1) aside from reducing the stress in the hive, does small cell do anything to protect against other pests/diseases that affect bees?

2) In the world of bilogical beekeeping when the bees are being over run with some other disease/pest, what do bilogical beekeepers use to treat? (ie afb, efb, dyssentary, chalk brood, etc...)

Thanks for your answers, I'm sure they'll be educational!


----------



## Dave W (Aug 3, 2002)

>protect against other pests/diseases . . .
When Varroa are under control, by using SC or other means, and the bees are healthy, OTHER pest/diseases become less of a problem.

Varroa are like "the root of all evil" (along w/ money







)

>In the world of bilogical beekeeping . . .
AFB is burned, and usually everything else becomes a non-issue. 

>Educational . . .
Not really, you already knew this


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

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


----------



## hummingberd (Aug 26, 2006)

why don't more people respond to these posts? Do I need to put a picture of an organic candy bar on the subject name? I need more information. hehe


----------



## BULLSEYE BILL (Oct 2, 2002)

You are asking a question much like "How do you make a Chevrolet Impala?". There is so much to it and the subject has been talked to death around here.

Use the search engine and read what MB and Dennis Murrel has posted in their web sites and you will have the best information known at this time.


----------



## Sundance (Sep 9, 2004)

hummingberd......... BB said it well. The
search function and the sites referenced
will give you loads of info.

Have patience grasshopper.........


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

Try a search on "small cell" in the bee forum, the beekeeping 101, the disease and pests and the biological beekeeping forums. There are THOUSANDS of posts on the subject.

Then there is several chapters of information from Dee Lusby:

http://www.beesource.com/pov/lusby/index.htm


----------



## hummingberd (Aug 26, 2006)

Thanks Michael-
I have actually read through Dee Lusby's writing. Amazing info, but A LOT to absorb! I had to print it out and kind of study a little bit of it each night! I'll keep reading!

Just a quick question to the beeks who have been a part of this forum for a long while:

Do you get sick of seeing the same stuff reposted all the time? I mean, it must get annoying to answer the same question 100 times in 2 yrs...


----------



## Sundance (Sep 9, 2004)

I've only been at this a fairly short time
and I can see where the frustration comes
from seeing the same stuff over and over.

However, the folks like MB, Dennis, and so
many others step up and treat newbies with
respect and patience. Hats off to them.


----------



## Dave W (Aug 3, 2002)

>it must get annoying to answer the same question 100 times in 2 yrs... 

Every newBEE has the same questions. All of us were "new" and asked the very same questions, too.

Some of us ask because we forget








Some ask to know more.
Some just ask. 

Please, NEVER stop asking questions!


----------



## wayacoyote (Nov 3, 2003)

I didn't answer simply because I don't KNOW how, why, if it works. I only know that there are a lot of people using it and not having troubles without treatments. I'm interested in the how and why myself; but I'm content with the "if" in that it seems that it does. 

Our state apiarist in KY is known for his varroa soapbox. This year, he took a new approach and started including the disclaimer that not everyone need treat; that we should test first. I mention this because it got me to thinking: just changing to SC may not "save" my hives simply because they may not NEED saving. So, following his advice for traditional keepers, I'll test some unregressed hives against some regressed hives. Perhaps there's not that much difference in MY location at this time. My point is: if you see SC as a way to "treat" against certain problems (ie varroa) first you'll want to make sure you need it to determine if it actually effected things. 

Waya


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Do you get sick of seeing the same stuff reposted all the time?

Sick? No. Tired? Sometimes. Especially if the same question was asked yesterday.

> I mean, it must get annoying to answer the same question 100 times in 2 yrs...

More like 1000 times for some of them. That's why I put together my web site, so I wouldn't have to type out the answer every time.

If you use the search feature, it's doubtful you can come up with a question that hasn't already been asked and answered.

I'll take another stab at yours:

1) aside from reducing the stress in the hive, does small cell do anything to protect against other pests/diseases that affect bees?

Less stress is more protection. More hygienic behavior helps with virtually any brood disease.

2) In the world of bilogical beekeeping when the bees are being over run with some other disease/pest, what do bilogical beekeepers use to treat? (ie afb, efb, dyssentary, chalk brood, etc...)

I do not treat. I have not seen them overwelmed by any of those. i have seen a bit of dysentary in the spring sometimes. I've seen a little chalk brood in the spring sometimes. They clear up on their own.

http://www.bushfarms.com/beespests.htm#nosema
http://www.bushfarms.com/beespests.htm#chalkbrood
http://www.bushfarms.com/beespests.htm#efb
http://www.bushfarms.com/beespests.htm#afb
http://www.bushfarms.com/beespests.htm#pfb
http://www.bushfarms.com/beespests.htm#sacbrood
http://www.bushfarms.com/beespests.htm#waxmoths
http://www.bushfarms.com/beespests.htm#varroa
http://www.bushfarms.com/beespests.htm#tracheal
http://www.bushfarms.com/beespests.htm


----------



## hummingberd (Aug 26, 2006)

wow michael- I think you gave me the answer I was looking for from someone who actually has experience with small cell, rather than someone speculating.

wayacoyote- 
you bring up a good point, but I think the idea of small cell is that you are trying to keep varroa populations under control so that they don't become a problem. I have never read anyone supporting small cell claim that it gets rid of all of the varroa. What I gather it does do is decrease the population to manageable numbers through many different "vehicles" I have been doing lots of searches on small cell posts done on the forum. Great suggestion. Lots of info there. Thanks everyone!


----------



## wayacoyote (Nov 3, 2003)

Hummingberd,
You're absolutely correct. I too understand that it is supposed to suppress the varroa in such a way as the bees can co-exist on some level. Won't this be nice? However, I still don't understand the "why" and "how", only that many report that it does. Often, what I read about the "why" and "how" contradicts one another.
Waya


----------



## drobbins (Jun 1, 2005)

Waya,

I've read a bunch of stuff about SC
from what I understand there are two hypothesis for how it works
one is that it shortens the brood cycle of the bee
the mites brood cycle is closely connected to the bees brood cycle and shortening the bees brood cycle pretty clearly is a disadvantage for the mites
MB has documented this shortened brood cycle in the bees in an observation hive and I plan to verify it this spring when my first year observation hive starts raising brood again
there is also some research that suggests that the smaller cell simply leaves less room for the mites to breed in, they lay their eggs in one part of the cell and when the young hatch they have to move to a feeding site and then have to move around to mate
less room in the cell hampers this activity
none of this is proven, it's all kind of speculation, but the outcome seems to be bees that can handle the mites
anyway, just my crude understanding of what's supposed to be going on
now, somebody tell me I'm wrong and expand on this subject









Dave


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

The third aspect is that they appear to be more hygenic on small cell. More chewing out of larvae is observed as is grooming and mite biting. Why? I don't have any clue.


----------



## wfarler (Jul 9, 2003)

>from what I understand there are two hypothesis for how it works
one is that it 

the third is that the smaller amount of jelly in a 4.9 worker cell serves as less of an attractant to the varroa. I believe someone established a relationship between the stronger scent from greater volume of jelly in the drone cells and the greater attraction to the female mite.

I hadn't seen anywhere about chewing out behavior having anything to do with cell size but is instead a set of traits than can be selected for. Have you seen any research along those lines?

Last spring I establish 4 NUC's with SMR queen on small cell - figured I'd see if it was synergistic. Too early too tell - usually takes 2 years to see how the varroa reacts.

[ January 14, 2007, 04:03 PM: Message edited by: wfarler ]


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

It has also been stated (by Dennis) that much of the impact is also related to new (clean) comb which is drawn out at each stage of the regression resulting in a clean brood nest.


----------



## drobbins (Jun 1, 2005)

Joel

I think if you read Dennis's stuff you'll see he thinks many advantageous things are attributed to clean wax but that the mite resistance has to do with cell size
at least that's what I got from it

Dennis, chime in









Dave


----------



## wayacoyote (Nov 3, 2003)

wfarler,
I remember something like that too. Seems like they also thought that the proportion of cell-wall height to cell width also effected the attractiveness of a cell to a varroa might play a roll. But they only postulated that. Whatever that juvenile hormone is called, I'm curious on its ability to attract varroa and how much less a SC worker has than a LC worker, if it is significant. 

I'd be interested, strongly interested in any research papers in this area.
Waya


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

1) aside from reducing the stress in the hive, does small cell do anything to protect against other pests/diseases that affect bees?

I was addressing this question


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>1) aside from reducing the stress in the hive, does small cell do anything to protect against other pests/diseases that affect bees?

Shorter capping and post capping times are bound to take a toll on Varroa. Dee Lusby actually started regressing back in 1983 because of Tracheal mites and AFB issues. One can argue whether the small cell did the trick or whether she just bred AFB and Tracheal mite resistant bees, but one way or the other the problems went away without treatments and without burning the hives.


----------



## JWG (Jun 25, 2004)

Swedish researcher Mia Davidsson studied varroa reproduction in cells of 640, 770 and 900 cells per dm2 and states:
"The results do not indicate that the reproduction of mites was substantially influenced by cell size on worker bee brood." 

No difference could be found in postcapping stages between the cell sizes. There was a tendency to smaller bees in smaller cells. There were significant diffrerences between cell sizes in offspring composition but the result do not indicate that the reproduction of mites was substantially influenced by cell size on worker bee brood. 

http://beeman.se/research/cell.htm


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi Guys,

>Do you get sick....

Just like Michael, I don't get sick of sharing. But I'm sure some get sick of reading the same old stuff from me ;>) And like Michael, I do get tired of the typing. But not as tired as Michael at 24006!

Time considerations were a major factor for building my website. And I limit my active participation to just a couple of bee groups. I used to participate in most of them. And I would spend three hours a day typing to most of the same people, about the same things, in multiple locations.

>what do biological beekeepers use to treat....

I don't know as I haven't had to treat for any disease since the initial stages of getting my bees on small cell. Had all the diseases excepting small hive beetle before going with small cell.

Here's an interesting incident.

I attended the state beekeepers convention. The membership is 99% large commercial beekeepers. One of them stands up and relates this incident:

He moved a yard into a new area and quickly found AFB in the hives. He noticed a farmer had another unregistered beeyard down the road. The farmer didn't treat his hives. So, he called the state inspectors and requested they inspect the farmers yard. It was obviously the source of his AFB.

The inspectors went through the farmers hives and didn't find a trace of any disease. As the AFB continued to spread in the commercial yard, the comm beek insisted the farmers yard be inspected again. So, in comes the state. No disease is found. 

This process was repeated another three times throughout the season. The last time, the state found a hive with a few cells of AFB. Since the farmer wasn't treating his hives, they burned it.

The commercial guy chastised those ignorant, non-treating beekeepers and used this incident of an example of the threat they pose to the commercial interests. And all the commercial beeks said Amen!

I about fell out of my chair! Where do you think the AFB came from? It was the last and only meeting I've attended. But I've talked with other comm beeks in the area and they see my beekeeping in the same light.

Now it's quite interesting that I don't treat and don't have any problems. They treat and have all the problems. And I'm seen by some as the source of their trouble!

Regards
Dennis


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

Well here we are in the same old quandry, anecdotal information vs scientific studies.

JWG-the report appears to show Varroa worse in all categories of small cell except protonymph. What is the impact of the protonymph stage, why would it be so much lower in small cell.

{Shorter capping and post capping times are bound to take a toll on Varroa.}

MB, where does this information come from?

Several reputible beekeeprs running small cell are seeing a positve, measurable result of their practices, others, Bob Russell for example, have not. I think a comparison of those doing it successfully to those not (ie breed,numbers of hives,isolation factors, other?) may reveal there are some other combination of factors that may be impacting disease and pest and that is not small cell in itself but the mangement to obtain and mange small cell that gets results.

I would suggest if we could map the common successful management strategies we could end the dispute on small cell by realizing it's not the just the size of the cell it's a combination of small cell management factors excercised over a period of time.

[ January 15, 2007, 11:20 AM: Message edited by: Joel ]


----------



## spunky (Nov 14, 2006)

Err I thought it was bees that reverted to natural size comb, that was " clean " free of pesticides, that had allogromming and autogrooming tendencies,steady, and good pollen and nectar flow and an observant, insightful beekeeper whom produce the best  


It took me about 3 weeks to understand the difference between small and natural cell. Thanks to the patient people on this forum


----------



## drobbins (Jun 1, 2005)

if you go to this page on Dennis's site

http://bwrangler.litarium.com/a-i-root-and-cell-size/

and go half way down the page, there's a scanned image of a page from ABC/XYZ that converts from cells/sq. decimeter to cell size the way we discuss it
the smallest cell size mentioned in the study JWG point to is 5.06 mm which is NOT small enough to derive the benefits the SC folks claim
I don't know the answer in this discussion but I'm conducting my own experiment and should be able to leave some hives untreated next fall

Dave


----------



## JWG (Jun 25, 2004)

Sharp observation, Dave. The cells in the study were not SC, unlike those in the other nordic one at http://www.beesource.com/pov/johnsen/bcmay2005.htm
Thanks for the link.

Anyone happen to know what the cell size was in the anti-varroa ANP inserts marketed years ago? 

J


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>>{Shorter capping and post capping times are bound to take a toll on Varroa.}

>MB, where does this information come from?

The observations of a number of people including François Huber and me.

It's easily measured and easily replicated. All you need is an observation hive, some small cell comb (easily made by wax coating PermaComb or using Honey Super Cell), something to mark the cells on the glass as the queen lays in them and a notebook to note the date and times. Mark down when they are capped and when they emerge.

Others on Beesource have done it with the same results. Here's Huber's observations on natural cell size (he had no foundation):

Keep in mind that on the 1st day no time has elapsed and on the 20th 19 days have elapsed. If you have doubts about this add up the elapsed time he refers to. It adds up to 18 ½ days.

"The worm of workers passes three days in the egg, five in the vermicular state, and then the bees close up its cell with a wax covering. The worm now begins spinning its cocoon, in which operation thirty-six hours are consumed. In three days, it changes to a nymph, and passes six days in this form. It is only on the twentieth day of its existence, counting from the moment the egg is laid, that it attains the fly state."

François Huber 4 September 1791.

http://www.bushfarms.com/huber.htm#eggtoadult


----------



## JWG (Jun 25, 2004)

DRobbins wrote:
"and go half way down the page, there's a scanned image of a page from ABC/XYZ that converts from cells/sq. decimeter to cell size the way we discuss itthe smallest cell size mentioned in the study JWG point to is 5.06 mm which is NOT small enough to derive the benefits the SC folks claim"

The size in question, from the Swedish study, is 900 cells/dm^2. 

In one of the SC articles, Dee wrote:
"By the way, the 900 cell size range would place foundation in the range of 4.7mm, which would be the feral size for the sea coast of the USA Gulf port states. We calculate 4.7mm as the beginning of the range, of comb cell sizes in the USA, with 4.9mm average in a major part of the USA below 3500 feet above sea-level, and 5.0mm to 5.1mm the top of the range by our own latitudinal plotting of feral comb cell sizes by latitude and altitude. "

This makes it sound like 900 cells per square dm yields 4.7 mm size and not 5.06mm. Is there a difference in measurement technique?

[ January 19, 2007, 09:27 PM: Message edited by: JWG ]


----------



## Edward G (Aug 26, 2006)

As I continue to read through the debate about small cell comb, I think it's interesting to consider what makes a particular observation "scientific," and thereby "reliable information."

Are scientific observations only valid if they are made by people with PhD's? Are scientific observations only valid if they are published in university journals?

Did Langstroth have a PhD in entomology?

Just a thought. 

Ed G.


----------



## Riki (Jan 31, 2007)

I've read JWG post and went on calculations: my result for 900/dm² was 5,6056mm.

Henrique


----------



## chinitoe (Dec 10, 2006)

Sir MB,

How many hives do you have on SC ?


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

"'Shorter capping and post capping times are bound to take a toll on Varroa.' [-Michael Bush]

MB, where does this information come from?" -Joel

I think I missed something here. I thought Joel was asking where the information that shorter development times affected Varroa came from, not that development rates differ.

From what is being claimed here, I have to assume Varroa have some lower threshold; development rates faster than some threshold do not permit Varroa to survive on the brood. Again, from what has been claimed here, that threshold seems to lie somewhere in the range of development rates for workers (the range for workers is roughly 18 to 22 days; drones -- which Varroa seem to prefer -- take about 24 days to develop). So, logically, then, Varroa should be completely unable to complete their development on queens (15 to 16 days to develop).


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

<Are scientific observations only valid if they are published in university journals>

There is no such thing as a university journal. That is simply not how the peer review process works.


----------



## drobbins (Jun 1, 2005)

Kieck,

you have to understand the varroa reproduction cycle
it's something like this
the mite enters the cell just before it's capped
after it's capped, she lays an egg which becomes a male mite
every 30 hours of so after that she lays an egg that will become a female
only the male and the first one or two females will have time to mature, the rest die
so, for arguments sake lets say 2 of the females mature and survive
you cut the post capping time by a day or two and now only one female has time to mature and survives
you just cut your mite load in half 
from this same logic you can see why they prefer drones
don't take my description as truth since I'm pulling it from memory, detailed descriptions of the mite reproduction cycle are easy to find

>So, logically, then, Varroa should be completely unable to complete their development on queens (15 to 16 days to develop).
true, but they can still parasitize her in the cell

Dave

[edit]if you have broadband this is pretty good

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7304562435786960616

[ February 09, 2007, 03:56 PM: Message edited by: drobbins ]


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>How many hives do you have on SC ?

I have around 50 most of the time. If you count mating nucs I get up around 100 and if you count the low point in spring, I get down around 40 or less sometimes.

Dee Lusby has around 1000.

Drobbins pretty much covered the mite reproduction cycle. Except when you get the cell capped a day sooner there are about half as many Varroa in the cell to start with, and then, the ones that are in the cell, have half the offspring. Then there is the question whether the male mite gets around as well or gets trapped in a tighter cell and doesn't manage to mate. I don't know how to easily measure this, but I'd love to know if it's true. We know they sometimes do. The question is whether this happens any more often with small cell.


----------



## drobbins (Jun 1, 2005)

>Except when you get the cell capped a day sooner there are about half as many Varroa in the cell to start with

Michael,

where do you get this info?
the problem caused for the mites after the cell is capped are pretty obvious but I don't understand why a shorter pre-capping time would effect them
wouldn't they just enter the cell earlier?
I suspect this would have something to do with pheremones
do you have anything that supports it?

Dave


----------



## JWG (Jun 25, 2004)

I find it surprising that using naturally built combs (or leaving a big gap for drone cells at the bottom of foundation, a la Dee) would not result in more drone brood than there would be if full worker sheets were used.

More drone brood --> more varroa reproduction. Which it seems would do away with any benefit gained from a reduction in varroa reproduction in the worker brood. 

I get the idea that there is only a percentage of the brood nest built of drone cells, "naturally" but that would suggest that there is also a fixed number of worker cells built naturally by a colony for brood rearing. The "core" brood combs. Going by this, a double or triple brood chamber far exceeds the core requirements. 

It is easy to get small colonies or nucs to build worker cells sans foundation. But they soon get beyond x number of combs and start in on the drone /storage combs.

Using the equivalent of a double deep brood chamber, there would certainly be a lot of drone/storage comb if all natural combs were built. The queen in my experience would gladly fill much of this with drone brood, and if it were not removed somehow, the mites would proliferate.

On the other hand, if full sheets of SC were used, would this not be preferable, since the combs would be almost all worker cells, and the benefits of both SC and multiple brood chambers (yielding large worker populations) could be realized. 

Sorry if I'm missing something major here...?


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>but I don't understand why a shorter pre-capping time would effect them wouldn't they just enter the cell earlier?

They enter immediately before it's capped. If you cap it sooner less get in. I've seen research on this, but I don't have the links to it anymore. I had them three computers ago...

The estimates from the research were that the number of mites infesting the cell were cut in HALF if the precapping time was cut by EIGHT HOURS. 4.9mm cuts it by about 24 hours.

>The queen in my experience would gladly fill much of this with drone brood, and if it were not removed somehow, the mites would proliferate.

But the research shows that they will raise the same number of drones no matter how much or how little the amount of drone cells. So in the end it makes no difference.

(Levin, C.G. and C.H. Collison. 1991. The production and distribution of drone comb and brood in honey bee (Apis mellifera L.) colonies as affected by freedom in comb construction. BeeScience 1: 203-211.)


----------



## hummingberd (Aug 26, 2006)

now this is a discussion! I'm gonna have to read it about 10 more times to catch up...I'll respond later, hehe


----------



## hummingberd (Aug 26, 2006)

"Just like Michael, I don't get sick of sharing. But I'm sure some get sick of reading the same old stuff from me ;>) And like Michael, I do get tired of the typing. But not as tired as Michael at 24006!"

Yeah Michael, watch out I'm catching up! 88, 89, 90...

"Now it's quite interesting that I don't treat and don't have any problems. They treat and have all the problems. And I'm seen by some as the source of their trouble!"

Exactly! Some of the most unhealthy PEOPLE I know are the ones who use all sorts of medications to make them "better" and though I've been chastised for comparing bees and humans, no matter what the species, the way you live, and the environment you live in catches up to you one way or another! That is a basic principle










I think anyway...


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>where do you get this info?
the problem caused for the mites after the cell is capped are pretty obvious but I don't understand why a shorter pre-capping time would effect them
wouldn't they just enter the cell earlier?

The mites entering the cell and hiding from the bees capping it has to happen before it gets capped. If it gets capped a day earlier many miss that opportunity. I don't have the citations, but Harbo has done a lot of research on both shorter pre capping and post capping times. The mathematical models I've seen predict that 8 hours shorter pre capping times would stabilize the Varroa population.


----------

