# SMALL CELL/NATURAL CELL any CONS??



## Ben Brewcat (Oct 27, 2004)

Well I'll offer one data point. I've sure liked going to natural cell. I did try a few small cell foundations, but the comb in my experience was drawn more quickly and more accurately with no foundation or just a starter strip. My only regret was in using wired foundation in the first place, now cutting those deeps down to mediums will require an added step to cut the wires if I want to keep the comb.

The only drawback I've seen to small cell is the cost of the foundation itself. Those websites can direct you in the process of regression which is pretty straightforward. Natural cell the only problem MIGHT be crazy comb if you didn't use starter strips maybe? I've had no problems whatsoever. Honey supers you might consider how not having wires affects extracting strength.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

You've already read my opinion. But I see no downside. I'm buying Mann Lake PF120s now and they are 4.95mm and cost $.99 ea and that's the frame and foundation. Or foundationless works nicely too.


----------



## Keith Benson (Feb 17, 2003)

Michael Bush said:


> You've already read my opinion. But I see no downside. I'm buying Mann Lake PF120s now and they are 4.95mm and cost $.99 ea and that's the frame and foundation. Or foundationless works nicely too.


Just wondering, if you like foundationless as much as you seem to, why bother buying the PF120"s at all? 

Keith


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

golddust-twins said:


> I'm starting to make my plans for this next spring and before I make my final decision to go small/natural cell I have some questions. I have been reading various websites that are pro small/natural cell. My questions are: Are there any cons to going small cell? Has anyone changed to small cell and wish they had not? What are the hassles in changing? If you have a website with pro or con info please send it to me.
> 
> The websites I have been reading are:
> Michael Bush http://www.bushfarms.com/beesnaturalcell.htm
> ...



I have both. I just always try to point out that small cell and natural cell are two different things. Smallcell is not natural cell, no matter how many times that is repeated in error.

Try both. Experience as much as you can. Play around with options. Beekeeping should be fun and educational. Don't lock yourself into a box, or have unreal expectations. Enjoy.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

golddust-twins said:


> My questions are: Are there any cons to going small cell? Has anyone changed to small cell and wish they had not? What are the hassles in changing?


I know that I'm going to get a load of squawking from the pro small cell crowd and I don't plan to engage in a never ending debate with them. I'm only going to report my experience. I hope that those who disagree with me will accept that there is room for disagreement.

some small cell cons, in my experience:
a)Not every colony of bees regresses easily (or even at all). I have one that absolutely refuse to produce brood in 5.1mm. I have a number of them that managed 5.1 just fine but do a miserable job of drawing 4.9. After the first season on 4.9 (following a season on 5.1) I've culled about 20% of my first season 4.9 because of excessive drone or mangled cells.
b)I haven't seen any reduction in varroa counts after converting.
c)Those colonies that have successfully regressed have not shown any improvements in production.

My opinion is that small cell (4.9mm) may be a natural size for AHB and a few races of European bees. For a sizeable percentage of honey bees managed in this country, I believe, small cell is not natural. Forcing those bees to reproduce in unnaturally small cells, I believe, adds unnecessary stress to the colony. Jennifer Berry has commented that in one of her study yards a number of colonies showed signs of EFB. ALL of the diseased colonies were small cell. This may be one result of that unnecessary stress. 

I consider the conversion of many of my hives to small cell an experiment. I don't regret it but knowing what I do today I wouldn't do it again. I also wouldn't recommend it for new beekeepers. 

On the subject of natural cell. I hope to have an opinion this time next year.

Regards to all


----------



## spunky (Nov 14, 2006)

*cons*

This year I am going with the Mann lake plastic frames/foundation in both medium and deeps.
I am going to alternate starter strips with the foundation and use a non small cell queen, but with small cell workers-- see what jives. I have 1 small cell hive, 2 natural cell hives . 

I like bees that make alot of honey. My yard is isolated, so with the v mites I will see what gives. 07' was my first year so to early to tell


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

*Small cell v natural cell*

Small cell is no more natural than large cell.

Forcing bees to build in cells of any one size - be they 4.9mm or 5.7mm or anything in between - contradicts innumerable observations than bees prefer to build comb of varying sizes, depending on the season and according to rules to which we are not privy.

Getting hidebound in this or that theory that bees need ANY single size of cell is a dead end IMO.

Human theories have done what, exactly for the health of natural world? 

USE YOUR EYES AND LET THE BEES TELL YOU WHAT THEY NEED.


----------



## golddust-twins (Sep 8, 2007)

Thanks to everyone who has given me their experience and/or opinion so far.

Michael: >You've already read my opinion. But I see no downside.

Michael do you think or have you experienced problems regressing with a specific race of bee. The bees I have were a package of Italians I purchased in '06. Do you think regressing these bees would pose a problem?

BejornBee: >I just always try to point out that small cell and natural cell are two different things. Smallcell is not natural cell, no matter how many times that is repeated in error.

Yes, I understand this and plan to experiment. I now see there are more options than what I was first taught the first season with my bees.

BejornBee: >Don't lock yourself into a box, or have unreal expectations.

BejornBee, What would be unreal expectations? PS I like your smoker on e-bay and the pollen patties....yummmm 

beemandan, Thank you for the candid post on your experience. If you think of anything else let me know. I am taking everything into consideration. These experiences are what I need to know.

thanks again,
Corinne


----------



## golddust-twins (Sep 8, 2007)

buckbee said:


> Small cell is no more natural than large cell.
> 
> Forcing bees to build in cells of any one size - be they 4.9mm or 5.7mm or anything in between - contradicts innumerable observations than bees prefer to build comb of varying sizes, depending on the season and according to rules to which we are not privy.
> 
> ...


Thank you buckbee, so are you saying natural cell would be a prefered cell?

thanks,
Corinne


----------



## Ben Brewcat (Oct 27, 2004)

Well that's certainly true. However if one had small cell frames, they could then introduce foundationless frames on the edge of the broodnest which would be drawn with drone comb. These could be cut out periodically as part of an IPM varroa control strategy. Certainly the bees will make drone comb SOMEwhere, and if they have no outlet (if their colony is all small cell) it'll get messy. Small cell is theoretically based on the average cell size of natural worker brood comb, and mine has been drawn to about 4.9 very consistently. Drone and honey cells are of course different.


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

IMO, always.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

BjornBee said:


> Try both. Experience as much as you can. Play around with options. Beekeeping should be fun and educational. Don't lock yourself into a box, or have unreal expectations. Enjoy.


Wow! Bjorn, is that you?


----------



## Bizzybee (Jan 29, 2006)

It's reason for the season Barry!  Think happy thoughts!!!

I gotta agree with yaw on the natural cell. Letting the bees do their thing is what I like to see most. Forcing them on anything more unnatural than the houses we give them already can't be a good thing for them.

I do know that I get a range of cells on the natural cell and see bees produced in different sizes throughout the year. When they are smaller or larger I haven't really tried to nail down. I really just took notice to it this year and will be watching a little closer in the coming year. But I do believe that I recall some of the writings from the feral folks about the bees using larger or smaller cell sizes for the brood at different times of the year.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Just wondering, if you like foundationless as much as you seem to, why bother buying the PF120"s at all? 

Because I'd have to buy a frame, cut it down to make the bevel and then assemble it and I'd have about the same money in it as the PF120's. The reason I bought a bunch of them is because I'm cheap and I'm lazy. I have a lot of both.

>Michael do you think or have you experienced problems regressing with a specific race of bee.

Not particularly. Certainly some just build small cell right out of a package, which leads me to believe they were on Pierco or some other intermediate size (5.2 to 5.35 for various Pierco products). But certainly genetics may play a part. It certainly plays a part for burr and misdrawn comb. Comb drawing seems to be partially genetics.

> The bees I have were a package of Italians I purchased in '06. Do you think regressing these bees would pose a problem?

I have not had any that wouldn't regress, but some do it on the first shot and some take two or three turnovers of the comb.


----------



## golddust-twins (Sep 8, 2007)

Michael Bush said:


> > Certainly some just build small cell right out of a package, which leads me to believe they were on Pierco or some other intermediate size (5.2 to 5.35 for various Pierco products).


Interesting because my bees have been on Pierco 5.2 for the past year and a half. 

Thanks, 
Corinne


----------



## summer1052 (Oct 21, 2007)

<Raising hand timidly in the back row>

Time for a silly new bee question. 

Um, does 'Natural Cell' mean 'Foundationless' ? As in, let the bees build their own comb with only a starter strip, a la a TBH? Can you extract honey from that? Or am I totally confused? (Very possible.  )

TIA
Summer


----------



## Sundance (Sep 9, 2004)

You are right Tia. Natural cell is drawn down (or up sometimes) with a starter strip or a tapered wooden piece in the top groove.

If you are looking to extract then personally I would wire for sure to ensure stability. The bees will draw around the wire and integrate it into the comb.


----------



## Keith Benson (Feb 17, 2003)

Michael Bush said:


> >Just wondering, if you like foundationless as much as you seem to, why bother buying the PF120"s at all?
> 
> Because I'd have to buy a frame, cut it down to make the bevel and then assemble it and I'd have about the same money in it as the PF120's. The reason I bought a bunch of them is because I'm cheap and I'm lazy. I have a lot of both.
> 
> ...


----------



## Ross (Apr 30, 2003)

I'd love to try the PF120's, but the shipping makes it a non-starter. It suddenly becomes much more expensive than beveling top bars.


----------



## Hobie (Jun 1, 2006)

Ben Brewcat said:


> However if one had small cell frames, they could then introduce foundationless frames on the edge of the broodnest which would be drawn with drone comb.


This is true... but not limited to this scenario. I had a hive on standard (LC) foundation. I've been hoping to ease over to foundationless, and last year was experimenting with putting foundationless frames in different positions. In one shallow, I put 4 foundationless frames adjacent to each other in the center of the box. The bees drew 4 frames of drone comb.

Go figure.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Um, does 'Natural Cell' mean 'Foundationless' ?

Yes.

> As in, let the bees build their own comb with only a starter strip, a la a TBH?

Yes.

> Can you extract honey from that?

Yes.

> Or am I totally confused?

Apparently not.


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi Guys,

When the bees are released from the foundation jail, they will attempt to build a natural broodnest. If a few empty frames are inserted into a hive with all worker sized comb, they will make up for the imbalance by constructing drone comb.

In a natural broodnest, the bees will build about the same amount of drone comb as they do small cell sized comb. It's just located in different portions of the broodnest. But somehow they can determine when they have enough of each.

The how is a very interesting question. Does a natural broodnest have a certain resonance? Do varied cell sizes emit some pheromone at different rates and a natural broodnest have a certain smell? How does a colony come to a consensus for drawing comb? Looking at the work done on swarming decisions, the process is probably very simple as bees are very simple creatures. But so far, it's beyond us.

Regards
Dennis


----------



## MichaelW (Jun 1, 2005)

Ross said:


> beveling top bars.


I introduced over 150 frames into 5 hives this spring by turning the wedge in the wedge bar frames up on its end, brad nailing it in place, and waxing the edge. This has to be way easier than beveling the top bars and you can still use the frame for foundation in the future if you wish. It worked fine and about the same as putting in starter strips cut from plastic foundation.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

BWrangler said:


> as bees are very simple creatures.


I was largely in agreement with you until this statement.


----------



## Ben Brewcat (Oct 27, 2004)

MichaelW, that's inspired. I like it!


----------



## James Fischer (Nov 19, 2007)

Three questions that I've never gotten an answer to, for anyone who
wants to answer:

1) If larger foundation resulted in a larger bee, why haven't bees in
Central and South America remained "small cell", given that 
foundation has never been commonly used in these areas? 
What "upsized" these bees?

2) Same question as (1), except as applied to other locations
where foundation has never been affordable, which means
most of the so-called "3rd World Nations". I'll toss out
the entire Caribbean as a good example, as I know quite
a few beekeepers on the string of islands that starts 
with Jamaica at the Northwest, and ends up at 
Trinidad and Tobago at the Southeast. (Bahamian 
beekeepers do tend to use foundation.)

Questions (1) and (2) are intended to nail down what is "natural"
versus what might have been influenced by man by introducing
areas where bees were never subjected to such influences.

3) Has anyone ever asked anyone who works in the field of
genetics about the "smaller cell results in shorter
capping times" question? 

Question (3) is intended to subject the most commonly-offered
mechanism claimed to be the factor that controls varroa to the
scrutiny that any other trait would be subjected to in beekeeping.


----------



## MichaelW (Jun 1, 2005)

Good questions James. Are you any relation to Jim?

The biggest con with foundationless is that when its time to super, hives with foundation move up faster than boxes with one to three drawn frames and empty frames beside them. I discovered this after building up 5 hives with foundation and 5 hives without foundation this past season. In the beggining the foundationless hives out "drew" the hives with foundation. But as soon as I began supering the hives, the foundation hives out "drew" the foundationless ones. These where "3 medium" hives.

The second con with foundationless is that towards the middle to end of the honey flow you get lots of honey comb frames drawn that can only be used for honey storage or drone rearing in the future. This can be problematic depending on your needs.

Early in the season, sticking an empty frame with some sort of guide in the middle or edge of the broodnest gets nice comb drawn very quickly. Some of it will be drone comb, but you need drones to mate queens. Most beekeepers rear queens whether they realize that or not.


----------



## taipantoo (Nov 9, 2007)

BWrangler said:


> The how is a very interesting question. Does a natural broodnest have a certain resonance?


This reminds me of something I Googled last winter/spring.
It was a link from another link, so I am having trouble finding it again.
It was an article of a man who built some state-of-the-art electronic monitoring equipment for one his hives.
State-of-the-art for that time, maybe in the 50's or early 60's, would be amature hobbyist stuff today.
He claimed to have been able to garner some very interesting information about his bees, for instance, when they were thinking about swarming or when they were very agitated, etc.
Does anyone here recall a similar article or have a link?

Thanks in advance.


----------



## dcross (Jan 20, 2003)

Apidictor?

http://www.beesource.com/plans/apidictor.htm


----------



## Hobie (Jun 1, 2006)

BWrangler said:


> ...as bees are very simple creatures.





beemandan said:


> I was largely in agreement with you until this statement.


I took that statement to mean "simple" in the same way people decide to "live the simple life." Bees just being what they are without excess baggage and hidden agendas.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

*simple is as simple does?!*



Hobie said:


> Bees just being what they are without excess baggage and hidden agendas.


I dunno, Hobie. I think my take was simpler.


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> Good questions James. Are you any relation to Jim?

I'm the same guy.

I'm was having problems posting successfully, and created
a test account to verify that the problem was unique to
the specific account rather than the web-browser and OS.


----------



## MichaelW (Jun 1, 2005)

ah! I knew it couldn't be a coincidence! Good way to test the problem.


----------



## drobbins (Jun 1, 2005)

> 3) Has anyone ever asked anyone who works in the field of
> genetics about the "smaller cell results in shorter
> capping times" question?


I've never seen any suggestion this had anything to do with genetics
if you spend a year or two getting bees on SC comb you clearly haven't changed their genetics
you've changed their environment
what's your point?
last year my bees in my observation hive appeared to this novice to have a shorter post-capping time than what's suggested in the literature and that's in the winter (when things tend to be slowed down not speeded up)
sadly, my OH is empty now due to the crappy (drought) summer making me reluctant to steal resources to stock it (they absconded last summer)
more experiments next year

Dave


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> I've never seen any suggestion this had anything to do with genetics

That's why I suggested that asking might be worthwhile.
Its been years since this claim has been offered, and I'm
tired of biting my tongue and waiting for someone else to
suggest it. 

> if you spend a year or two getting bees on SC comb you clearly 
> haven't changed their genetics you've changed their environment

I agree completely with the statement above.

> what's your point?

I'll be even more clear, but I fear you won't like it one bit.

The point is that the entire "shorter capping time" explanation for 
how small cell "works" is based upon a misunderstanding, one that 
does not stand up to even a cursory examination of the genetic 
basis for gestational development time, which goes all the way 
down to each organism's cellular level.

> last year my bees in my observation hive appeared to this novice 
> to have a shorter post-capping time 

If you track the time with hourly photos (a webcam and some of
the shareware/freeware programs for "security camera" applications
will do this with ease) between egg laying and emergence for
a decent number of cells, you will find that the data describes
exactly what one would expect - a bell curve, with some cells
taking less time, some more, but most within the timeframe 
listed in the textbooks. There have always been bees that
emerge "earlier" and "later", and the distribution of time is
"normal", meaning within the usual bell curve limits, which is
why they call it a "normal distribution".

Now, one could claim that a smaller bee simply needs less cells
than a larger one, but one must recall that undernourished bees
are also smaller than they might otherwise have been, yet they
don't tend to fall on the "shorter time" end of the distribution of
development times simply because they are smaller bees.

Yes, AHB do have a shorter worker development time, and it is
a genetic difference, one that shows the millions of years that
honeybees have had to diverge into distinct races of bees.

To claim that a smaller comb cell size could have effects that
have impact on the cellular development that drives the whole
process of bee development (egg-larvae-pupae-bee) is to defy
most of biology in one sweeping statement. To not know about
or have forgotten the cellular basis for the growth of living 
things (the growth of a cell, the splitting of cells into two, the
time required for such growth, and so on) is perhaps understandable, 
but becomes more and more annoying in direct relation to the 
shrillness and volume level with which the claims are made in 
support of the contention.

If one sees an overall shorter development time in one's bees, does 
this indicate that one has bees with AHB genetics? Its not my place 
to say, as the answer could be viewed as an accusation, but this is
yet another question that should be asked to someone whose 
credentials are impeccable, and has actually studied the issue.

So don't debate me - go ask a biology major who works in
the field of science or education. They are not hard to find.


----------



## MichaelW (Jun 1, 2005)

There's been a series of experiments and work to breed bees with shorter capping times, through genetics. It worked, but apparently doesn't work good enough, or other methods of hygienic breeding, etc. work better. Or maybe no one has pushed it far enough for many to take notice.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>The point is that the entire "shorter capping time" explanation for
how small cell "works" is based upon a misunderstanding, one that
does not stand up to even a cursory examination of the genetic
basis for gestational development time, which goes all the way
down to each organism's cellular level.

Actually it's based on simple measured observations, which drobbins and several others have duplicated.

>Yes, AHB do have a shorter worker development time, and it is
a genetic difference, one that shows the millions of years that
honeybees have had to diverge into distinct races of bees.

And you know of AHB put on large cell comb and measured the capping and post capping times? This would be easily proven or disproven if you had some AHB available, but I don't know of anyone who has done that experiment.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

drobbins said:


> last year my bees in my observation hive appeared to this novice to have a shorter post-capping time than what's suggested in the literature and that's in the winter (when things tend to be slowed down not speeded up)


I can't imagine that forcing bees to emerge prematurely by limiting their developmental space could possibly be healthy for the bees. If there is any positive effect of using small cell.....that aint it.

If you want to hang your hat on a possibly plausable concept you should consider the idea that less free space in the cell might limit the movement of female and male mites, restricting their ability to mate. 

I think you should give up on the shorter emergence idea....


----------



## taipantoo (Nov 9, 2007)

beemandan said:


> I was largely in agreement with you until this statement.


I think what he meant was that there is simplicity in what the bees do, not that they are simple creatures.
The things that bees do are very complex, but they do not have 25 different ways to do the same thing, hence the simplicity.

If I'm wrong, I apologize, but I think I understand the statement and the disagreement to the statement.


----------



## taipantoo (Nov 9, 2007)

dcross said:


> Apidictor?
> 
> http://www.beesource.com/plans/apidictor.htm


Yes, that was it.
I only got to briefly browse it and thought that I had bookmarked it, but I guess I didn't.

Thank you very much.


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi Jim and Everyone,

>1) If larger foundation resulted in a larger bee, why haven't bees in
>Central and South America remained "small cell",...What "upsized" these bees?

>2) Same question as (1), except as applied to other locations
>where foundation has never been affordable,....

I've wondered the same. My comb measurements indicate cell size isn't an either or proposition.

Upsizing bees wasn't a popular idea here, but was attempted in some parts of Europe. In an experiment, bees that had been upsized were allowed to build natural comb. After 3 generations without foundation, those bees built the same size cells as non-upsized bees. They regressed themselves :>)

In an earlier version of my website, I'd proposed the same kind of question. If a small cell bee is inherently superior, how did a few kept upsized colonies of bees, that are inferior in mating, overwintering, disease resistance, temperament, production, and survivability, displace a large population of superior small cell feral and skep kept bees? Besides lacking a natural process, wouldn't someone have noticed the difference in the last 150 years?

This question wasn't posed to discredit the benefits of using a smaller cell size, but to spur a deeper look at the mechanisms involved. And to get small cell beekeepers to investigate those mechanisms for themselves. I suspect there's much more to learn about bee behavior and their needs, that when applied, will make for healthier bees and better beekeeping.

Those small cell beekeepers, who cling to the small cell mantra, take particular offense at my opinions, observations and questions while the large cell crowd cheers. That is until I talk about the small cell size benefits I've experienced. Then those same sounds come from opposite direction. From my perspective they're both the same. One is stuck in too big a cell. And the other in one that's too small. :>))))

Regards
Dennis


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi Beemandan and Everyone,

>Looking at the work done on swarming decisions, the process is probably very simple as bees are very simple creatures. But so far, it's beyond us.

>I was largely in agreement with you until this statement....

No need to defend the bee. Its quite capable of defending itself. And I know because I've been on that end of the abdomen more than just a few times. Thinking I'm about to get it again. Yeeeoooh :>)))

Bees are very simple creatures. Their capacities are inherently limited by biology and lifespan. And they make simple decisions based on just a few criteria. Yet, their colony intelligence and behavior appears very complex to us.

A think this apparent complexity results from a couple of factors. First, is our inability to easily decipher that criteria. Maybe were more simple than we think :>)

Second, from our perspective, the bee performs a variety of functions, in a variety of ways, in a very complex environment. But I suspect that the environment is not so complex from the bee's perspective.

Now I'm buzzing! The bee's adaptability and resourcefulness in such a simple package, actually reflect the elegance, scope, and attention to detail of its Designer. Not the bee itself.

Yeeooooow. Now, I'm really going to get stung! :>)))))

Regards
Dennis


----------



## Hobie (Jun 1, 2006)

Perhaps different features are desireable in different environments. Perhaps the flora in some areas requires the bee to be larger/smaller in order to get the nectar or pollen. 

Perhaps we are doing the bees a disservice by telling them what to do. Perhaps they don't listen, anyway.


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

I said:

>>... the entire "shorter capping time" explanation for
>> how small cell "works" is based upon a misunderstanding, 
>> one that does not stand up to even a cursory examination 
>> of the genetic basis for gestational development time, 
>> which goes all the way down to each organism's cellular level.

Mike replied:

> Actually it's based on simple measured observations, which 
> drobbins and several others have duplicated.

Oh, sorry, I was not aware of these very authoritative results.
Might I invite you and them to speak at the next meeting of
the National Academy of Sciences as my guests, so you can tell 
the world about what appears to be proof that Lysenko was 
actually right all along, and that the entire field of genetics 
as we understand it has been completely wrong all these years? 

I'll try once more - yes SOME bees will always emerge earlier.
Some later.
Most within the normal range for Apis mellifera.
But it is inherently a sloppy number.
The data is a distribution, a bell curve.

Why don't you ask MichealW about the studies he mentioned?


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Oh, sorry, I was not aware of these very authoritative results.

I never said it was authoritative. But what I see with my own eyes is authoritative enough for me. And your source for contradictory results of capping and emergence times of EHB on small cell comb? Nothing doesn't sound quite so authoritative either, does it?

>so you can tell
the world about what appears to be proof that Lysenko was
actually right all along, and that the entire field of genetics
as we understand it has been completely wrong all these years?

I wasn't aware that Lysenko ever measured the capping and emergence times of small cell bees...

I also don't remember me mentioning anything about genetics.

Your only "proof" is that your understanding of it would lead you to believe that cell size is not related to emergence. Why not just measure it?

This argument looks like classic misdirection to me. If you want to know the capping and emergence times of EHB on small cell comb, there is ONLY one way to find out, and it is NOT by quoting material about Lysenko's theory of genetics.


----------



## Ben Brewcat (Oct 27, 2004)

Hold up here, I was under the impression that the size of the cell directed the capping time not genetically (which granted is silly) but physically? This isn't unprecedented I think, look at a goldfish who can stay size X in a small bowl, but after moved to a larger bowl can grow to 2X?

And interestingly, I just heard Randy Oliver speak and one of the things he's publishing shortly is an experiment on SC that seemed compelling for SC helping manage varroa. Unfortunately (I asked specifically) the sample size was only 30 colonies so lots more work to be done. But he was trying to address what he saw as a deficit in peer-reviewed inquiry to SC and its claims.


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> If you want to know the capping and emergence times of EHB 
> on small cell comb, there is ONLY one way to find out

I'm not asking what the times are, I'm asking why the claims
made fly in the face of the legitimate understanding of bee
biology that makes up the body of knowledge that we
call "science"?

So have you asked anyone whose qualifications you respect
about how bee development time (egg-larvae-pupea-bee)
and specifically capping time is driven, and how it might
be changed for any one breed or race of bees?

Or do you want to stand by the claim without even doing
some basic homework on the issue?

Honestly, claiming that bees in smaller cells mature from egg
to emerged adult more quickly has been one of the biggest
reasons that there has been so many rolling eyes and so little 
interest in looking at the practice under controlled conditions. 

Yes, AHB does both mature more quickly, and can often have
smaller cells, but AHB takes over large-cell colonies all the
time, and this does not slow down their maturation time in
the least, because the maturation time is a hardwired genetic
factor, not subject to manipulation by the beekeeper.

And yes, SOME bees will emerge earlier. Its called a "normal distribution",
or a "bell curve", and it is a very common way that things happen
in the real world. The trick is to get enough data to see where
the center of the bell curve distribution falls.


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> Hold up here, I was under the impression that the size of the cell directed 
> the capping time not genetically (which granted is silly) but physically? 

Let me explain more clearly.

1) It is claimed that smaller cells *directly results* in shorter capping times.

2) The actual development time of bees is a genetic factor, not subject
to modification at all within timeframes that any one human civilization
would have been able to track.

The mere mention of "shorter capping times" has been a major cause
of eye-rolling, elbow nudging, and raucous laughter for several years
now, and no one making the claim has ever bothered to do even the
basic homework that might prompt them to re-state their claims in
a manner that might seem more plausible,

> I just heard Randy Oliver speak and one of the things he's publishing
> shortly is an experiment on SC...

And if his results do not state that small cell is the "magic bullet" for
all problems of beekeeping, he will ALSO be slandered, disparaged, and
have his work discounted. But not to worry, Randy is a big boy, and
won't cry too much - his whole purpose in life is apparently to serve 
as a warning to others. 

So, we have to kinds of people - those who base their beekeeping
practices on faith and wishful thinking, and those who base their
beekeeping on objective facts and science. As usual, the bees
confound both groups by not just surviving, but actually thriving
under such a wide range of conditions, including those bordering 
on outright abuse, that every 5th beekeeper is honestly convinced 
that he has stumbled up _*the secret *_to success in beekeeping.

And all the secrets are different.


----------



## Hobie (Jun 1, 2006)

"Da more vee mess vith Nature, Diverse it gets."


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

Da more vee mess wid Nature, da LESS Diverse it gets.

Das ist de vay it hass bien fur years!


----------



## MichaelW (Jun 1, 2005)

There is at least one study that looked at cell size on emergence time. I'm pretty sure there is another one, but don't have the time to look for it right now. The one I recall was done on that fully drawn plastic comb where the cells where larger than 5.4mm at the bottom and regular size at the top. They where conical in shape with much fewer cells per frame. What was that stuff called?

Anyway, with the increased cell size volume there was no difference in emergence times between that and the control.

I don't know of any that looked at cell sizes smaller than 5.4mm, so who knows it might, do a study with controls and the scientific method and get it published.

On another subject, there is an English researcher team working on cell size and they recently published that small cell bees where in fact slightly smaller morphologically but not to the degree as seen in other bees that have varieties in nest cavities, (stick bees). They found no effect on Tracheal mites with cell size (no surprise there). They're surely are looking into Varroa and might have something before too long. Their other two studies where in Apidologie.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

Jim Fischer said:


> So, we have to kinds of people - those who base their beekeeping
> practices on faith and wishful thinking, and those who base their
> beekeeping on objective facts and science. As usual, the bees
> confound both groups by not just surviving, but actually thriving
> ...



...i'm scratching my head here. where did the objective facts and "science" come from? could it be......people who, based on observation, decided to look at and/or test something that was considered "fact" or "the best science" of the time? king bee/queen bee, mating within the hive, number of matings, the use of foundation, various queen rearing methods, keeping a hive intentionally, reusing comb....all this stuff, all we know is based on someone bucking the best knowledge of the time. those who "base there beekeeping practices on faith" and don't do what you consider "proven best practices" are the ones who are going improve on them....at no cost to you.

what if gas does go up to $100/gallon, what if ccd wipes out 90% of the bees in this country? it's healthy for there to be many kinds of beekeeping going on...it's "genetic diversity". ...when the environment (natural, economic, political) changes, the more diverse we are, the better chance of survival. i fully appreciate the role that the big business of migratory pollination plays in the food i eat, and on our economy. at the same time, if you were to design a way to insure that if a new and deadly bee disease were introduced suddenly, that it would spread to all bees in the country as quickly as possible, i think you would end up with "oh, let's just ship 3/4 of the bees in the country to california at the same time every year" and then send them from south north slowly over the summer...all over the country". ccd seems (so far) to have had a limited long term effect, ....i can imagine a much worse scenereo.

i'm not predicting the end of the world, but i see no reason to discourage other people from approaching beekeeping from other directions.

deknow


----------

