# Small Cell Claims Debunked



## Riskybizz

Interesting article by Keith DeLaplane in the April issue of ABJ regarding the use of small cell foundation and its effects on varroa mites. Here is a scientific study by an extremely knowledgeable leader in our industry stating "small cell foundation was shown to be ineffective in reducing mite populations"... He further states that he is unaware of any publicly accessible peer reviewed papers that directly support small cell efforts to reduce mite populations. Several years ago I purchased several hundred plastic small frames of foundations mainly because of the cost factor. In my case it was not a wise investment. The PF-100 and PF120's are problematic in my operation because of the ladder comb issue. Anyways, I am not trying to start WWIII regarding this debate, but it was an interesting (scientific) analysis. I have since sold almost all of my small cell plastic combs.


----------



## beemandan

Riskybizz said:


> I am not trying to start WWIII regarding this debate


That war has been fought on Beesource numerous times. Debate about the UGA, UFL and Cornell studies have been done and redone. I think....if it starts again....it'll actually be WWX.


----------



## Michael Bush

Here is a scientific study you may find interesting:

Why Most Published Research Findings Are False 
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124


----------



## Riskybizz

"There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false"

If we are to buy into this research finding, then it, by its own determination would then be false. Perhaps the DeLaplane study is not "most"?


----------



## AugustC

I don't about anything else, but what I do know is that small cells mean more bees per comb. Less distance needs to be travelled by queen. That should make for a larger workforce.


----------



## SallyD

Riskybizz said:


> . The PF-100 and PF120's are problematic in my operation because of the ladder comb issue. .


 What is ladder comb?


----------



## tommyt

SallyD said:


> What is ladder comb?


Some call it ''burr''. 
It's the comb the bees make that connects 
one box to the next from the top of one frame to the bottom of the top box frame
Without excluder the Quenn uses it often to go back and forth


----------



## Michael Bush

>If we are to buy into this research finding, then it, by its own determination would then be false. Perhaps the DeLaplane study is not "most"? 

Yes, it is a bit of a dilemma to have a peer reviewed scientific study that shows that peer reviewed scientific studies are usually wrong... The study shows the causes and how to predict the likelihood. Some of those things like the length of the study and the scope of the study are very applicable to bee research. I would say anything involving bees that is less 100 hives for less than five years is probably not very accurate.

>The PF-100 and PF120's are problematic in my operation because of the ladder comb issue. .

This problem is the same with all plastic frames, Pierco etc. have the same problem. I don't find it to be a problem if you expect it... you just pry all the frames below, down before lifting the box.


----------



## beemandan

Just so we're clear there were several separate peer reviewed studies that all came to the same conclusion. The presumption is that all three are wrong?


----------



## hilreal

This is why scientists repeat studies over and over and over. If one research paper at one location in one year had come to this conclusion then certainly it has lower credibility than one that has been repeated multiple times with the same or similar results. Once you start seeing multiple studies by multiple authors using rigourous methodology, you start taking notice.

You have to judge each study on its own merit, how it was conducted, were controls used, were as many variables as possible controlled, etc. Science isn't perfect and we must be careful to scrutinize the information that comes out but we must also be careful that we do not outright dismiss findings because the disagre with our own personal biases and beliefs.


----------



## hilreal

Michael Bush said:


> >Yes, it is a bit of a dilemma to have a peer reviewed scientific study that shows that peer reviewed scientific studies are usually wrong... The study shows the causes and how to predict the likelihood. Some of those things like the length of the study and the scope of the study are very applicable to bee research. I would say anything involving bees that is less 100 hives for less than five years is probably not very accurate.
> 
> Though this is a peer reviewed paper it is also an "essay" and thus somewhat of an opinion piece rather than an actual experiment. If you read some of the comments not everyone in the field agrees with his conclusions.


----------



## Rusty Hills Farm

hmmm. sounds like they can't prove small cell helps...but they can't prove it hurts either. So it seems to me that it leaves the door wide open for beeks to use whichever method seems to work in their operation. But of course if you take that conclusion from it, then what is left to fight over? 

Sometimes it does seem like the only reason the topic keeps showing up on here is just because folks *enjoy* fighting over it. 

JMO

Rusty


----------



## Edymnion

Bah, if you're worried about cell size, just go foundationless and let the bees build whatever size they want.


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

A decent review:
http://www.dheaf.plus.com/warrebeekeeping/do_small_cells_help_bees_cope_with_varroa.pdf


----------



## stan.vick

Edymnion said:


> Bah, if you're worried about cell size, just go foundationless and let the bees build whatever size they want.


 Exactly my position. Natural cell has worked out better for me than trying to force the bees into what I may think is the best size cell. But each to his own.


----------



## Michael Bush

>Just so we're clear there were several separate peer reviewed studies that all came to the same conclusion. The presumption is that all three are wrong? 

All short term. All small scale. There are quite a few positive studies on small cell, but you will simply discount them as you have every time they have been brought up before.


----------



## CtyAcres

Studies,studies,studies???? Smells like someone's making $$$$$$ I like the "Lauri method" 128 hives alive out of
133. Small cell? Large cell? Don't know. Dang she's a good beek.


----------



## Riskybizz

MB > "I don't find it to be a problem if you expect it... "

Having kept bees for almost 30 years I pretty much know how to pry boxes...and your right I do expect to see lots of comb built between the plastic frames. Make no mistake its an issue and a problem at least in my bee management. Its a huge mess and involves lots of extra work cleaning it up unless you want to just set everything back together and squish 100's of bees in the process. I have some pictures I'd be glad to share in case others are not aware of what will happen placing plastic frames on a strong hive. As I understand it you purchased thousands of them so I do understand position.


----------



## beemandan

I took a look at Keith Delaplane's ABJ article. He says 'I am unaware of any publicly-accessible peer-reviewed papers that support it.'....referring to small cell for varroa control.


Michael Bush said:


> All short term. All small scale..........but you will simply discount them as you have every time they have been brought up before.


If you had a single, long term, large scale, peer reviewed study that supported your contention....my opinion wouldn't get in the way of your posting it....


----------



## Vance G

I run plastic, there is bridge comb like with wood frames I run. I only scrape either wood or plastic infrequently, I own a smoker and know how to make volumes of cool smoke. I don't crush hundreds putting hive back together. Dozens almost certainly are killed every inspection. It is unavoidable. It is not a big deal. I do not feel that plastic is intrinsically evil. All my milk comes in it and I feel fine.


----------



## BeeCurious

> Interesting article by Keith DeLaplane in the April issue of ABJ regarding the use of small cell foundation and its effects on varroa mites.


I would think that DeLaplane's time could be better spent solving a problem...


----------



## Michael Bush

If anyone out there has been keeping a significant number of hives with no treatments for more than a decade on large cell, I'd love to discuss their experiences and why they think cell size doesn't matter. I tried not treating on large cell and not treating on small cell. The differences were quite significant.


----------



## Lauri

You can have 100 beekeepers do the same study and you'd get 100 different results. 
Since local conditions, genetics and management methods are complicated and all critical for any kind of results, I don't think there is any real way to have conclusive results in simple studies. If one small thing is overlooked or changed, the results may be considered a failure, where as someone else may experience success. Who is to say ether one is right or wrong?Throw the human factor in the mix with limited or exceptional powers of observation/experience and the results of some of these studies are bound to be 'food for thought' at best. I think it is always wise to keep an open mind. 


I've been asked for the scientific 'proof' my sugar blocks work too. LOL, It's just a _recipe_ that works for me. And apparently it works well for others. Along with feeding my protein mix in fall, It's something I believe in for over wintering success. Try it or not. It's up to you 

I think I'd put small cell beekeeping in that category. Try it ...or not. It's apparently worked well for some. Why fight over it?


----------



## WLC

That's some smart thinking Lauri.

I think that the smaller, resistant, feral bees come first. Then they settle into smaller cells.

I also recall reading a study where higher mite mortality was attributed to mites being smothered in tighter fitting brood cells, but, I can't recall the source.


----------



## beemandan

BeeCurious said:


> I would think that DeLaplane's time could be better spent solving a problem...


The original study was intended to see if indeed small cell solved a problem. The issue addressed by repeating those results is advise new beekeepers that small cell is not a panacea for everyone. That seems like potential problem solving to me.


----------



## Michael Bush

>I also recall reading a study where higher mite mortality was attributed to mites being smothered in tighter fitting brood cells, but, I can't recall the source. 

http://www.apidologie.org/articles/apido/pdf/2002/01/Martin.pdf

The conclusions:

"For ectoparasities which reproduce in enclosed cavities the amount of space can be an important constraint on their ability to reproduce successfully. Therefore, species like Dichrocheles phalaenodectes which breeds within the tympanic organ of moths (Treat, 1975) and Varroa sp., display traits such as lack of cannibalism, nest sanitation and space partitioning (Donzé and Guerin, 1997).One consequence of space partitioning in Varroa sp. is that the first (male) egg is laid near the cell cap. This increases the survival probability of themalemite since it is the only place in the cell not affected by the bee’s molt (Fig. 2). However, the male mite must now pass the constriction caused by the bee’s appendages to reach the feeding site which is established by the mother mite on the bee’s abdomen (Fig. 2). Since only one male is produced per batch of eggs, its death will result in all the female offspring being unmated and so unable to produce offspring (Akimov andYastrebtsov, 1984; Donzé et al., 1996; Martin et al., 1997; Harris and Harbo, 1999).

"A survey of the literature revealed a close correlation (r2 = 0.97) between fore wing length and brood cell diameter across 14 races of A. mellifera (Fig. 1), also fore wing length is closely correlated to bee head width (r2 = 0.97 worker & drone) in Apis (calculated from data inRuttner, 1988). Therefore, since the pseudo-clone which is among one of the larger A. mellifera races, is being reared in some of the smallest cells found in A. mellifera. (Fig. 1), there will be significantly less space between the bee pupae and cell wall in cells occupied by pseudo-clones than A. m. scutellata workers which may impede the movement of the mites. This may explain our frequent observations that dead male protonymphs and some dead mother mites appeared to be trapped in the upper part of cells containing the pseudo-clone. This is illustrated by the high level of male protonymph mortality found in cells occupied by the pseudoclone (48 × 0.90 = 43%) compared to those occupied by A. m. scutellata workers (28 × 0.59 = 16.5%). While in A. cerana drone cells, ancestral host of Varroidae, only 1–2% of the male offspring die (Tab. II). Interestedly this species builds the widest drone cells (7.1–7.2mm)of any Apis sp. but rears the smallest Apis drones based on head width.” --Reproduction of Varroa destructor in South African honey bees: does cell space influence Varroa male survivorship? Martin, S.J." 

Followed by this paragraph which is only assumptions not based on anything observed in the study other that the fact that they WERE affected by the space:

"Although reproduction of Varroa sp. is affected by the space between the developing bee and cell wall, reducing cell sizes as a mite control method will probably fail to be effective since the bees are likely to respond by rearing correspondingly smaller bees which explains the close correlation between cell and bee size (Fig. 1)." --Reproduction of Varroa destructor in South African honey bees: does cell space influence Varroa male survivorship? Martin, S.J."


----------



## CtyAcres

Post#23 Lauri, - that is a wonderful way to do a cell comparison and save tons of $$ on foundation.
I might have to try 10 or 20boxes with those 1/2 fr of plastic fd. They will surely fill out the sides.


----------



## beemandan

Michael Bush, do you believe that the study you just linked establishes any credibility for small cell?


----------



## Lauri

CtyAcres said:


> Post#23 Lauri, - that is a wonderful way to do a cell comparison and save tons of $$ on foundation.
> I might have to try 10 or 20boxes with those 1/2 fr of plastic fd. They will surely fill out the sides.


I am looking forward to seeing how they work it. It will not only save me 1/3 to 1/2 on foundation costs, I'll get some natural comb too. A great compromise and the best of both worlds. I have quite a few overwintered hives on 3 and 4 deeps. As soon as they are packed with young bees, I'll make a simulated swarm with the foragers and established queen and install them at the old location on these frames. I expect perfection. That is one of my methods of mite control...no studies to back it up tho, so don't shoot me.inch:


----------



## TWall

Michael Bush said:


> I would say anything involving bees that is less 100 hives for less than five years is probably not very accurate.


Michael,

How did you come up with these colony numbers and years?

Experimental design and statistical model used are important to the accuracy and reliability of data and conclusions generated. Increasing the number of repititions, locations, years can help to reduce variability in results, in some cases.

For cell size impact on varroa reproduction I am not sure how increasing colony numbers, beyond a certain minimum, and years of studies is going to make results more reliable. Cell size is not going to change from year-to-year, unless it takes even smaller cells and there need to be a number of cycles of broods reared first. If it takes multiple years of studies to removal seasonal variation of varroa reproduction than something besides cell size is the controlling factor.

Tom


----------



## Oldtimer

BernhardHeuvel said:


> A decent review:
> http://www.dheaf.plus.com/warrebeekeeping/do_small_cells_help_bees_cope_with_varroa.pdf


A good and balanced read Bernhard.


----------



## jrhoto

If you are of the opinion that bees should be able to deal with mites on their own then let them determine cell size.

John poor valley bee farm


----------



## Barry

beemandan said:


> is advise new beekeepers that small cell is not a panacea for everyone.


Whew, glad it doesn't apply to me, I'm an old beekeeper!


----------



## beemandan

Barry said:


> Whew, glad it doesn't apply to me, I'm an old beekeeper!


All indications are that it seems to work better for old beekeepers.....maybe someone should study that angle.


----------



## tommysnare

add this to WWX . thats why i am foundationless. no guides and no starter strip. i let the bees decide what size cell they want. i dont measure the cell size. some colonies clearly breed smaller bees. i figure they know whats best INSIDE the hive.


----------



## Lauri

CtyAcres said:


> Post#23 Lauri, - that is a wonderful way to do a cell comparison and save tons of $$ on foundation.
> I might have to try 10 or 20boxes with those 1/2 fr of plastic fd. They will surely fill out the sides.


Hey, I moved that part to this thread where it seemed to fit better with the OP.
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?295025-The-Miracle-of-Going-Foundationless!


----------



## Deepsouth

Michael Bush said:


> If anyone out there has been keeping a significant number of hives with no treatments for more than a decade on large cell, I'd love to discuss their experiences and why they think cell size doesn't matter. I tried not treating on large cell and not treating on small cell. The differences were quite significant.


Well it surly doesn't take a decade for mites to kill a colony. I been having about 40 colonies , some with small cell, some with natural cell and some with large cell all treatment free. Last year I went into winter with 40 and came out with 39. Checked them last week and all are strong. 
All are doing good with all three types of comb. 
So that's making me neutral on the subject. Use whatever you believe in and have fun doing it.


----------



## Oldtimer

I'm neutral too. Get mites regardless of cell size LOL.


----------



## burns375

Oldtimer said:


> I'm neutral too. Get mites regardless of cell size LOL.


Same here, in theory it makes sense, but I need data proof and data to make the switch. Whos to say the mite doesn't evolve to propogate under conditions presented with smaller cell size. Genetics is the key, if asian bees can live with them so can eventually other bees. Those bees who groom and who are not brood crazy ie Italians.


----------



## RudyT

To repeat some points and amplify them (although sitting this one out might have been smarter):
(1) good studies describe what they do in enough detail that other scientists can repeat the study the same way and see if they get the same results. As Lauri points out, there are a lot of local factors that make replication difficult. The careful description of method also is intended to help readers form an opinion about whether the study/results are likely to be similar to their situation. Poorly describing the study, and/or overgeneralizing study results, is common in the media. Sometimes most of us are guilty of overgeneralizing results that we like. For example, "small cell debunked."
(2) Michael Bush's point is that short term studies of particular factors do not thoroughly test what needs testing--in other words, what is the appropriate dependent variable to be studied? In a post a few weeks ago (yes, the wars follow each other quickly) he made the point that several apiaries with small cell and several apiaries with 5.4 mm cells need to be set up and tracked for several years. The key dependent variables that need measuring are not mite count nor mite drop nor days to hatch nor mite behavior in the cells (those are interesting questions but not the key questions), but instead colony survival and productivity--under specified management methods and conditions--that is, in well controlled and described studies. 
(3) I doubt that such studies will be done with a broad enough sample size to settle the issue, as the studies would be expensive and probably not result in products to sell. In the meantime, we have specific individuals who can describe what worked for them in what environment and with what management methods and bees. Large scale commercial beekeepers, if they wished to consider changing paradigm, could have researchers do this kind of test, and for them the financial consequences could be material.
(4) As critics of small cell point out, it is possible that credit is attributed to small cell that may belong to the entire complex of location, bees, and management. It is possible that small cell without some of the other factors will be insufficient to lead to success for other beekeepers. So we are back to Lauri's point, which some other folks often make as well: try what you want to try. See if it works. I would encourage folks to look at not only small cell but the complex of management techniques. In the case of Michael Bush and some others here on Beesource their methods are well documented, and they have thus far been generous with answering questions, so that folks can form an opinion and try it if they wish. 
(5) In the absence of definitive studies, skeptics should remember that small cell claims have not been disproved; advocates who say "it worked for me" have at least one case study.


----------



## Saltybee

Do not have an opinion on small cell works or does not. Expect it does and does not.

When I read so many of these studies one thought comes to mind; "They forgot to dunk the frog." Story about scientists trying to study jungle medicine. Part of the ritual was dunking a frog in the mixture. When they tried in the lab, thinking it was superstition they left out the frog. It did not work.
Really is a story about not controlling the variables in an experiment. Very hard to do when you do not know what the variables are.
Many studies do not define a uniformly accepted definition of success or failure. Probably because there is not one. High mite counts on a sticky; is that a good sign or bad? What was the density of nurse bees? 8 frames, 10 deeps, mediums, forage, yeah what Lauri said.
When faced with that situation, one should first start with studying the whole, once you have that down pat ,you may, maybe control the variables and add or subtract them to study the effect. Before that you are just guessing.
In a real sense the first step should be to observe a success in great detail, break it down, learn it and then study it.


----------



## CtyAcres

Rudy - Good points. To each his or her own, in their location. Long live the honeybees. Have a good year!!


----------



## Lburou

There are at least two varroa variants, each with a different penetrance and a different virulence. I wonder if the science would be more valid if they studied one variant, or the other, and reported the results for each variant? (I think that answer would be "Yes!"). 

Maybe one variant is more affected by small cell than the other. We have no idea which variant was used in the studies to date (do we?), making generalizations to 'all' mite populations statistically invalid. JMTC


----------



## BigGun

Great a study about studies.


----------



## Adrian Quiney WI

To Rudy's point in #40 regarding studies. This is where a survey has value, as opposed to a study - providing the survey is asking enough questions. If there are enough questions the data can be mined for years after. The Bee informed survey comes to mind; Supposing the researchers spot a trend over the years - they have the facility to make a subset of questions to follow that trend. 

To Luburou's post (#43). This is interesting. Where can I read more about this? Thanks.


----------



## beemandan

RudyT said:


> (5) In the absence of definitive studies, skeptics should remember that small cell claims have not been disproved; advocates who say "it worked for me" have at least one case study.


Just be sure to add to this....those who tried it and say 'it didn't work for me'.


----------



## GLOCK

I am in my 2nd year of small cell{4.9} and I have mites but I want to give it time and see what happens.
One thing I have learned from BS is it's a great place to fight over topics that you can just try your self. That's what I'm doing if it works great if it don't then I will know.


----------



## BeeCurious

GLOCK said:


> One thing I have learned from BS is it's a great place to fight over topics that you can just try your self. That's what I'm doing if it works great if it don't then I will know.



"if it works great if it don't then I will know"

And if "it" doesn't work, it doesn't matter.... One needs frames/foundation anyway. There isn't any significant, additional cost to using 4.9


----------



## Andrew Dewey

To be successful in beekeeping first you need to be a good bee keeper. Then you can have all the aids that may or may not make you better. From all I read Michael Bush is a good bee keeper as is BeeManDan. Rookies need to walk before they can fly. I've just ordered the Nicot Queen rearing system and am reading all I can about it in order to achieve successful results. Hopefully I know enough now to understand most of what I read. When I began with bees most of what I read was effectively Greek and I could only focus on big picture do's and dont's.

I'm happy some people credit their success to their use of small (or natural) cell size, though I think as they say that that there are other factors at play. (like Genetics and an experienced beekeeper)


----------



## beemandan

GLOCK said:


> I am in my 2nd year of small cell{4.9} and I have mites but I want to give it time and see what happens.


And I applaud you for it. I get painted as a mean spirited, old, treatment troll because I challenge some of the ideas that are posted.
When I read a high profile, celebrity poster write 'before I went to small cell I lost 100% of my hives to mites, since changing I haven't lost any'....I cringe. I can imagine all of the naive new and aspiring beekeepers reading this. And what's not to love? A simple, non chemical solution to the biggest problem facing beekeepers. 
I also know that his experience is not universal. I tried it. Oldtimer did a very public trial recently. Others acknowledge that it doesn't eliminate their mites. My quest is to make certain that people reading those posts understand that this method isn't a slam dunk. There is legitimate controversy.
I advise...again and again....try it but test. Even those who choose a treatment regimen....I advise the same. And if they try it and test and it works....more power to them.


----------



## Lburou

Adrian Quiney WI said:


> ....To Lburou's post (#43). This is interesting. Where can I read more about this? Thanks.


I might have read about this first on Bee-L, or maybe here on beesource. You can read pages 375-7 from This book for the summary. Wikipedia has pages on varroa jacobsini and varroa destructor that hint at it. There is speculation that some of the variability in beekeeper success and failure could be related to the variant of the varroa and its distribution (penetrance) in the USA and the rest of the world: Meaning, bees live better with v. jacobsini and die more often with one of the variants of v. destructor. I think I saw a lecture on youtube that included maps showing varroa distributions worldwide. Wasn't making notes. HTH


----------



## AR Beekeeper

There is a saying that if you don't like what a study says just wait for the next one. Often they do contradict each other, but not in these cases. Studies have been done in the U.S. and Europe and they agree, small cell does not prevent a varroa population from reaching the point that they damage the colony.

The small cell beekeepers all say that bees can't be kept on standard cell comb without treatments or they die. This is not so, many beekeepers are doing just that now. I don't disagree that some beekeepers have kept bees without treatment on small cell for years, I just disagree with the reason the bees survive. It is obvious to me that some bees reach a balance with the varroa and the viruses they carry. Some lines will reach that point without aid from the beekeeper, others will take longer and need assistance, and others will never reach the balance.


----------



## squarepeg

mine have been doing alright on large cell here so far, although i have started rotating in foundationless frames into my single deeps to get natural cell in them. one reason is to have more drone comb and thus more drones for mating. i'll continue using rite cell in my medium honey supers which do happen to have some brood in them at this time of year.


----------



## AstroBee

Michael Bush said:


> If anyone out there has been keeping a significant number of hives with no treatments for more than a decade on large cell, I'd love to discuss their experiences and why they think cell size doesn't matter. I tried not treating on large cell and not treating on small cell. The differences were quite significant.


In the past 13 years I've been keeping bees I've been slowly growing the number of colonies. Now I'm running about 50 colonies. The average number in the first 10 years was about 20 colonies. In the first 2-3 years, I tried various forms of treatments. First year was apistan, after that sucrocide, then other softer treatments. In the past 10 years I've been virtually TF. In the early years post treatment, my bees would look pretty bad, but over time the survivors grew stronger and now seem very strong. I focus on breeding resistant bees, VSH and survivors, and my drone mother colonies, which are given large amounts of drone comb, will get a single round of MAQS before the fall. No other treatments are given any other colonies. I run nearly exclusively large cell (Mann Lake Rite Cell). Don't know if you consider 50 as significant, but I definitely fall in the "cell size doesn't matter" club. 

From my perspective, the biggest issue is some level of resistance. This becomes very obvious when other bees are brought into my apiary. For example, Italian package bees (in my experience) generally have very low-levels of resistance, and in one year you'll begin to see the typical issues associated with mite damage. It is very dramatic to compare these colonies with my survivor colonies. That also, at least to me, indicates that mites thrive in my local environmental conditions, and can easily take out colonies without some level of natural resistance. 

If I meet your requirements feel free to ask away.


----------



## sharpdog

beemandan said:


> And I applaud you for it. I get painted as a mean spirited, old, treatment troll because I challenge some of the ideas that are posted.
> When I read a high profile, celebrity poster write 'before I went to small cell I lost 100% of my hives to mites, since changing I haven't lost any'....I cringe. I can imagine all of the naive new and aspiring beekeepers reading this. And what's not to love? A simple, non chemical solution to the biggest problem facing beekeepers.
> I also know that his experience is not universal. I tried it. Oldtimer did a very public trial recently. Others acknowledge that it doesn't eliminate their mites. My quest is to make certain that people reading those posts understand that this method isn't a slam dunk. There is legitimate controversy.
> I advise...again and again....try it but test. Even those who choose a treatment regimen....I advise the same. And if they try it and test and it works....more power to them.


+1


----------



## rhaldridge

beemandan said:


> Others acknowledge that it doesn't eliminate their mites.


I don't think I've ever heard anyone claim that they've eliminated mites.


----------



## Nabber86

beemandan said:


> Just so we're clear there were several separate peer reviewed studies that all came to the same conclusion. The presumption is that all three are wrong?


reproducibility is one important metric for data quality


----------



## beemandan

rhaldridge said:


> I don't think I've ever heard anyone claim that they've eliminated mites.


I should have worded it....eliminated mites as a problem.
Is that better?


----------



## peterloringborst

> The distribution of this variability is shown in Figure 2. This result contrasts with the remarkable homogeneity detected in mites infesting A. mellifera in other regions of the world (Solignac et al., 2005). It is to be expected that much more variation in V. destructor will be found. The detection in Asia of new haplotypes of V. destructor on A. mellifera highlights the permanent possibility that a new Varroa type might expand on A. mellifera outside Asia and form a new threat to apiculture.


 -- Tracking the colonisation history of the invasive species Varroa destructor


----------



## Saltybee

I do not know how to do it, I tried it, therefore it can't be done. Through repetition and careful control I have proved that humans cannot run the 4 minute mile, nor can they turn cartwheels.
The myth is that science can prove such a thing at all. All science can prove is that something cannot be done by this method under these conditions.

More evidence, less likely , not universal, not required; OK.

Debunked; stretching.


----------



## peterloringborst

> Small-cell foundation is exactly the kind of cultural control we'd like to find for a pesticide-free Varroa control program. Once installed it constitutes zero extra labor for the beekeeper and exerts its influence constantly. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to work. I say _seem_ to work because science is not in the business of proving or disproving anything. Experiments are designed to challenge hypotheses, not prove or disprove them. But at this point it's safe to say that the hypothesis that small cell foundation reduces Varroa populations has not sustained scientific challenge. We cannot reject the possibility that small-cell may do the job under certain conditions. But until its efficacy is more generally demonstrated, I cannot recommend it


 -- Keith Delaplane

(Keith Delaplane’s involvement in apiculture and conservation is renowned on a local, national and international scale. He has written 247 publications, completed 182 presentations at professional meetings, lectured at 236 local meetings, supervised seven research graduates and received many awards at international level. He was an unpaid program reviewer for the United Kingdom Natural Environment Research Council in 2000. Over the past 11 years, he has given support to local beekeepers and he is well known for his scientific and educational work.)


----------



## sterling

peterloringborst said:


> -- Keith Delaplane
> 
> (Keith Delaplane’s involvement in apiculture and conservation is renowned on a local, national and international scale. He has written 247 publications, completed 182 presentations at professional meetings, lectured at 236 local meetings, supervised seven research graduates and received many awards at international level. He was an unpaid program reviewer for the United Kingdom Natural Environment Research Council in 2000. Over the past 11 years, he has given support to local beekeepers and he is well known for his scientific and educational work.)


I'm sure this individual is very qualified to do all the things you speak of. But with all that time spent writing and speaking and lecturing and presenting and educating I am amazed he has had any time left to keep bees and study them with an open mind.


----------



## peterloringborst

sterling said:


> I am amazed he has had any time left to keep bees and study them with an open mind.


Is that supposed to be an oblique put down? Why should anything he is doing result in a "closed mind"? What are you trying to say, any way?

PLB


----------



## beemandan

peterloringborst said:


> What are you trying to say, any way?


I'd like to hear the answer to this myself. The poster doesn't even seem to know who he's talking about.
Speak up mr sterling. An intentional insult to a total stranger or a misunderstanding?


----------



## sterling

I meant no insult. I have no reason to insult this fellow. I have no opinion of this obviously very qualified person. I do not know anything about him. There was a list of this fellows qualification and no mention of how many bee hives he manages and how long he has been managing bees. I just thought it should be included so those of us who do not know anything about him could better appreciate him. 
Please elaborate.


----------



## squarepeg

career guy and well respected. not too hard to research for yourself:

https://www.google.com/search?q=Kei...la:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=sb


----------



## Andrew Dewey

@Sterling - While BeeSource is a learning community, the education isn't going to be spoon fed to you. Try googling Keith Delaplane and you'll quickly learn that he is a professor of entomology in the University of Georgia College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, the author of several beekeeping books, hosted a TV series on keeping bees, and in general knows his stuff very well.


----------



## beemandan

sterling said:


> I meant no insult.


I am glad to hear it.
Keith Delaplane started keeping bees in his early teens on the family farm in Indiana. He studied under John Harbo at LSU and has a PhD in entomology. He has been involved with beekeeping and honey bee research for forty years. This is one of the reasons his list of accomplishments is so long. If you check his research you'll find much of it is directed at reducing, if not eliminating the use of synthetic compounds in beehives.
The GA Beekeepers Assn gave the UGA beelab a grant to help fund the small cell study. One of the principal investigators was an experienced small cell beekeeper, Bill Owens. There were no closed minds. The evidence spoke for itself.


----------



## peterloringborst

He has a monthly column in the American Bee Journal. He's the Editor, with Tom Webster, of

Mites of the Honey Bee. Dadant & Sons. 2001. Hamilton, Illinois, 280 pp.

http://www.dadant.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=253

What I found most notable is his statement, which echoes a similar one from Tom Seeley a few years back, that he _wanted_ small cell to work, as in principal it is an ideal solution to the mite problem most beekeepers in the Northern countries are having. But, alas, he found that it didn't do what it was supposed to do (suppress varroa mites).

PLB


----------



## beeware10

this is one of the few times I can agree with peter. mr delaplane is well known and respected thruout the industry. some beekeepers with thier only education that comes from bee source would not be expected to under stand the overall industry.


----------



## WLC

He was recently inducted into the most excellent order of the British empire.

http://columns.uga.edu/news/fulltex...o-most-excellent-order-of-the-british-empire/


----------



## Leather Jim

I sure hope this weather breaks soon so everyone can get into their bee yards and quit bickering at each other.


----------



## beeware10

your right. Its been a long winter. lol they say its been the worst one in 102 yrs for the whole us.


----------



## WLC

While I don't doubt Dr. Delaplane's findings, there a simple explanation for why these studies don't show that small cell foundation reduces mite loads.

The resistant stocks that do reduce mite loads are feral derived, and they are known to produce small cell comb in the wild. It's their natural cell size and they'll do a better job at reducing mite loads without the extra cell volume resulting from using large cell foundation.

By the way, since when is ABJ considered to be a peer reviewed scientific journal? It isn't. It's a beekeeping periodical.


----------



## peterloringborst

Here in Ithaca, NY we broke the record for lowest temperatures three different days in March. Overall, the month was 10 degrees below normal. 
PLB


----------



## Roland

WLC - could it be that you have the cause and effect backwards? Could it be that the bee that HAPPENS to make small cell naturally is better at managing mites than a bee that makes a large cell naturally? The logical progression then would be for a beekeeper to start using small cell, and select the bees that draw it out best, which happen to be the more mite tolerant.

Crazy Roland


----------



## beeware10

If it is so simple to produce reduced mite load stock why has someone not done so yet? there is a fortune to be made here. dont say there is or the problem would not exist. any difference between feral and common stock would require thousands of years of evolution, roger morse always said our bees are mongrels or mutts. bees can be bred for certain traits but that is our limit.


----------



## peterloringborst

Hmm. Have you heard about the African bee? They seem to be resistant to varroa to the extent that mite control measures are not needed. Have you seen the film "More Than Honey?" There's a guy in that film that has Arizona bees. He says: "These are not dogs, these are wolves." But they are healthy as all get out. Dave de Jong told us at EAS 2003 that all efforts to breed mite resistant bees are a waste of time, the bee with the right stuff was already available. Oh -- and they make small cells, too.

PLB


----------



## jim lyon

peterloringborst said:


> Hmm. Have you heard about the African bee? They seem to be resistant to varroa to the extent that mite control measures are not needed. Dave de Jong told us at EAS 2003 that all efforts to breed mite resistant bees are a waste of time, the bee with the right stuff was already available. Oh -- and they make small cells, too.
> 
> PLB


...they also have slightly shorter gestational periods and a high propensity to swarm or abscond. No? Mr. DeJong's point is well taken, though. How ironic that the African bee, long considered a scourge, is now being recognized as an ally in the battle against varroa.


----------



## peterloringborst

> now being recognized as an ally in the battle against varroa.


 It hasn't been considered a scourge in many parts of the world. However it is an excellent example of how behavioral traits may be linked. Can you breed African bees to behave like European bees, without the mean streak? I have talked with people who keep them in urban areas. Much effort is expended to be sure that they don't develop into big colonies. I was always taught that really big colonies were the way to get the maximum amount of honey. Of course, one could also produce a lot of honey with many small colonies. It might be a lot easier in terms of management. But is beekeeping supposed to be easy?


----------



## WLC

I think that there has been some success in producing EHB/AHB hybrids that aren't overly defensive/aggressive.

The main issue may be all of the other 'unmanaged' colony characteristics that comes with 'feral'/EHB hybrids.

They just aren't all that suitable for a commercial operation's management practices.


----------



## peterloringborst

> I think that there has been some success in producing EHB/AHB hybrids that aren't overly defensive/aggressive.


HI WLC. Do you have evidence of this? Or do you simply "think it"? I read that there are non-vicious African bees in Puerto Rico, but haven't seen them. But these we not "produced" -- I have seen no evidence that breeding strategies work on African bees at all. Quite the opposite. For example, in Brazil millions of Italian queens were raised to ameliorate the African traits. That didn't work.



> The main issue may be all of the other 'unmanaged' colony characteristics that comes with 'feral'/EHB hybrids.


African bees are feral. They are not managed in any particular sense of the meaning. Beekeepers acquire them, harvest honey, that really isn't different from honey hunting in any material way. Feral hybrids are feral. Only bees coming out of a closed controlled breeding program could be considered as being of a particular type. What you would call it is another matter. For example, Italians in the US are about as Italian as Dominoes pizza



> They just aren't all that suitable for a commercial operation's management practices.


Again, based on what? African bees are used for commercial beekeeping in Africa, Brazil, Mexico, etc.

PLB


----------



## WLC

Hiya Peter:

My own experience is with BeeWeavers (going into my second season).

Their (Italian/Buckfast) queens are open mated with drones from their yards as well as the 'hybrid swarm' in Texas (some AHB). How much African genetics the resulting workers have is debatable, but it's obviously there.

They aren't particularly aggressive.

However, I have observed different morphotypes in the workers (large/small), as well as some decidedly 'undomestic' behaviors.

They're runny, flighty, vibration sensitive, and they do boil up through frames when you open them up.

I'll find out just how swarmy they might be soon enough. There's more, but I think I've made my point here.

It's not that they're unproductive. I just wouldn't want to have to put them on the back of a truck to move them around.

By the way, I did provide them with small cell PF frames in one super for each colony since I had them around. Yup, I got ladder comb again. D'oh!


----------



## peterloringborst

> My own experience is with BeeWeavers (going into my second season). They aren't particularly aggressive.


I had about eight full sized colonies of these last summer. Towards September, they got to be pretty much unworkable, since they are so close to my house. I lost them over winter, but I will try another batch. Just not so close to the house.

PLB


----------



## WLC

They definitely can register 10 on the 'pucker' meter.

Do make some observations on some of their non-domestic characteristics so we can compare notes sometime. IMHO, these same behaviors may be indicators of 'resistant stock' and might also make them good candidates for small cell colonies.


----------



## Barry Digman

peterloringborst said:


> Have you seen the film "More Than Honey?" PLB


Off topic, but I have not. Is it good? I went to the website and see it's received a number of awards. (I was disappointed to see that the apparent subtitle is the erroneous Einstein quote that begins "If bees were to disappear...)


----------



## peterloringborst

Barry Digman said:


> Off topic, but I have not. Is it good? I went to the website and see it's received a number of awards. (I was disappointed to see that the apparent subtitle is the erroneous Einstein quote that begins "If bees were to disappear...)


 Yeah, that quote is usually a red flag for me too. I thought the film was better than most of the "bees are dying" films I have seen. Much of it was really enlightening, such as the high degree of mechanization and the callous attitude of the California beekeeper. And, the weird almost racist attitude of the Swiss (Austrian?) beekeeper who seemed obsessed by the purity of his bees. My favorite, though, was the Arizona beekeeper who was completely upfront about what it is like to keep African bees in the desert. 

PLB


----------



## Bkwoodsbees

If you really believe in small cell you have research that supports you and if you don't you have research to support you also. So I guess. It is a matter of choice and not harmful either way. I am brand new at this and I favor the more natural way of doing things, but since large cell has been done for so long is it now natural ? Here in South Carolina feral bees are pretty much gone. Swarms come from bee yards. I have not done any cut outs or ever seen one. I wonder when these old swarms that take up residence in walls or trees do they make small cell comb or do them make large cell?


----------



## Barry

They make both. One cell size is found only in the hives of beekeepers.


----------



## WLC

The best way to see just how many different cell sizes and types your bees will make is to allow them to draw out some foundationless frames. Frankly, I'd say that there is a noticeable difference depending on where in the hive the foundationless frame is drawn.

It may indicate that the entire hive doesn't need to be small cell, just the brood areas.


----------



## peterloringborst

In this context, I should point out that ordinary foundation has been in use for well over a hundred years, and many people do not believe that it has any harmful effect. I have used foundationless frames for various reasons and find them very annoying. I guess they would be OK with wire but loose combs in frames are not much better than top bar combs. They twist, flop, and generally behave in ways that a well built comb does not do. I like to hold the combs horizontal to look at the brood, eggs, etc. and unwired combs are prone to fall out of the frames when you do this. I admit I could get used to it, if I wanted to, but why bother? -- just my $.02

PLB


----------



## peterloringborst

> If you really believe in small cell you have research that supports you


In science, it doesn't matter what you believe, reality is independent of our beliefs. Faith based systems cannot hold up to scientific scrutiny. I have never even seen research that supports the belief that small cells reduce mites or have any benefit whatsoever. Whereas, many scientists have shown that using small cell foundation does nothing to reduce mites. That is why the title of this thread is "Small Cell Claims Debunked." Again.

PLB


----------



## AstroBee

peterloringborst said:


> They twist, flop, and generally behave in ways that a well built comb does not do. I like to hold the combs horizontal to look at the brood, eggs, etc. and unwired combs are prone to fall out of the frames when you do this. I admit I could get used to it, if I wanted to, but why bother? -- just my $.02
> 
> PLB


My thoughts exactly!


----------



## Barry

peterloringborst said:


> That is why the title of this thread is "Small Cell Claims Debunked." Again.


It uses the word "claims". What are all the claims?


----------



## AstroBee

Seems like the SC crowd could easily put together an experiment to add valuable insight to this debate. You already have bees surviving on SC (I assume for more than a couple of years, 10 years would be great). Make a few splits from your best colonies and put these on LC foundation and (fairly) evaluate what happens over the next few years. As I mentioned before, I don't believe that SC is the biggest factor leading to survival, but this experiment may provide meaningful data. 

Come on SC advocates and put your claims to the test. Everyone seems quick to call out the flaws in these studies, so here's your opportunity to do it right. Shoot, since I'm exclusively LC, just sell me a few of your best queens and I'll run the tests.


----------



## sqkcrk

Barry said:


> They make both. One cell size is found only in the hives of beekeepers.


I'm a beekeeper. None of my hives have only one cell sizes. I use foundation.


----------



## Michael Palmer

AstroBee said:


> Come on SC advocates and put your claims to the test. Everyone seems quick to call out the flaws in these studies, so here's your opportunity to do it right.


I agree. Even offered a well known SC proponent a slot at EAS 2012 if he could design and implement a study. Nothing ever came of it.

Every time anyone asks, the SC proponents say they already know SC works, and don't need to prove anything. Whatever.


----------



## Riskybizz

That's because everything works if you let it. ...


----------



## WLC

You can't prove cause and effect in a beehive. Only translocation.

So as for your challenge...

No Bet.


----------



## Leather Jim

jim lyon said:


> ...they also have slightly shorter gestational periods and a high propensity to swarm or abscond. No? Mr. DeJong's point is well taken, though. How ironic that the African bee, long considered a scourge, is now being recognized as an ally in the battle against varroa.


 Anyone have any opinions as to why the African strains have a shorter gestation period? Is it possibly due the small cell? This would seem to indicate there is less time for the varroa mite to reproduce. Yes?

Jim


----------



## Michael Palmer

"That's because everything works if you let it."


----------



## rhaldridge

peterloringborst said:


> In this context, I should point out that ordinary foundation has been in use for well over a hundred years, and many people do not believe that it has any harmful effect. I have used foundationless frames for various reasons and find them very annoying. I guess they would be OK with wire but loose combs in frames are not much better than top bar combs. They twist, flop, and generally behave in ways that a well built comb does not do. I like to hold the combs horizontal to look at the brood, eggs, etc. and unwired combs are prone to fall out of the frames when you do this. I admit I could get used to it, if I wanted to, but why bother? -- just my $.02
> 
> PLB


Well, some people may believe that foundation has no ill effects, but what about those studies that show contaminants in unused foundation? Can we be sure that this is not a factor, however minor, in the complex of things that contribute to the increased mortality that seems to have become the norm in late years?

I've only been at this a year, and have no ambitions beyond being a hobbyist, but I really like my foundationless frames. They allow the bees to build exactly what the bees want-- no need to wonder if you're giving them what they want. They're very pretty, and are nice for cut comb. Once they've been through a couple brood cycles, you can handle them like frames with foundation. My deeps are "wired" with monofilament fish line, which takes only moments per frame.

Three fourths of my stocks are derived from large cell bees, so any reduction in cell size is minor. But should they gradually move toward small cell, I can't see what possible harm this could do. Delaplane is quoted as saying he can't recommend small cell, but why warn anyone against it? Even if it doesn't help with mites, in what way is it a danger to the colony?

So far I'm an agnostic on small cell, because I am aware that there are successful TF beekeepers who do not use small cell. But I don't understand the urge to "debunk" the practice. Most practices worthy of debunking are worthy of debunking because of some harm that the practice may produce. I just don't see it here.


----------



## AstroBee

WLC said:


> You can't prove cause and effect in a beehive. Only translocation.
> 
> So as for your challenge...
> 
> No Bet.


So, are you saying that the benefits of SC cannot ever be proven? If not, please suggest an experiment/challenge that can objectively prove that SC has benefits.


----------



## AstroBee

rhaldridge said:


> So far I'm an agnostic on small cell, because I am aware that there are successful TF beekeepers who do not use small cell. But I don't understand the urge to "debunk" the practice. Most practices worthy of debunking are worthy of debunking because of some harm that the practice may produce. I just don't see it here.


Imagine a commercial beekeeper who reads the posts and decides to wholeheartedly jump into SC and stop treating. If SC doesn't work, then that commercial beekeeper will likely be out of business within two years, hence the warning. Many more examples can be conceived. We're not setting out to debunk anything. I just want objective proof that there is merit to SC. Personally, from what I heard and my success with LC, I don't believe there is. However, I remain open minded and would love to hear about a simple approach that can target the largest threat to beekeeping.


----------



## peterloringborst

> That is why the title of this thread is "Small Cell Claims Debunked." Again.
> 
> It uses the word "claims". What are all the claims?


Keith Delaplane's article summarizes it like this: 



> The idea behind small-cell foundation is the fact that mites can only reproduce in bee brood cells, and a few studies have shown that, if given a choice, Varroa mites prefer comparatively large brood cells. It is reasonable to assume that colony mite population growth would be correspondingly reduced in colonies with brood cells smaller than the mites’ natural range of choices. These observations ultimately led to a commercially-available product, a small cell foundation that measures 4.9 mm per cell compared to conventional foundations ranging around 5.2 mm to 5.4 mm. This product is available in bee supply catalogs and many beekeepers use it as part of an overall Varroa control strategy. The trouble is, the practice has not held up to experimental challenge.


I would add to this, again, that Seeley & Delaplane did not set out to prove small cell as unworthy, but to _find out_. If the outcome had been different, they would have published it, and this whole conversation would be different. Small cell advocates would have the imprimatur of world class researchers. Dave de Jong worked on it as well, in Brazil. He had some good results and some that were the opposite.


----------



## rhaldridge

AstroBee said:


> Imagine a commercial beekeeper who reads the posts and decides to wholeheartedly jump into SC and stop treating. If SC doesn't work, then that commercial beekeeper will likely be out of business within two years, hence the warning.


You know, I can't really imagine that happening. Commercial beekeepers are farmers, and farmers almost never decide to "jump into" something without solid proof that it works. No one with a lick of sense is going to risk their entire livelihood on unproven practices. Even BWeaver, when they realized that treatment was not a battle that could be won longterm, devoted only a minority of their hives to the breeding program to develop a treatment free bee. So would any sensible commercial operator, with or without a warning from Delaplane.

I really don't think I'm overestimating the intelligence of commercial operators. Most of the ones I read here seem pretty smart.

Besides that, small cell and TF are not inextricably linked. One could easily compare small cell to large cell on an IPM approach to treatment, which the cited studies have not addressed, so far as I know. In fact, I'd love to see a study like that.


----------



## WLC

AstroBee said:


> So, are you saying that the benefits of SC cannot ever be proven? If not, please suggest an experiment/challenge that can objectively prove that SC has benefits.


Astrobee:

Not so fast.

"small cell foundation was shown to be ineffective in reducing mite populations"

That's Delaplane's claim.

Once again, you can't prove cause and effect in a bee hive.

It's not a proof, just a claim.

As for chasing a claim made in a beekeeping periodical...

it's still not a peer reviewed scientific journal.


----------



## AstroBee

rhaldridge said:


> No one with a lick of sense is going to risk their entire livelihood on unproven practices.


Obviously. I was attempting to suggest that there are costs to anyone who may attempt SC. The authors (and others) are simply providing cautionary comments, and given the results, rightfully so. Oh, and for the record, anyone who attempts and succeeds at commercial beekeeping has my highest regards.


----------



## WLC

Here's the paper from 2010:

http://www.ent.uga.edu/bees/documents/m08138.pdf

"Abstract – In three independently replicated field studies, we compared biometrics of Varroa mite and
honey bee populations in bee colonies housed on one of two brood cell types: small-cell (4.9 ± 0.08 mm cell
width, walls inclusive) or conventional-cell (5.3 ± 0.04). In one of the studies, ending colony bee population
was significantly higher in small-cell colonies (14994 ± 2494 bees) than conventional-cell (5653 ± 1082).
However, small-cell colonies were significantly higher for mite population in brood (359.7 ± 87.4 vs.
134.5 ± 38.7), percentage of mite population in brood (49.4 ± 7.1 vs. 26.8 ± 6.7), and mites per 100 adult
bees (5.1 ± 0.9 vs. 3.3 ± 0.5). With the three remaining ending Varroa population metrics, mean trends
for small-cell were unfavorable. We conclude that small-cell comb technology does not impede Varroa
population growth."


----------



## AstroBee

WLC said:


> Astrobee:
> 
> 
> Once again, you can't prove cause and effect in a bee hive.


Let me be sure I understand your premise. Are you suggesting that no experiment could be conceived and implemented that would provide evidence to support or deny such a claim?


----------



## peterloringborst

WLC said:


> "small cell foundation was shown to be ineffective in reducing mite populations" That's Delaplane's claim. Once again, you can't prove cause and effect in a bee hive. It's not a proof, just a claim.


You're joking, right? Did you read the article? Keith addresses this right in the article:



> Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to work. I say seem to work because science is not in the business of proving or disproving anything. Experiments are designed to challenge hypotheses, not prove or disprove them. But at this point it's safe to say that the hypothesis that smallcell foundation reduces Varroa populations has not sustained scientific challenge. We cannot reject the possibility that small-cell may do the job under certain conditions. But until its efficacy is more generally demonstrated, I cannot recommend it.


----------



## WLC

AstroBee said:


> Let me be sure I understand your premise. Are you suggesting that no experiment could be conceived and implemented that would provide evidence to support or deny such a claim?


I said that you can't prove cause and effect in a bee hive.

You can certainly come up with experimental evidence.

I looked over the 2010 paper.

How can I put this...

It's not the best experimental design I've ever seen.

"Ending mites in brood 134.5 ± 38.7 (19) 359.7 ± 87.4 (21)*
Ending % mite popn. in brood 26.8 ± 6.7 (16) 49.4 ± 7.1 (20)*
Ending mites per 100 adult bees 3.3 ± 0.5 (18) 5.1 ± 0.9 (21)*
Table"

The significance level is 0.05.

That just means there might be something there.

Let me know when it reaches 0.001.


----------



## Oldtimer

WLC said:


> The best way to see just how many different cell sizes and types your bees will make is to allow them to draw out some foundationless frames. Frankly, I'd say that there is a noticeable difference depending on where in the hive the foundationless frame is drawn.
> 
> It may indicate that the entire hive doesn't need to be small cell, just the brood areas.


What gets lost in all this is that bees do not build a certain cell size because they "know" that is the right cell size to combat varroa.

Cell size may, or may not, influence varroa. But either way, varroa is outside the genetic experience of _apis melifera_, and the size of the cells they build has nothing to do with them "knowing what's right" to combat varroa. They build at whatever size they do, for different reasons entirely.


----------



## WLC

peterloringborst said:


> You're joking, right? Did you read the article? Keith addresses this right in the article:


Hey, Astrobee wanted an experimental design that doesn't exist.

No. I didn't catch the ABJ article.

Did he do a new study? Or, was this a rehash of the 2010 paper?


----------



## Barry

sqkcrk said:


> I'm a beekeeper. None of my hives have only one cell sizes. I use foundation.


Yeah, yeah, you know what I mean.


----------



## WLC

Before I forget:

"It isworth noting that Varroa densities in this study
(3.3–5.1 mites per 100 bees, Tab. I) were not
within the action threshold of ca. 13 mites per
100 bees shown for the region by Delaplane
and Hood (1999)."

O.K., so they didn't need treatment. :scratch:

So, in the end the large cell mite count was 3.3% and the small cell mite count was 5.1%.

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

I hope he had a brand new experiment in the ABJ article.


----------



## Barry

peterloringborst said:


> Keith Delaplane's article summarizes it like this:
> 
> The idea behind small-cell foundation is the fact that mites can only reproduce in bee brood cells, and a few studies have shown that, if given a choice, Varroa mites prefer comparatively large brood cells. It is reasonable to assume that colony mite population growth would be correspondingly reduced in colonies with brood cells smaller than the mites’ natural range of choices. These observations ultimately led to a commercially-available product, a small cell foundation that measures 4.9 mm per cell compared to conventional foundations ranging around 5.2 mm to 5.4 mm. This product is available in bee supply catalogs and many beekeepers use it as part of an overall Varroa control strategy. The trouble is, the practice has not held up to experimental challenge.


Seems vague to me. Are there several "claims" being addressed here? What exactly are they?


----------



## peterloringborst

> I hope he had a brand new experiment in the ABJ article.


He was summarizing what he had learned through his work with small cell foundation. Folks can pick apart the work, fine. I am still waiting for the study that shows that small cell foundation provides one single benefit. Nobody has that. These other studies were conducted to see if there was a benefit and none was found. This means, in plain English, the cell size doesn't matter.


----------



## WLC

"The trouble is, the practice has not held up to experimental challenge."

How about a challenge to the experimental challenge?

With the 3.3% vs 5.1% mite count for large vs small cell, I'm reminded of the old joke, "It couldn't hurt!".


----------



## Saltybee

"A field test of no more than 9-10 weeks is adequate to accurately appraise Varroa population change.(Harpo 1995.)"

Alternate conclusions from same data, 3rd test of August 08 of April 08 hives; 3 month test is inadequate to show population benefit of small test shown in year long 1st test data.

August 2007; small cell has 50 % greater survival (9) v(6).
Regressed and non-regressed bees were mixed and new queens given. What impact does that have on time of experiment?

As I said," forgot to dunk the frog." or as others are saying. A hive is not a scientifically provable organism. Indicator; maybe.

But heck, let's fight about an unprovable point.


----------



## Oldtimer

WLC you lost me. Could you restate the thoughts behind your last post in straightforward English. As your post also seems to imply the large cells had more mites than the small cells, I find your whole statement hopelessly muddled.


----------



## WLC

peterloringborst said:


> He was summarizing what he had learned through his work with small cell foundation. Folks can pick apart the work, fine. I am still waiting for the study that shows that small cell foundation provides one single benefit. Nobody has that. These other studies were conducted to see if there was a benefit and none was found. This means, in plain English, the cell size doesn't matter.


"When Message and
Gonçalves (1995) compared brood reared in
small worker cells produced by Africanized
bees with brood reared in large cells produced
by European bees, they found a 2-fold increase
in mite infestation rates in the larger cells.
When Piccirillo and De Jong (2003) compared
Varroa infestation rates in three types of brood
comb with different cell sizes (inner width),
4.84 mm, 5.16 mm, or 5.27 mm, they found
that percentage of cells infested was significantly
higher in the largest cells compared to
the other two groups."

That's from the paper. 

Maybe they used the wrong bees?


----------



## BeeCurious

If DeLaplane said "We cannot reject the possibility that small-cell may do the job under certain conditions.", it seems that Small Cell is not completely "debunked"... 

So, under what conditions could DeLaplane be imagining a benefit to using 4.9 foundation?


----------



## WLC

Oldtimer said:


> WLC you lost me. Could you restate the thoughts behind your last post in straightforward English. As your post also seems to imply the large cells had more mites than the small cells, I find your whole statement hopelessly muddled.


No, the large cell averaged out at a 3.3% infestation rate, and the small cell at 5.1%.

That's below the treatment threshold.

Compared to the levels in a colony that's about to be taken down by Varroa, it's laughable.

Let's get some really sick bees next time.


----------



## Barry

peterloringborst said:


> These other studies were conducted to see if there was a benefit and none was found. This means, in plain English, the cell size doesn't matter.


Here you seem to imply that these studies studied a wide range of possible impact SC had to the hives. I thought it was strictly mite counts they looked at.


----------



## peterloringborst

> That's from the paper.


 What paper?


----------



## WLC

peterloringborst said:


> What paper?


2010. Did he do another one? Check the link on the page before this one.

Here you go:

http://www.ent.uga.edu/bees/documents/m08138.pdf


----------



## peterloringborst

> If DeLaplane said "We cannot reject the possibility that small-cell may do the job under certain conditions.", it seems that Small Cell is not completely "debunked"...
> So, under what conditions could DeLaplane be imagining a benefit to using 4.9 foundation?


'

This is the way scientists talk. The probability is very high that such a thing does such a thing. There may be circumstances when it doesn't. It's an admission that we are dealing with probabilities, not eternal truths. It is not up to him to dream all possible scenarios. He only needs to show convincingly that something works or doesn't work.

Like this: I can showthat water put in ice trays in the freezer turns into ice cubes with reliable probability. There are times when it doesn't (refrigerator unplugged, etc). That's how science works. If you can use it, it's a tool. If you can't make it work, it's stuck in the realm of ideas. 

Delaplane is a researcher and an instructor. He wants things he can recommend, so he tries them. When they work, he recommends them. When they don't, he advises against their use. This is a very plain situation, very little to quarrel about here.

PLB


----------



## Saltybee

Well among the findings is that in the longest test set the small cell had twice the population as large cell. But this study proves SC has no benefit. Table 1.


----------



## WLC

Peter:

When you have a data table with 10 items, and only 3 of them show a significance level of a mere 0.05, you can't use that in a beekeeping periodical with regards to a product.

It's not hard evidence.


----------



## Oldtimer

Again WLC, I find your post incomprehensible. 0.05 what?


----------



## WLC

Oldtimer said:


> Again WLC, I find your post incomprehensible. 0.05 what?


Less than 1:20 .

Them's the odds.


----------



## squarepeg

the problem with applied bee research has to do with the axiom 'all beekeeping is local'.

there are simply too many variables at play to postulate near 100% predictions even at the p = .001.

on the other hand i have allowed myself to try various of the methods that anecdotes and science alike have suggested might be beneficial to my causes. i've had mixed results with that but usually discover some variation on the theme that works for me.

it isn't always either/or, sometimes its both/and, and sometimes it's neither.


----------



## AstroBee

From the link in post 127.

"Significant effects of cell size were detected for ending mites in brood (F=38.3; df=1,2; P=0.0252), percentage of mite population in brood cells (F=57.4; df=1,2; P=0.0170) and ending mites per 100 adult bees (F=23.8;df=1,2;P=0.0396). The ending number of mites in brood, percentage of mite population in brood, and mites per 100 adult bees were significantly higher in small-cell colonies."

Seems pretty significant to me. The surprising thing to me is that SC appears to actually be much worse than conventional cell size.


----------



## squarepeg

my take is that cell size is not _the_ determining factor. i'm leaning toward natural comb because it's cleaner and there's more drone cells in it with than small cell or with foundation. it just so happens that the cells in the middle of those frames end up averaging 4.9 mm.


----------



## Saltybee

Are you looking at mites or the results upon the hives themselves? Totally different results.

Look at table 11 and the notes. 
The longest test was August 06 to June 07. That is 11 months at most and as little as 9 months. A scientist should notice that time is a variable and make a note of what day it is not just the month.

Large cell population = 5653+-.
Small cell population =14994+-.

Small cell hive is more than twice as large as LC.

This study "debunks" SC by demonstrating in the longest test period studied, the SC hive is more than twice as large as LC.
In the middle time period 1/3 more SC hives survive than LC hives. 9 SC hives survive only 6 LC.

It is only the shortest time period, March 07 to June 07 that skews the hive data to towards LC.

POST 127 DATA DOES NOT SUPPORT THE CONCLUSIONS REACHED. NOT AT ALL.

BAD SCIENCE IS BAD SCIENCE. That is true if you are pro or con SC.


----------



## Lauri

squarepeg said:


> but usually discover some variation on the theme that works for me.
> .


Well said, that's my story.


----------



## beemandan

Saltybee said:


> Small cell hive is more than twice as large as LC...... BAD SCIENCE IS BAD SCIENCE.


The Delaplane study didn't set out to study populations. It was designed to study the effect of small cell on varroa. Since they were collecting population data, they included it. The idea is if some other enterprising researcher finds that information interesting, he/she could design a study to examine it.
If small cell reduced varroa via some sort of reproductive disruption, it should be demonstrated within a brood cycle or two. This was the claim of many small cell beekeepers. This was what the study examined. Narrow focus. Time is the enemy in these things. The longer the trial, the more opportunity for variable creep. The longer those hives are running the more other elements enter into the equation, skewing the results. Good science.
An example of bad science. You put out a load of small cell hives without any controls. You never test for mites. At the end of five years you say small cell cured your mite problem. That would be bad science.....actually that would be no science.


----------



## Michael Bush

>Michael Bush, do you believe that the study you just linked establishes any credibility for small cell? 

It established one possible mechanism to explain small cell success.


----------



## Michael Bush

>How did you come up with these colony numbers and years?

I've seen similar numbers quoted by several other people often quoting older beekeepers such as Charles Mraz. Some of the numbers were higher, but I think they make sense. Things vary from year to year. Climate swings, according to the Lakota, which seem to match up with other data, run up and down every 7 years with bigger swings every 49 years or so. So maybe it should be extended to 7 years... I once flipped a quarter and got heads 27 times in a row. That is not a large enough sample to be statistically relevant. Bee colonies are much more complicated. I don't think anything under 100 hives is statistically relevant enough to draw any hard conclusions.


----------



## peterloringborst

> >Michael Bush, do you believe that the study you just linked establishes any credibility for small cell?


This is what I have said repeatedly. The proponents of SC have absolutely nothing they can point to showing that SC has any benefit on long term survival of bee colonies. Now, granted, African bees make small cells and they do survive without intervention. But anyone can see that the size of the cell is not the main reason they survive. 

That would be like saying a soccer team consistently won games because they wore a certain size jersey. The might consistently win because they were faster, better, or even smaller. But not because of the clothes. 

And, even if it were the clothes, then the other team would buy that type of outfit, and gain the advantage. This is what SC is alleged to do. You buy the SC foundation and the team wins. But there is simply no clear evidence it works. Just claims.


----------



## beemandan

If the mode of action depicted in the study MB linked i.e. because there wasn't enough room for male mites to move down in the cell and mate with their sisters....if this was the moa of small cell....how many brood cycles would be needed to confirm this? And if this were the case....what would the Delaplane results have been (not to mention the Ellis and Seeley studies)?


----------



## Leather Jim

peterloringborst Now said:


> Yesterday I asked a question about the fact that African bees deal with varroa and also have a shorter gestation period. I suspect that it was ignored due to the back and forth bickering taking place at the time. I have no horse in this race, I'm in a steep learning curve right now and it was a serious question.
> 
> Would there seem to be any link between the shorter gestation and the fact that they are small cell? If so then doesn't logic follow that a shorter gestation period allows less time for the varroa to reproduce?
> 
> I'm not a scientist so I can only run on common sense as I see it and ask many questions. We seem to have an abundance of highly educated beeks here, a little help please. Thank You in advance.
> 
> Jim


----------



## peterloringborst

I just posted this to another thread



> The loss of Apis mellifera L. colonies in recent years has, in many regions of the world, been alarmingly high. No single cause has been identified for these losses, but the interactions between several factors (mostly pathogens and parasites) have been held responsible. Work in the Americas on honeybees originating mainly from South Africa indicates that Africanised honeybees are less affected by the interplay of pathogens and parasites. However, little is known about the health status of South African honeybees (A. m. scutellata and A. m. capensis) in relation to pathogens and parasites. We therefore compared the seasonal prevalence of honeybee pathogens (viruses, bacteria, fungi) and parasites (mites, bee lice, wax moth, small hive beetles, A. m. capensis social parasites) between sedentary and migratory A. m. scutellata apiaries situated in the Gauteng region of South Africa. No significant differences were found in the prevalence of pathogens and parasites between sedentary and migratory apiaries. Three (Black queen cell virus, Varroa destructor virus 1 and Israeli acute paralysis virus) of the eight viruses screened were detected, a remarkable difference compared to European honeybees. Even though no bacterial pathogens were detected, Nosema apis and Chalkbrood were confirmed. All of the honeybee parasites were found in the majority of the apiaries with the most common parasite being the Varroa mite. In spite of hosting few pathogens, yet most parasites, A. m. scutellata colonies appeared to be healthy.
> 
> Africanized honeybees, that are genetically very similar to their African ancestors, are infected with DWV, but have not experienced large colony losses. This suggests that there might also be a genetic component that provides African and Africanized honeybees with a greater level of tolerance to pathogens and parasites, e.g. higher absconding rates, faster colony development rates, smaller colonies.


Journal of Invertebrate Pathology. Volume 114, Issue 1, September 2013, Pages 45–52


----------



## Saltybee

peterloringborst said:


> This is what I have said repeatedly. The proponents of SC have absolutely nothing they can point to showing that SC has any benefit on long term survival of bee colonies..


Large cell population = 5653+-.
Small cell population =14994+-.

Nothing? Maybe not enough for you. Anyone speaking in absolutes makes me suspicious.


----------



## squarepeg

thanks for contributing peter, looking forward to hearing more of what you have to say.

have a good week!


----------



## Robndixie

peterloringborst said:


> This is what I have said repeatedly. The proponents of SC have absolutely nothing they can point to showing that SC has any benefit on long term survival of bee colonies. Now, granted, African bees make small cells and they do survive without intervention. But anyone can see that the size of the cell is not the main reason they survive.
> 
> That would be like saying a soccer team consistently won games because they wore a certain size jersey. The might consistently win because they were faster, better, or even smaller. But not because of the clothes.
> 
> And, even if it were the clothes, then the other team would buy that type of outfit, and gain the advantage. This is what SC is alleged to do. You buy the SC foundation and the team wins. But there is simply no clear evidence it works. Just claims.


i don't run small cell but i'm not going to say it doesn't work either. you say that ahb survives without intervention and that anyone can see that cell size isn't the main reason. what should i be seeing as the main reason? aggression? the old "german" bees were smaller, aggressive and even had slightly faster brood cycles but they seem to have vanished in my area over the last 15 or 20 years. i'm interested in what other obvious conclusions i should be drawing about the africanized bees.


----------



## AstroBee

I suggest that everyone take a few minutes and read Section 4 (Discussion) of the document linked in post 109.


----------



## AstroBee

Michael Bush said:


> >I don't think anything under 100 hives is statistically relevant enough to draw any hard conclusions.


And who's got 100 non-AHB SC colonies?


----------



## Robndixie

jim, i think one theory is that the shorter brood cycle disrupts the mite life cycle. around '99 or 00' i removed a colony of what we used to call german bees from a house. i had high hopes for them but they lasted a few seasons and crashed just like the other ferals i ad been collecting.


----------



## AstroBee

Michael Bush said:


> ... I once flipped a quarter and got heads 27 times in a row.


You should have ran out and bought a powerball ticket. The odds of 27 heads in a row on a fair coin is greater than 1 in a billion.


----------



## TWall

WLC said:


> The significance level is 0.05.
> 
> That just means there might be something there.
> 
> Let me know when it reaches 0.001.


WLC,

That is an unrealistic goal for this type of research. Considering the inherent variability in beehives, weather etc. it is very unlikely to to get that level of significance with any regularity.

As far as experimental design goes I won't comment. I have not done this type of research and am not familiar with what designs are normally used.

Tom


----------



## beemandan

Saltybee said:


> Nothing? Maybe not enough for you.


Just a reminder. The small cell folks hadn't made any claims to increased populations. Nobody designed a study to properly examine that. I repeat. The study was designed to determine if small cell reduced varroa in bee colonies. Nothing more.
How can you reject the results that the trial was designed to deliver.....and refer to that as BAD SCIENCE.....but embrace those data that were peripheral?


----------



## peterloringborst

> i'm interested in what other obvious conclusions i should be drawing about the africanized bees.


Already posted, but here:



> Africanized honeybees, that are genetically very similar to their African ancestors, are infected with DWV, but have not experienced large colony losses. This suggests that there might also be a genetic component that provides African and Africanized honeybees with a greater level of tolerance to pathogens and parasites, e.g. higher absconding rates, faster colony development rates, smaller colonies.


----------



## TWall

Saltybee said:


> BAD SCIENCE IS BAD SCIENCE. That is true if you are pro or con SC.


How is this study bad science?

The reported study was looking at cell size impact varroa mite metrics and that is what they reported. In one of the blocks there is a significant difference in bee population. However, when measurements were made that eliminate population differences, ending % mite popn in brood and ending mites per 100 adult bees, the SC bees had more mites statistically. With mite populations not being lower the null hypothesis is supported.

Tom


----------



## Moots

AstroBee said:


> You should have ran out and bought a powerball ticket. The odds of 27 heads in a row on a fair coin is greater than 1 in a billion.


Now Now AstroBee, let's not exaggerate, I think there's enough of that going on! 

According to my math, the odds would be more like 1 in 134 MILLION, Two hundred Seventeen Thousand, Seven-hundred and Twenty-eight! 

WOW! Still pretty impressive, I would have really like to have seen that!


----------



## AstroBee

Moots said:


> let's not exaggerate


Didn't think I was. Is it not 1/(2^27) =7.4506e-09 ? 1 in a billion = 1.0000e-09


----------



## Michael Bush

>And who's got 100 non-AHB SC colonies? 

Seriously? I can only think of one SC beekeeper who routinely gets accused of having AHB and I would suspect hers are actually Apis mellifera iberica. So I don't understand that statement.

A few that have at least 100 hives that come to mind off the top of my head: Sam Comfort, Don (Fatbeeman) Kuchenmeister, John Seaborn, Les Crowder, Myron Kropf, me...

>But anyone can see that the size of the cell is not the main reason they survive. 

"The small width comb cells produced by Africanized honey bees may have a role in the ability of these bees
to tolerate infestations by Varroa destructor, furthermore it appears that natural-sized comb cells are
superior to over-sized comb cells for disease resistance."--Maggi, M., Damiani, N., Ruffinengo, S., De Jong, D., Principal, J. & Eguaras, M. (2010) Brood cell size of Apis
mellifera modifies the reproductive behavior of Varroa destructor. Experimental and Applied Acarology Volume 50,
Number 3, 269-279.

Apparently someone can see it very well might be.


----------



## Saltybee

TWall said:


> How is this study bad science?
> 
> The reported study was looking at cell size impact varroa mite metrics and that is what they reported. In one of the blocks there is a significant difference in bee population. However, when measurements were made that eliminate population differences, ending % mite popn in brood and ending mites per 100 adult bees, the SC bees had more mites statistically. With mite populations not being lower the null hypothesis is supported.
> 
> Tom


Lacking in control or observations of the variables. Mixing 2 month data and unknown data;"The longest test was August 06 to June 07. That is 11 months at most and as little as 9 months. A scientist should notice that time is a variable". 

To carry your point to the extreme; Study finds falling out of an airplane without a parachute has no effect upon survival. Study is valid if concluded prior to ground impact. Few would find that study "Debunked" parachutes,
So you have me there if that is your goal. If you believe that other possible outcomes to the conclusions of your data, such as larger hives and greater survival are not worthy of a footnote, is good science, you have me. I'll stick to my view.


----------



## rhaldridge

I see at least a couple of problems with the study, if we're talking about the Berry, Owens, Delaplane work.

One is that bees were "normalized" by mixing bees together in cages regardless of large or small cell origin. This is an artifice that in no way resembles the actual situation inside a small cell colony, which would consist of all small cell bees.

But in my view, the greatest weakness of the study was its duration. 



> The duration of time between experiment start
> date and collection of ending Varroa population
> metrics was ca. 40 weeks for August 2006 colonies,
> 12 weeks for March 2007 colonies, and 16 weeks
> for April 2008 colonies. A field test of no more than
> 9–10 weeks is adequate to accurately appraise Varroa
> population change (Harbo, 1996).


As a beginning TF beekeeper, I've been told repeatedly that the fact that my colonies are a year old and thriving is meaningless. I've had it hammered into me that even if my bees seem fine now, next winter, or in some cases, the winter after that, my bees will undoubtedly fail, without treatment. 

So how come I don't get to claim success as a TF beekeeper, but Delaplane et al get to claim failure on the basis of even less time? It seems inconsistent, at best.

(Disclaimer: I expect everyone is right and my bees *will* die, because my stock is mostly nothing special, and I'm a novice.)

If the mite infestation level was in both large and small cell colonies below treatment threshold, it seems to me that not much was demonstrated regarding the ability of small cell colonies to survive long term, which after all, is the point of using small cell. Every colony has mites, even the treated ones.

Does anyone know of a study that tested small cell against large cell using colony mortality over time?


----------



## peterloringborst

> Seriously? I can only think of one SC beekeeper who routinely gets accused of having AHB and I would suspect hers are actually Apis mellifera iberica.


You can't be serious. Arizona was one of the first states to be declared Africanized. There is simply no way you could maintain a distinct population of European bees in a state like that. Do the math.


----------



## sterling

AstroBee said:


> And who's got 100 non-AHB SC colonies?


Is Mr. Delaplane running 100 colonies? I goggled his name and couldn't find anything about his apiary. I didn't read everything because there is so much about his writhings and lectures ect. so I may have missed what I was looking for.


----------



## peterloringborst

> And who's got 100 non-AHB SC colonies?


You don't need 100 colonies to do a valid study. I don't know who pulled that number out of a hat. You need one yard, 6-8 European colonies. All you have to show is that the bees lived more than three years without treatment. On average, European bees fail the third year due to mites. 

Who has shown this, who has the data? The data are there proving MAQs prevents colony collapse due to varroa, the data are there that untreated hives tank in three years. All you have to do is show that bees on SC survive more than three years, without treatment and without adding bees from other hives.


----------



## TWall

rhaldridge,

The purpose of the study was to look at varroa mite population growth on two different cell sizes. It was in no way comparing colony survival in different production systems or TF beekeeping.

Tom


----------



## AstroBee

peterloringborst said:


> You don't need 100 colonies to do a valid study. I don't know who pulled that number out of a hat.


It certainly wasn't me. I was simply responding to MB's comment (post #140) where he stated: "I don't think anything under 100 hives is statistically relevant enough to draw any hard conclusions."


----------



## TWall

peterloringborst said:


> You don't need 100 colonies to do a valid study. I don't know who pulled that number out of a hat. You need one yard, 6-8 European colonies.
> [email protected]


Peter,

See post #8 and then post #140.

Tom


----------



## TWall

sterling said:


> Is Mr. Delaplane running 100 colonies? I goggled his name and couldn't find anything about his apiary. I didn't read everything because there is so much about his writhings and lectures ect. so I may have missed what I was looking for.


He is on the faculty at the University of Georgia. He conducts research and education programs on honey bees among other things.

Tom


----------



## rhaldridge

TWall said:


> rhaldridge,
> 
> The purpose of the study was to look at varroa mite population growth on two different cell sizes. It was in no way comparing colony survival in different production systems or TF beekeeping.
> 
> Tom


I get that. That's why I think it has little to do with whether or not small cell is a viable tactic for long term TF beekeeping. The phrase "It doesn't work" has been bandied about. I don't think any conclusion as to whether or not it "works" can be drawn from the study, unless you're a beekeeper who routinely discards colonies after 40 weeks and are extremely concerned about single percentage point differences in mite load.


----------



## peterloringborst

> It was in no way comparing colony survival


Who cares about anything else? I mean, mite buildup is a proxy for mite caused collapse. If they built up more slowly, that would be a good thing. That is what Keith was trying to show: does SC slow mite buildup. Even if it only slowed mite buildup then it would be a useful tool. 

But the SC folks go one step further and claim that it not only slows mite buildup, but prevents colony collapse due to mites. They have been claiming this for decades. But nobody has shown it. Show me the data, not the claims! 

Pete


----------



## jwcarlson

Roland said:


> WLC - could it be that you have the cause and effect backwards? Could it be that the bee that HAPPENS to make small cell naturally is better at managing mites than a bee that makes a large cell naturally? The logical progression then would be for a beekeeper to start using small cell, and select the bees that draw it out best, which happen to be the more mite tolerant.
> 
> Crazy Roland


Don't all bees make "small cell" naturally? 



TWall said:


> rhaldridge,
> 
> The purpose of the study was to look at varroa mite population growth on two different cell sizes. It was in no way comparing colony survival in different production systems or TF beekeeping.
> 
> Tom


Regarding the population difference between large and small cell colonies in the study... is it pretty safe to assume that a colony 1/3 the size of a similarly aged colony has experienced a pretty significant brood break or lull at some point recently? Regardless of cell size...? Would a colony that size be raising drones?

Honest questions, just wondering.


----------



## Michael Bush

>All you have to do is show that bees on SC survive more than three years, without treatment and without adding bees from other hives. 

Thousands of people are doing this, no one seems interested in studying them.


----------



## peterloringborst

> Thousands of people are doing this, no one seems interested in studying them.


You mean, not one of them kept track of colony survival over time, in a notebook? That's all I am talking about, the data.

Pete


----------



## Michael Bush

>You mean, not one of them kept track of colony survival over time, in a notebook? That's all I am talking about, the data.

I'm sure some of them did. Has anyone asked them? No one ever seems interested. I used to keep notes, but when I got up to 200 hives or so with full time work, speaking, writing, horses, and family, there just wasn't time to keep up with it. It's hard to keep up with all the notes when you are in an outyard about to faint from heat stroke and you have two more yards to do today...


----------



## Saltybee

The trouble with a tight scientific study; Really hard to design and perform.
The trouble with observational data; The opposing views will not believe the data because it is not scientific.

Until someone posts a video of Michael Bush sneaking in replacement bees in the middle of the night I will consider SC a possibility.
Until someone designs a tight scientific study showing SC success I will consider SC only a possibility for many locations/bees /keeps.
I cannot conceive of a study that would conclusively prove SC is without any basis. (Proving the negative.)


----------



## Moots

AstroBee said:


> Didn't think I was. Is it not 1/(2^27) =7.4506e-09 ? 1 in a billion = 1.0000e-09


AstroBee,
Understand, my post was made with tongue firmly implanted in cheek, whether 1 in 1.34 million, or 1 in a billion, I think we all got your point. 

But to clarify, 
Yes it is 1/(2^27), which does equal 7.4506e-09, or .0000000074506, and yes 1 in a billion is = 1.0000e-09 or .000000001

However, when looking at a number expressed as a decimal, a larger number means something is MORE, not less likely. In the above case, 7.4506e-09, is larger than 1.0000e-09.

Simply put 1/(2^27) is the same as 1/134,217,728, which is obviously better odds than 1/1,000,000,000 or (one in a billion).

For example:
For something to have a 1 in 2 chance, that's expressed as 1/2 or .5

For something to have a 1 in 64 chance, that's expressed as 1/64 or .01563....While .5 is much larger than .01563---1 in 2 is much more likely, "or better odds" than 1 in 64.


----------



## 2ndCharter

I for one just don't trust studies for the most part. Remember the UPenn study that said neonicotinoids didn't affect bee health? As soon as I saw the source I was skeptical, having Bayer as a large contributor to their science department and all.

I don't want to give my local PhD beek a hard time because I'm sure he does what he's learned is best and thinks is best but his conditions aren't natural. When your couple of hives, that most have died out, are sitting next to a University crop test field, could you think you might have some other issues and factors you need to isolate from first? These are the people that supply brood to the bee lab for testing. 

I've only been keeping bees for my seventh season now. I've always been treatment free and regressed them all to 4.9 very early on. Now my hives are mostly natural cell size. Ever since this was done I personally have had no varroa explosions like I saw the first couple of years. I also requeened with VSH genetics from VP Queens which are not far from me. Maybe SC isn't the answer but its my approach to all things about beekeeping that have helped. Is it a proven method by someone who spent a bunch of years longer than me at University? No, but it works for me and it just could be multi-variant interactions. 

"University" bees aren't like my bees.


----------



## peterloringborst

> Don't all bees make "small cell" naturally?


Nope. Apis mellifera races vary in the cell size they build. On average, European honey bees build larger cells than African bees. Apis cerana cells are smaller still, and Apis dorsata are bigger. But when African bees moved into Costa Rica, researchers were able to ID the swarms by the size of cells in the comb they built. Measurably smaller than the local European bees. 

P


----------



## AstroBee

Moots said:


> 1/134,217,728, which is obviously better odds than 1/1,000,000,000


My bad. Good catch.


----------



## Oldtimer

2ndCharter said:


> Now my hives are mostly natural cell size.


If you have measured, what is that cell size?


----------



## 2ndCharter

I honestly haven't bothered. Good idea though, I'll add it to my list of things to do next inspection.


----------



## rhaldridge

peterloringborst said:


> Who cares about anything else? I mean, mite buildup is a proxy for mite caused collapse. If they built up more slowly, that would be a good thing. That is what Keith was trying to show: does SC slow mite buildup. Even if it only slowed mite buildup then it would be a useful tool.
> 
> But the SC folks go one step further and claim that it not only slows mite buildup, but prevents colony collapse due to mites. They have been claiming this for decades. But nobody has shown it. Show me the data, not the claims!
> 
> Pete


Yes, and the anti small cell folk are claiming this proves that SC is bunk. Neither conclusion is supported by the data. What the data shows is that over a modest amount of time, under these particular circumstances, starting with commercial queens and bees of mixed origin, that SC is no better than large cell, in terms of a modest mite buildup. The context and data do not support the larger conclusions being drawn by those who think small cell is nonsense. You are assuming that mite buildup is linear and relentlessly progressive under both regimes. That assumption is not supported by the data, and is contradicted by the existence of successful TF beekeepers.

An actual test of the tactic under real world conditions would use small cell colonies against large cell colonies over a period of years.

I've had one colony die, from queenlessness. Am I to conclude that I'm a successful TF beekeeper, or would it make more sense to wait a year or two more before arriving at that conclusion?


----------



## Oldtimer

2ndCharter said:


> I honestly haven't bothered. Good idea though, I'll add it to my list of things to do next inspection.


Please do and if you mention it here please put it somewhere I will find it, cheers. 

BTW you probably know but measuring one cell is near impossible the common practise is to measure along 10 cells than divide by 10. this should be done at several different bits of comb at least one from core brood nest and also from outer brood nest but comb that is being used for worker production.


----------



## peterloringborst

> You are assuming that mite buildup is linear and relentlessly progressive under both regimes. That assumption is not supported by the data, and is contradicted by the existence of successful TF beekeepers.


I am not assuming anything. The textbooks say that untreated, Europeans on average will fail the third season. Therefore, if someone could show that SC colonies, on average, do not fail that year, even don't fail because of mites, you would have made the case. Very simple stuff.


----------



## Saltybee

I'm guessing they look in the hive and say" Yep, still bees.". Simple criteria.

Scientific studies should not be so easy to shred.


----------



## squarepeg

peterloringborst said:


> But you say "not supported by the data" and the "existence of successful TF beekeepers." Where is the data from the TF beekeepers? That is all I am asking. It _appears to me _ that treatment free beekeepers do not document what they are doing, preferring to rely on anecdotes.
> 
> That's how it looks. They shred the scientific studies but produce no studies or even raw data supporting their case. Show me!
> 
> Pete


i'm keeping very careful notes peter. i have one colony that has 5 winters under its belt, 2 others with 4 winters, and five others with 3 winters. in fairness to the thread however they are all on mostly standard cell with a smattering of naturally drawn frames mixed in.

the supplier i obtained these bees from doesn't journal his colonies, but continues to enjoy low losses after 17 years, (also on standard foundation).


----------



## Michael Bush

>I am not assuming anything. The textbooks say that untreated, Europeans on average will fail the third season. Therefore, if someone could show that SC colonies, on average, do not fail that year, even don't fail because of mites, you would have made the case. Very simple stuff. 

I raise horses and chickens and bees. I never know exactly how many chickens I have. I never know exactly how many colonies I have. I do know exactly how many horses I have. The number of horses is small and the horses are big and mostly in one place. If my chickens are healthy and thriving and I don't notice any significant difference in number, I don't bother to count them. 

Yes, this is very simple stuff. I haven't treated my bees in more than a decade. Is that simple enough? According to popular thought they should all be dead but they are not. I am far from the only person with such an experience. 

>preferring to rely on anecdotes. 

If tell you my bees are alive, that is an anecdote to you. When I look at my bees flying, that is reality to me. I am not relying on anecdotes, I am looking at my bees, I'm not taking someone's word for it that they are alive. It is not "relying on anecdotes" if your bees are surviving.


----------



## Oldtimer

Yes well that's interesting Squarepeg.

Seems to me that most folks who want to do things treatment free will also be of a philosophy to set themselves up with either small cell or foundationless so that is overweighted among treatment free'ers. But there are those who have been just as successful with 5.4 cells. Where is StevenG these days?

The most well known supplier of treatment free queens, Weavers, do not use small cell and in fact I once saw him scoff at the idea. One of the best known suppliers of small cell bees, FatBeeMan, has to treat.

There must be a whole bunch of stuff in the mix that we do not realise.


----------



## TWall

Saltybee said:


> I'm guessing they look in the hive and say" Yep, still bees.". Simple criteria.
> 
> Scientific studies should not be so easy to shred.



Saltybee,

I'm not sure anyone has 'shredded' this study. I think some have tried to extrapolate beyond the scope of this study in a way that the data can't support. I don't think the author ever intended for the data to be used as some have tried to.

This study looked at varroa population growth on two different cell sizes. 

Some have proposed that colonies on small cell are more successful because the cell size impacts varroa growth. This study didn't support that premise. It did nothing to dispute, or support, the success of colonies on small cell.

Maybe, the success of small cell is due to something no known has discovered yet?

Without study individual components it will be immpossible to determine which mechanisms are benficial or detrimental.

I am not for or against small cell. I have not been convinced to try it. After reading in a post by PLB above that A. ceranae are even smaller than A. scutella I'm beginning to wonder if it due to the physical size of the cell at all. Or, that A. mellifera is so much bigger that even small A. mellifera are big enough to give varroa a big jump.

If small cell is the answer it would be nice to find out why.

Tom


----------



## AstroBee

2ndCharter said:


> VSH genetics


Don't know if we could all agree, but I believe that there are TF beekeepers out there - heck I posted earlier in this thread that I am virtually TF for the past 10 years. It just happens that my bees are thriving on LC foundation. Is my case statistically insignificant? Perhaps, but please don't tell my bees  Is it genetics or cell size? I do know that my bees started looking much better when I began introducing survivor genetics and VSH queens into my yards - no foundation changes were made. 

Some continue to profess that cell size alone will solve mite problems. The publication being discussed here, at least for me, is enough to place serious doubt that cell size alone is responsible for TF success. We can argue on and on about sample sizes, experimental methods, p-values, PI qualifications, etc, but none of the critical varroa measures were favorable for SC in this study. I think the SC crowd needs to take a step back and admit that there may be other factors at play. The non-SC crowd isn't asking much, just simply admit that there are possibly other factors, perhaps far more dominant, than cell size involved in their success.


----------



## peterloringborst

> i'm keeping very careful notes peter. i have one colony that has 5 winters under its belt, 2 others with 4 winters, and five others with 3 winters. in fairness to the thread however they are all on mostly standard cell


This is what I am talking about. Somebody who keeps records. Of course, he is helping to make the case that small cells don't matter. A few years ago I wrote in the American Bee Journal about treatment free beekeeping, so I know a little bit about it. Several factors can allow colonies to survive despite not being treated for mites. One, of course, is mite resistant stock. Another is climate, it is a lot harder to keep bees going in the North where I live. I don't think cell size matters, that's all.

P.


----------



## 2ndCharter

AstroBee said:


> We can argue on and on about sample sizes, experimental methods, p-values, PI qualifications, etc, but none of the critical varroa measures were favorable for SC in this study. I think the SC crowd needs to take a step back and admit that there may be other factors at play. The non-SC crowd isn't asking much, just simply admit that there are possibly other factors, perhaps far more dominant, than cell size involved in their success.


Which is kind of a fancy way of what I said and it could be a combination of things. I just hate when the lab coat mentality comes on here and dismisses what everyone without a PhD does as inconsequential and insignificant. Between you and I, I'd love to do a statistical study and pull those p-values but I have a hard time quantifying the effort or the DOE where all the input variables are measurable and repeatable. So in light of that, I have to side with Michael Bush and say, believe it or don't... whatever.


----------



## 2ndCharter

peterloringborst said:


> My own experience over 5 years: I started a bee yard at my house with 3 nucs. The second year I divided them and treated late in the season with thymol, but the mites weren't too bad. The third year I still had the 6 hives, plus I bought a package of BeeWeaver bees. That fall & winter they all failed (third year syndrome) except the package. I divided the one survivor, got back to six with BeeWeaver queens, they all died this winter except one. So there's the data.


I'd call that anecdotal. How many control hives did you have? How did you regulate environmental conditions during this period? Where are your measurements of stores and their qualities? Blah, blah blah...

Oh, and you treated so I guess that had nothing to do with your failure either?


----------



## D Semple

I have 34 hives coming out of winter (lost 8), followed Dee and Michael from day one. Do what they tell me to do, don't know if it's the small cell because I've never used any standard foundation, may be because I'm just a great beekeeper (Ha). 

SC doesn't hurt anything. 

Don, et al

4th yr, 30 - 40 H, TF, SC, Ferals


----------



## squarepeg

peterloringborst said:


> Several factors can allow colonies to survive despite not being treated for mites. One, of course, is mite resistant stock. Another is climate.....


climate yes, and availability of quality natural forage. southern appalachia rivals the amazon rain forest when it comes to floral biodiversity. no feed supplements used here.


----------



## beemandan

sterling said:


> Is Mr. Delaplane running 100 colonies?


You're just hell bent on insulting Dr. Delaplane.


----------



## beemandan

peterloringborst said:


> You can't be serious. Arizona was one of the first states to be declared Africanized.


Now you've gone too far. Dee Lusby has a 'selection' process. She does walkaway splits and allows swarms to move into her empty hives. It must be iberica.


----------



## WLC

I thought it was 'thelytoky'?


----------



## Barry Digman

Has someone designed a small cell study that meets the criteria for being valid science? 

I'm not asking whether a study has been conducted. I'm asking if one has been designed such that anyone who carried it out would have valuable data at the end that could benefit us all, one way or the other. 

I suspect there may be some of us who would like to be able to contribute to the body of knowledge in a meaningful way, but sadly when we reached the fork in the road in college we took the business skool path rather than the science/math path and we don't know how to conduct the experiment properly.


----------



## beeware10

putting aside small vs large cell we all know that some lines of bees are better at controlling mite levels. has anyone considered the fact that some lines of mites may be more agressive than others? just another variable to consider.


----------



## WLC

Barry Digman said:


> I suspect there may be some of us who would like to be able to contribute to the body of knowledge in a meaningful way, but sadly when we reached the fork in the road in college we took the business skool path rather than the science/math path and we don't know how to conduct the experiment properly.


You've studied marketing surveys, right?

Hint, you can count mites (whole numbers) on a sticky board as well as surviving colonies.

You really don't need to get too fancy to come up with evidence. Just keep it simple. Don't forget the large cell controls though.


----------



## crofter

Barry Digman said:


> Has someone designed a small cell study that meets the criteria for being valid science?
> 
> I'm not asking whether a study has been conducted. I'm asking if one has been designed such that anyone who carried it out would have valuable data at the end that could benefit us all, one way or the other.


That could be an interesting thread on its own! For certain the design would take some fair dollars to define the conditions and support the necessary controls. It would take a team including multiple unbiased witnesses for verification to give the study any chance of authoritative credibility.


----------



## beemandan

Barry Digman said:


> Has someone designed a small cell study that meets the criteria for being valid science?


I am astounded at this question. The study cited for this thread was valid science. There have been several others conducted that were also valid science. Now...if the question is will a study ever be designed that is acceptable to the proponents of small cell......that is an entirely different question.....


----------



## Barry Digman

beemandan said:


> I am astounded at this question.


Probably because you didn't understand what I was asking. Let me try again.

Has someone designed a small cell study that meets the criteria for being valid science which is written in a format such that those of us without a science background can utilize it in our own hives? 

I'm looking for "Small Cell Study for Dummies". A printed set of instructions on how to carry out a reasonable study that can be compared with others who are following the same protocol.


----------



## WLC

>"I'm looking for "Small Cell Study for Dummies". A printed set of instructions on how to carry out a reasonable study that can be compared with others who are following the same protocol.<


Yes. It's called a 'sticky board'. Do they come with instructions?


----------



## beemandan

Barry Digman said:


> Has someone designed a small cell study that meets the criteria for being valid science which is written in a format such that those of us without a science background can utilize it in our own hives?


I agree....I don't understand the question. It sounds like you are asking for a study that offers direction on how to use small cell? I think....we are talking about two different things.....but maybe I'm wrong.


----------



## rhaldridge

TWall said:


> Some have proposed that colonies on small cell are more successful because the cell size impacts varroa growth. This study didn't support that premise. It did nothing to dispute, or support, the success of colonies on small cell.


Exactly.


----------



## Robndixie

peterloringborst said:


> Already posted, but here:


the words "suggests" and "might" don't seem very conclusive. that seems the same as saying that ahb colonies survive varroa destructor and this might suggest that it could be due to the smaller cell size.


----------



## Barry Digman

beemandan said:


> I agree....I don't understand the question. It sounds like you are asking for a study that offers direction on how to use small cell? I think....we are talking about two different things.....but maybe I'm wrong.


Not necessarily how to use it as much as how to properly and uniformly keep them so the data is useful.

Think crowdsourcing. Or crowdfunding. Only this is crowdsmallcellbeekingstudy.

Beekeepers join the study and follow the exact same protocol for keeping a given number of small cell and control hives. They document everything. Anyone who wants the data can access it. 

I'm just asking whether there's a set protocol for such a study that's already in existence.


----------



## Saltybee

Indications of the entire SC pattern (or lack of one for those who prefer) could be conducted to test pieces of the process.

A strain that has been SC for multiple years could be forced back onto LC and watched for comparison to remaining SC.
Squarepeg's TF LC bees could be moved onto SC and watched.

These steps would meet my personal definition of a study, probably not my scientific proof label.


----------



## WLC

Studies done with AHB have shown success with small cell in terms of reducing mite loads.

So, you should at least try small cell with AHB derived stocks first.

So far, it doesn't seem to work with domestic stocks according to the literature.


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

If the cell size would matter significantly for the bee's health, the bees would put much more effort into maintaining those cell sizes. If there is something vital for the bees, you cannot force them away from it, no matter what. Since the bees don't care about a special cell size, I reckon it doesn't matter much. For me this is simple bee logic. Apart from that, my own small cell trials - and I have thrown a lot of money and work at it - showed not a slight difference when compared to large cell hives until today. For a couple of years now. So personally I debunked the small cell theory. I still keep a couple of hives on small cells just for a more longterm observation but do not hope for wonders to happen in the future.

Newcomers in beekeeping I recommend to throw not too much money at it.


----------



## peterloringborst

beemandan said:


> I am astounded at this question. The study cited for this thread was valid science. There have been several others conducted that were also valid science. Now...if the question is will a study ever be designed that is acceptable to the proponents of small cell......that is an entirely different question.....


Exactly. The studies have been designed by world class scientists (Seeley, Delaplane, etc) and the results are there. 

By the way, the key point is that mite reproduction and mite buildup is a short term proxy for colony collapse due to mites. If the mites won't reproduce in small cells, they won't build up. Or -- if they don't build up, they won't collapse the colony. 

So, really, the short term study is adequate. You just compare standard colonies with experimental colonies over time. It doesn't need to be large scale, just a few hives of each. If there is a noticeable effect, you will notice it. If it isn't noticeable, it isn't an effect.

PLB


----------



## Barry

BernhardHeuvel said:


> Since the bees don't care about a special cell size, I reckon it doesn't matter much.


Anyone who has paid attention to cell sizing on natural comb from cutouts would know that they do care about cell size. It's organized and repeatable, small size in the core brood, getting larger as they move out.


----------



## Barry

peterloringborst said:


> So, really, the short term study is adequate. You just compare standard colonies with experimental colonies over time. It doesn't need to be large scale, just a few hives of each. If there is a noticeable effect, you will notice it. If it isn't noticeable, it isn't an effect.


I know I asked this question soon after the report came out and don't recall ever getting an answer. If memory serves me, Bill Owens had been using SC in his hives for several years before this study was done. His hives were used for the SC side. What ever happened to these hives? Did they suddenly die once the study proved SC had no benefit? Anyone know?


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

I did a many cutouts from roofs, chimneys, walls and all. Plus I have kept numerous hives in fixed comb hives (without frames), skeps, log hives, Warré hives, experimental hives for ten years. I reckon I am allowed to talk about natural comb because I am talking out of experience.

The bottom line for me is, they have all the different cell sizes and not only one cell size in a colony. They simply do not painstackingly build one small cell size. And smaller cell sizes below 5.0 mm are rare or non-existant in the natural combs I have found. Even with foundations the cells differ in size if you care to look at it closely.

I am out of the small cell story, because my reality did not proof the claims.


----------



## Daniel Y

What is considered a world class scientist? Are their any world class scientist even interested in research on bees? The only researcher I personally know that has anything to do with any bee is looking at Bumble Bees. I can think of only a hand full of researchers as a whole that are working with Honey bees. I am not aware of their comparative quality as scientists.

I have been in a conversation with the director of a research lab at a leading medical research institution about forming a research project that includes looking at Nosema. I provided them with a short list of names to get in contact with to see what has been done and where research is currently. I was told to not expect anything for at least a couple of years. I am aware that the projects at this facility commonly run into the millions of dollars. knowing this I told them right up front that finding woudl most likely have to come from other sources. that I did not think Beekeeping woudl support such efforts. I also told them that as far as I can tell beekeepers consider a couple dozen hives and a few thousand dollars as being expensive research. Reality check. it woudl cost a few hundred thousand dollars just to pay this director. and that does not include any research at all that only includes her looking into developing a project. I am not convinced that any world class scientist has even looked at bees long enough to give them a disgusted sneer.


----------



## peterloringborst

> I am out of the small cell story, because my reality did not proof the claims.


Oh that pesky reality! I was in Los Angeles last month and a friend showed me a nuc box they had put a swarm into. The thing built a little comb and split. I looked at the comb and immediately could see it was small cell. Later when I measured it, it was plainly 4.9mm. Oh, did I tell you, Southern California ferals are Africanized?

Pete


----------



## sqkcrk

Daniel Y said:


> What is considered a world class scientist? Are their any world class scientist even interested in research on bees? The only researcher I personally know that has anything to do with any bee is looking at Bumble Bees. I can think of only a hand full of researchers as a whole that are working with Honey bees. I am not aware of their comparative quality as scientists.


I'm not at home, so I don't have access to an ABJ or a Bee Culture Magazine. Pick up one and you will find people who are world class scientists writing articles in them.

ABJ prints scientific papers regularly. Mostly too deep for me to read past the Abstract. Unless I am having trouble falling asleep. 

Ask WLC or peterloringborst. If they can't name half a dozen different ones off the top of their heads I'd be surprised.


----------



## Michael Bush

>>You can't be serious. Arizona was one of the first states to be declared Africanized.
>Now you've gone too far. Dee Lusby has a 'selection' process. She does walkaway splits and allows swarms to move into her empty hives. It must be iberica

I've dealt with AHB in the Caribbean. AHB swarm and abscond at the drop of a hat in a drought or if disturbed. They run small colonies. Some of them are very prone to sting while others are quite calm. They will follow you for a long ways. They tend very much towards the yellow end of brown in color and are runny. They are not very productive, but seem to survive pretty well in a tropical climate.

I've dealt with Dee's bees in the Sonora. They do not swarm any more than EHB. I have seen no evidence of them absconding. They run very large colonies and sit tight in a drought. They are not prone to sting. A few are runny but all in all they do not tend to be runny. They tend toward dark, many of them being all black and even the brown ones are not on the yellow end of brown. They will head butt a lot and follow a long ways. They are very productive in a very harsh climate.

AHB and Dee's bees are very different from one another and have very few traits in common.


----------



## Barry

BernhardHeuvel said:


> They simply do not painstackingly build one small cell size.


I believe I just said that: "small size in the core brood, getting larger as they move out."


----------



## peterloringborst

Mark wrote:


sqkcrk said:


> Ask WLC or peterloringborst. If they can't name half a dozen different ones off the top of their heads I'd be surprised.


In response to a post:


> I am not convinced that any world class scientist has even looked at bees long enough to give them a disgusted sneer.


I won't respond to that, I can't think of anything polite.

Pete


----------



## Andrew Dewey

Daniel Y said:


> What is considered a world class scientist? Are their any world class scientist even interested in research on bees? The only researcher I personally know that has anything to do with any bee is looking at Bumble Bees. I can think of only a hand full of researchers as a whole that are working with Honey bees. I am not aware of their comparative quality as scientists.


There are a great many scientists probing things that involve honey bees; many are academics at Land Grand Colleges and are actively sharing their research results through Cooperative Extension. I will be attending a talk tomorrow night, sponsored by a local Biological Labratory, featuring Frank Drummond, Professor of Insect Ecology and Insect Pest Management at the University of Maine.

And the person you have been corresponding with Peter Borst was the Senior Apiarist at the Dyce Lab at Cornell for seven years.

Bee Researchers are around. Their work is not "sexy" nor advertised heavily outside of the beekeeping community.


----------



## beemandan

Barry said:


> Did they suddenly die once the study proved SC had no benefit?


First things first Barry. The study didn't prove SC had no benefit. It demonstrated that in the conditions of the trial, SC didn't reduce varroa infestations. Period. Studies like this aren't intended to look at every possible aspect but to test a single piece of the pie. 


Barry said:


> His hives were used for the SC side. What ever happened to these hives?


Actually his bees were used for both sides of one part of the trial.....if my memory serves me. All of the drawn small cell comb was newly drawn from his apiaries....drawn above a queen excluder to be certain it was pristine. Again...from memory one part of the trial used bee lab (conventional foundation) bees for both sc and traditional arms. And a second part used bees shaken from Bill's hives for both arms and the bees were put into hives with the appropriate foundation. All part of an effort to control variables. 
While Bill had bees in the trial....I'm sure he didn't get them back. And as with all bees at the beelab, once a trial has been concluded they become part of the workforce supporting the lab's operations by drawing comb, producing honey or stock for other trials....and disappear into the operation.
I saw Bill last September and he continues to be tf. I don't know if he is sc or not. After the trial I recall him saying that once he'd used up his stock of sc foundation he wouldn't be buying any more.


----------



## beemandan

BernhardHeuvel said:


> And smaller cell sizes below 5.0 mm are rare or non-existant in the natural combs


As an unpublished part of the cited study comb was collected from the brood areas of, I believe, 150 removals. Those were sampled for cell size. 5.1 was average. Anything below 5.0 was extremely rare....one or two samples only.


----------



## Barry

beemandan said:


> First things first Barry. The study didn't prove SC had no benefit. It demonstrated that in the conditions of the trial, SC didn't reduce varroa infestations. Period. Studies like this aren't intended to look at every possible aspect but to test a single piece of the pie.


I know, that was a little humorous poke. Glad to hear he continued on with what was working for him.


----------



## FollowtheHoney

I don't have anything to add regarding the small cell debate, as I have not picked up my bees yet, but I am curious before I get started as to what the benefits or potential benefits of large cell comb.


----------



## Saltybee

beemandan said:


> As an unpublished part of the cited study comb was collected from the brood areas of, I believe, 150 removals. Those were sampled for cell size. 5.1 was average. Anything below 5.0 was extremely rare....one or two samples only.


Can you supply more background please, was the SC in the test measured? Or was that part of the pretest? Not trying to return to the debate, my view is clear on that. Just hoping for more clarity.

In the medical field they call these studies trials. I think it is because even after the data is in, the jury is still out as to what it means.


----------



## beemandan

Michael Bush said:


> AHB and Dee's bees are very different from one another and have very few traits in common.


I believe if you asked David Dejong about that he'd tell you that AHB exhibit very different traits depending on their environment. For example he maintains an apiary on his populous campus...without a problem. He says that elevation is very important to their defensiveness. The higher the elevation, the lower their aggressiveness. Way too many variable to compare the Caribbean AHB with Dee's.


----------



## beemandan

Saltybee said:


> Can you supply more background please, was the SC in the test measured?


The samples from 150 removals came from a professional bee remover, Cindy Bee. This was done peripherally to the actual trial. The intent, I believe, was to determine what size cell is actually natural. Jennifer Berry spoke about this whenever she did talks about the trial. 
The SC and conventional comb in the trial was measured.....same size as the foundation.


----------



## peterloringborst

FollowtheHoney said:


> I don't have anything to add regarding the small cell debate, as I have not picked up my bees yet, but I am curious before I get started as to what the benefits or potential benefits of large cell comb.


What people call "large cell comb" is just ordinary comb. The whole small thing is not generally accepted by the beekeeping community as a whole. European bees build cells in a range of sizes, African bee cells are generally significantly smaller, and the Asian bee Apis cerana builds them smaller still. But the standard size has been used for more than a century, it's just the normal size. 

P


----------



## Michael Bush

>but I am curious before I get started as to what the benefits or potential benefits of large cell comb. 

Now you are asking the right question.

>But the standard size has been used for more than a century, it's just the normal size. 

Seriously? I have yet to see any bees that I let build natural comb that built 5.4mm worker cells in the core of the brood nest nor any literature that would support bees building 5.4mm cells before the use of enlarged foundation, nor any that would support that any foundation before Baudoux's experiments was any larger than 5.08mm (and quite a bit that was smaller). I would not call 5.4mm cells "normal size" by any definition that involves the natural instincts of bees or the history of foundation before the discussions on upsizing them started. Many of the presses from that era are still around and almost all of the old books cite the size of worker cells as five to the inch which is 5.08mm.


----------



## peterloringborst

> worker cells as five to the inch


We have been over this a million times. When someone says "five cells to the inch" that does not imply the same *level of accuracy* as 5.08 mm. 

P


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

Barry said:


> I believe I just said that:


I wasn't in opposition, just confirmed it.


----------



## Barry

Michael Bush said:


> Many of the presses from that era are still around and almost all of the old books cite the size of worker cells as five to the inch which is 5.08mm.


"Oh that pesky reality!"


----------



## peterloringborst

I don't know how many people know the whole back story of the small cell theory. It was developed in the 1980s by the Lusbys as a way to prevent their bees from becoming Africanized. They theorized that the small Africans were a threat to their large European bees and they were going to "outsmart them" by breeding smaller bees. In their own words:



> Could it be that the beekeeper of today
> is so engrossed in hreeding and keeping
> bigger and better, that he forgets about
> breeding faster and quicker along with
> the bigger and better? Well, it won't
> work. To get bigger and better you
> must get slower and fatter.
> 
> Of course AHB drones are going to mate
> European virgins hybridizing them to
> the AHB side. Have you ever seen a fat
> football player run the entire field for a
> touchdown after catching the ball? No,
> you see slim, fast, trim, runners
> normally catch the football and then
> run. Faster catches slower in life.
> Slower normally does not catch faster.
> 
> If one presumes that a
> queen males 7-17 times and AHB
> drones have invaded a drone con-
> gregation area, bearing the above in
> mind, it is no wouder that European
> hives are so quickly Africanized.
> 
> If one acknowledges that AHB are
> smaller and faster, than most (but not
> all) domestic races and strains of bees
> today, then perhaps instead of breed-
> ing bigger and slower, bee breeders
> of tomorrow should strive to breed
> smaller and faster.
> 
> We can hold our apiaries against
> the AHB I truly believe if we all work
> together, helping each other in grafting
> situations. We cannot let this country
> become Africanized and I don't think
> in the end we will!


Meeting the Challenge of the Africanized Honey Bee -- One Beekeeping Family's Approach
by DEE A. LUSBY, 3832 E, Golfllnks Road, Tucson, Arizona 85713
American Bee Journal, July 1987


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

Nice find, Peter!

Speaking of the good old times and books, you may be interested in this: http://www.dheaf.plus.com/warrebeekeeping/zeissloff_cell_size_en.pdf

Summary of what can be found in old books concerning cell sizes.


----------



## Michael Bush

>We have been over this a million times. When someone says "five cells to the inch" that does not imply the same level of accuracy as 5.08 mm. 

A bit of a hyperbole, but yes, we have been over it and yet you continue to ignore all the historic documents many of which were done by scientists. It is the size of most of the early mills. I have an original Huber book (French, 1814) and the "actual size" engraving he has of worker cells measures 4.6mm. There are reams of old beekeeping articles, many by the scientists of the day, talking about sizes and the idea of upsizing them. These writers include Grout, Cheshire, Baudoux, Pincot, Gontarski and many others. Beekeepers also wrote articles on the subject including Dadant, Doolittle, Miller, Swarthmore and many others. You just assume they didn't actually bother to measure them and just "rounded" things off? You can deny all you want but the literature is still out there. Much of it is posted here on Beesource. 
http://www.beesource.com/point-of-view/ed-dee-lusby/historical-data-on-the-influence-of-cell-size/

Some of it is even recent research on the subject with some historic research involved:

"Until the late 1800s honeybees in Britain and Ireland were raised in brood cells of circa 5.0 mm width. By the 1920s this had increased to circa 5.5 mm. We undertook this study to find out if present-day honeybees could revert to the cell-size of the 1800s and to evaluate resulting changes in honeybee morphometry."--The influence of small-cell brood combs on the morphometry of honeybees (Apis mellifera)--John B. McMullan and Mark J.F. Brown--Apidologie Volume 37, Number 6, November-December 2006

http://www.apidologie.org/articles/apido/abs/2006/06/m6049/m6049.html


----------



## Dave Burrup

One piece of data that I wish we had was the number of hives that have been lost due to non-treatment of mites, and the small cell debacle. Michael and some others have succeeded at treatment free, but I do not believe it is because of small cell. Something else is controlling the mites. I think it is a microbe that flourishes in the treatment free hive environment. Our bees are all on small cell, and we have bought mite resistant queens. One year we bought nucs that were supposed to be made up of combs and bees from survivor non-treated stocks. These nucs were put in new wooden ware and small cell frames. They still had mites. We have never had a hive that did not reach threshold levels by fall.
Dave


----------



## Michael Bush

>I don't know how many people know the whole back story of the small cell theory. It was developed in the 1980s by the Lusbys as a way to prevent their bees from becoming Africanized. 

You are simply jumping to conclusions about their primary motivation. Not a very scientific thing to do... Dee and Ed's motivation at the time they regressed in the early 80's was to fight tracheal mites. They did a study with Erikson on that subject after they regressed. Not giving AHB a reproductive advantage was an afterthought. People often find other advantages to their tactics as they think of them.

http://www.beesource.com/point-of-v.../small-cell-size-foundation-for-mite-control/
http://www.beesource.com/resources/...heal-mites-in-north-dakota-a-five-year-study/

Here is a video of Dr. Erikson gave in 1989, 3 years before they announced AHB were in Arizona, talking about when Dee and Ed showed him different sizes of foundation they had found. He also talks about the native Arizona bees which sound exactly like the ones that are there now. 

http://vimeo.com/19816966


----------



## AR Beekeeper

In 1890 Dr. C. C. Miller wrote an apology to Rev. Mr. W. P. Faylor that was published in the American Bee Journal. Mr. Miller had disagreed with Rev. Faylor about the size of worker cells. Mr. Miller had stated that worker cells were 5 to the inch (because that is what had been printed in a book on bees), but when Miller measured natural comb he found that the cells were not 5 cell to the inch, but 4 4/5 cells per inch. This is about 5.2mm, the same as Pierco deep plastic foundation.

A. I. Root in the ABC & XYZ of Beekeeping wrote that when he made his foundation rollers in the early 1870s he made the cell size too small. He made the cells 5 to the inch, and while the bees would draw the foundation into comb, and the queen would lay in it, she preferred cells that were 4.83 to the inch. This is also 5.2 to 5.25mm.

Cowan in the 1890 book "The Honey Bee" states that in a square inch there are 27.5 worker cells (5.2mm) and 17.09 cells (6.6mm) of drone sized cells. He also states in 1898 Bee Culture that considerable variation exists. He went on to say "Out of 36 measurements taken in different parts of the same comb the aggregate diameters of any one series of10 cells was 2.11 inches, making them larger than 1/5 inch. The least was 1.86 which makes them smaller,... I also measured a large number of series of 60 cells, which, if the cells are exactly 1/5 inch would occupy a space of 12 inches. However, in almost every case the 12 inches was exceeded, although not always." He go on to say that he considered that we should use the expression "average size" as being more correct, as he did not believe in a worker cell as being exactly 1/5 inch.

According to Dadant, Collin measured the dimensions of a worker cell in 1865 (before the use of foundations) and there were 854 cells per sq. decimeters. Langstroth repeated the measurements and found 838. This gives cells 5.2 to 5.25mm.

Even after taking accurate measurements Miller, Dadant and Langstroth would use "5 to the inch" when talking of worker sized cells.

When putting my bees on small cell foundation (4.9mm) the queen had to be forced to lay in the cells. They would lay by choice in cells drawn on foundations 5.1mm and larger. If they were designed by nature to lay on 4.9 mm, they would have to be forced to lay in larger cells, but they do not. It should be obvious that there is a natural range of cell sizes, and that bees of different races prefer to use certain sized cells. I found it interesting that in a small cell study done in Ireland, the local A. mellifera mellifera would draw 4.9 foundation accurately the first time, and the queens showed no hesitation in lay in the cells. The study showed no improvement in varroa numbers, but you can't win them all.


----------



## Barry

peterloringborst said:


> I don't know how many people know the whole back story of the small cell theory. It was developed in the 1980s by the Lusbys as a way to prevent their bees from becoming Africanized. They theorized that the small Africans were a threat to their large European bees and they were going to "outsmart them" by breeding smaller bees.


You know, I thought this thread was going along fairly well for the most part, but now your lobbing distractions and half truths. Come on Peter, I expect better from you.


----------



## AstroBee

FollowtheHoney said:


> what the benefits or potential benefits of large cell comb.


Its easier. You buy foundation and pop it into hive. The real question is: what are the benefits or potential benefits of small cell comb? Clearly the study at the core of this discussion strongly suggests that there are none. The fact is that SC was observed to perform poorer on every varroa metric measured. I heard no viable explanation from the SC proponents of why that may be the case. If you're opposed to foundation, go foundationless, just don't expect miracles. Choose carefully grasshopper.


----------



## justusflynns

AugustC said:


> I don't about anything else, but what I do know is that small cells mean more bees per comb. Less distance needs to be travelled by queen. That should make for a larger workforce.


Assuming everything else stays the same. What about any effect on lifespan. Just asking and pointing out an issue. I'm actually thinking of going Michael Bush's route. Not trying to dis' you.


----------



## rhaldridge

AstroBee said:


> The fact is that SC was observed to perform poorer on every varroa metric measured.


What other metric was measured? The only one I saw was short term varroa increase, which was slightly more than with large cell. Neither was very high, and probably below the treatment threshold.

I'm an agnostic on small cell, because I know that some TF beekeepers don't use it and are still successful. But this study proves... not so very much.


----------



## AstroBee

rhaldridge said:


> What other metric was measured?


See first sentence and last paragraph of Discussion Section in the 2010 paper.





rhaldridge said:


> The only one I saw was short term varroa increase, which was slightly more than with large cell. Neither was very high, and probably below the treatment threshold.


The colonies started with nearly the same mite density. They ended with every mite indicator higher. To me it doesn't matter if the total mite count was below a treatment threshold - it was about growth varroa rates. The study strongly suggests that during the same duration, with the same initial conditions, SC was not effective at limiting mite population growth when compared to conventional cell size. To me the study was about: Does SC inhibit varroa mite growth. Quote from the paper: "By this criterion, the present results are not encouraging." This is very counter to what the SC advocates have been suggesting over the past many years. Just for the record, I'd love to hear of an additional non-chemical approach to limiting varroa, but SC doesn't appear to have passed this test.


----------



## NewbeeInNH

Four reasons I'm going foundationless (with current built-up frames in between) this summer:

Cheaper
Easier
Don't like plastic frames
Wax foundation has some degree of pesticide, no matter what

If small cell helps with mite control, all the better.

This is my experiment, we'll see how it goes.


----------



## rhaldridge

AstroBee said:


> See first sentence and last paragraph of Discussion Section in the 2010 paper.
> 
> .


First sentence:



> Although a significant and favorable trend
> for small-cell colonies was indicated for ending
> bee populations for the August 2006 start
> date (Tab. II), the chief interest in small-cell
> technology resides in its potential as a nonchemical
> limiter of Varroa population growth.


Last paragraph:



> Interest in small-cell foundation has been
> fueled in part by observations of Martin and
> Kryger (2002) that conditions which constrict
> the space between the host pupa and male
> protonymph mite promote male mite mortality.
> However, as these authors point out, “reducing
> cell sizes as a mite control method will
> probably fail to be effective since the bees are
> likely to respond by rearing correspondingly
> smaller bees”. The present study supports this
> deduction directly, and its premise indirectly:
> average bee live weight in October was numerically
> smaller in small-cell colonies than conventional


Here's a sentence from the discussion that is being ignored by folks who think this is a dispositive study:



> It isworth noting that Varroa densities in this study
> (3.3–5.1 mites per 100 bees, Tab. I) were not
> within the action threshold of ca. 13 mites per
> 100 bees shown for the region by Delaplane
> and Hood (1999).


If this is irrelevant, why did the authors of the study think it worth noting?

It may well be that the mechanism commonly proposed for small cell varroa control is incorrect. But for most of us, being able to keep varroa below the treatment threshold would be pretty good. 

As many folks have said, the fact that my hives are thriving after a year of non-treatment is meaningless. I've been advised to wait at least 2 years and preferably 3 before I conclude that my bees are surviving without treatment. Why is it then acceptable to so many to extrapolate from studies which use substantially less time to explore the small cell management tactic? 

I guess it's just human nature to accept results that confirm our own beliefs, but that's not how science works.


----------



## rhaldridge

I should add that I don't think there is anything wrong with the study, except for the fact that it makes no effort to duplicate the conditions under which small cell beekeepers claim success. That is why I can't understand the crowing about how it's now "proven" that small cell does not work. The study proves no such thing. It measures a trend over a short period of time, under conditions that in no way resemble real world attempts to use small cell.


----------



## Michael Bush

>To me it doesn't matter if the total mite count was below a treatment threshold - it was about growth varroa rates. The study strongly suggests that during the same duration, with the same initial conditions, SC was not effective at limiting mite population growth when compared to conventional cell size. 

The conditions in a colony change over the course of the year. Measuring reproductive success of Varroa in the month of May, may not be indicative of their success in August. Also, reproductive success may shift for other reasons. Certainly bees change their behavior when things reach a certain level.

http://www.bushfarms.com/beessctheories.htm#PseudoDrones

Dee Lusby's "pseudodrone" theory is that with large cell bees the Varroa often mistake large cell workers for drone cells and therefore infest them more. The Varroa in the large cell hives during that time would be less successful because they are in the wrong cells. The Varroa, during that time would be more successful on the small cell because they are in the drone cells. But later in the year this may shift dramatically when, first of all the small cell workers have not taken damage from the Varroa and second of all the drone rearing drops off and the mites have nowhere to go. 

http://www.beesource.com/point-of-v...ntrol/small-cell-foundation-for-mite-control/

"The stress upon our honey bees caused by being too big by way of artificial mutation through use of oversized combs, has resulted in parasitic mite infestations as our now pseudo-drones (workerbees) are perceived as a new food source by Varroa and Tracheal mites...

"Further, by changing out oversized artificial combs in our brood nests (some on the market are as much as 40% oversized) we reduce the attraction for Varroa to enter pseudo-drone cells (worker cells artificially enlarged with more larvae food for mites) and reproduce at higher than natural 10% infestation levels also."--Dee Lusby (see above link)

http://www.beesource.com/point-of-view/ed-dee-lusby/retrogression-back-to-normal-part-2/

"Additionally, by changing out and shaking-down colonies from oversized brood combs, they further reduce the attraction for Varroa to enter pseudo-drone cells, (aka: artificially oversized worker comb acting as an attractant with more larvae food for mites) and reproduce at a higher than natural 10% infestation level."--Dee Lusby (see above link)


----------



## Vance G

Thankyou Mr Bush for continuing the good fight, but as someone I know said, "There are none so blind as those who will not see." And so militant about it too!


----------



## Michael Bush

>>>But the standard size has been used for more than a century, it's just the normal size. 

>>Seriously? I have yet to see any bees that I let build natural comb that built 5.4mm worker cells in the core of the brood nest nor any literature that would support bees building 5.4mm cells before the use of enlarged foundation, nor any that would support that any foundation before Baudoux's experiments was any larger than 5.08mm (and quite a bit that was smaller).

>In 1890 Dr. C. C. Miller wrote an apology to Rev. Mr. W. P. Faylor that was published in the American Bee Journal. Mr. Miller had disagreed with Rev. Faylor about the size of worker cells. Mr. Miller had stated that worker cells were 5 to the inch (because that is what had been printed in a book on bees), but when Miller measured natural comb he found that the cells were not 5 cell to the inch, but 4 4/5 cells per inch. This is about 5.2mm, the same as Pierco deep plastic foundation.

Cell sizes vary, so of course reports vary. It's still not 5.4mm.

>A. I. Root in the ABC & XYZ of Beekeeping wrote that when he made his foundation rollers in the early 1870s he made the cell size too small. He made the cells 5 to the inch, and while the bees would draw the foundation into comb, and the queen would lay in it, she preferred cells that were 4.83 to the inch. This is also 5.2 to 5.25mm.

In 1876 he had his foundation mill made to make 5.08mm cells. It was many year later he decided to increase it to 5.25mm. Still not 5.4mm. But as we all have said bees make a lot of different sizes. At that time the Italians were making their foundation 4.4mm.

>Cowan in the 1890 book...
>According to Dadant, Collin measured the dimensions of a worker cell in 1865...

Still not 5.4mm.

I won't bore you by requoting the 33 reference that Dee quotes from the journals of the day on cell size, but here is the link if you care to read them:
http://www.beesource.com/point-of-view/ed-dee-lusby/historical-data-on-the-influence-of-cell-size/

Plus many references on my web site:
http://www.bushfarms.com/beesnaturalcell.htm#historiccellsize


----------



## 2ndCharter

I wonder, if Delaplane's control hives where in close proximity to his test hives. If the Varroa in the control hives went unchecked, the Varroa may have been able to simply migrate into all hives and find a foothold when and wherever possible. Perhaps that was happening with a great frequency but only a specially adapted Varroa or one with unique preferences, was able to establish in the SC colonies.

When I regressed, I did all my hives in my yard at the same time. That would have created a complete break in the brood cycle and hopefully destroyed all Varroa in the local population (minus of course errant drones). There just may not be enough of a SC adapted Varroa to make any sort of difference at all. 

Still, Delaplane's study means nothing to me because I saw a difference and four years later, still not a remarkable difference in both Varroa populations and zero die-offs due to anything but typical winter issues. I don't care if someone at some University says its real science or not. I'm not blind.




Michael Bush said:


> Dee Lusby's "pseudodrone" theory is that with large cell bees the Varroa often mistake large cell workers for drone cells and therefore infest them more. The Varroa in the large cell hives during that time would be less successful because they are in the wrong cells. The Varroa, during that time would be more successful on the small cell because they are in the drone cells. But later in the year this may shift dramatically when, first of all the small cell workers have not taken damage from the Varroa and second of all the drone rearing drops off and the mites have nowhere to go.


This is a very interesting theory. Something like what I may have encountered and the Varroa had nowhere to go or breed.


----------



## WLC

Have any of these peer reviewed studies tried overwintering small cell vs large cell? You would think overwinter survival would be an important variable to test for.

I can't help noticing that different brood cell sizes are being mentioned in the literature for different stocks over time.

I still think that different stocks are the key variable that should be tested vs small cell starting with 'AHB' vs 'non-AHB'.

The literature says that small cell reduces mite loads in AHB colonies. 

You should strive to have some type of a 'positive control' in any experimental design if possible IMHO.

I'm not sure why different investigators haven't done so though.


----------



## Saltybee

Assuming Delaplane's observations are correct and SC has no impact on mite populations I am still a bit puzzled by reactions.
True, SC proponents are not claiming an increase in survival and a doubling plus in hive size as reported by Delaplanes study, that is not a logical reason to not proceed with SC, if only for those reasons. Is it because detractors accept the no mite reduction as fact, but reject the size/survival data as fiction? 
One could always use the increase in size/survival and still rely on treatments to control the mites.


----------



## WLC

The main reason I haven't gone 'the full monty' with small cell is that the PF120s I used weren't robust enough and the persistent ladder comb problem.

Frankly, since my deeps are all drawn out on ritecell, and Mann Lake isn't selling small cell plastic foundation (as far as I know), I'm pretty much stuck with ritecell in my deeps.

However, while I do have BeeWeaver's, and some would consider them to be AHB/EHB hybrids, I've got the right bees, but not the right cell size. 

It's too late for me to make the switch at this point since I'm running an unlimited broodnest experiment starting this spring.


----------



## AstroBee

rhaldridge said:


> That is why I can't understand the crowing about how it's now "proven" that small cell does not work.


I certainly have not used the word "proven" to describe the outcome of this study. In fact, I don't recall any post that used it in that context. And of course it wasn't used in the paper either. 

Good luck folks.


----------



## rhaldridge

AstroBee said:


> I certainly have not used the word "proven" to describe the outcome of this study. In fact, I don't recall any post that used it in that context. And of course it wasn't used in the paper either.
> 
> Good luck folks.


No, you did not, nor did the paper. But that's the strong feeling I get from a number of other posters in the thread.


----------



## rhaldridge

peterloringborst said:


> I am still waiting for the study that shows that small cell foundation provides one single benefit.


Didn't one iteration of the study under discussion show a vastly larger population in the small cell hives?


----------



## beemandan

NewbeeInNH said:


> I'm going foundationless.....
> If small cell helps with mite control, all the better.


So....which are you doing? Foundationless or small cell?


----------



## beemandan

rhaldridge said:


> That is why I can't understand the crowing about how it's now "proven" that small cell does not work.


Ray, has anyone ever told you that you have a tendency to exaggerate? Other than the term debunked....I don't recall any of the study supporters saying that it 'proved that small cell doesn't work'. 



Vance G said:


> "There are none so blind as those who will not see."


My favorite, along the same lines is 'you'll see it when you believe it'. Having said that there is plenty of blindness to go around on this issue. Check out the next post #272.


----------



## beemandan

Saltybee said:


> True, SC proponents are not claiming an increase in survival and a doubling plus in hive size as reported by Delaplanes study


Let me get this straight. When they counted mites....it was BAD SCIENCE. When they counted bees it was....?
Yo....VanceG....you see what I mean?


----------



## beemandan

Vance G said:


> Thankyou Mr Bush for continuing the good fight


The sermon that MB preaches is that without small cell all hives will collapse from varroa. With small cell none will. Now if that is universally true...then, indeed he is fighting the 'good fight'. If it isn't true.....what is he doing?


----------



## Routt Bee

beemandan said:


> The sermon that MB preaches is that without small cell all hives will collapse from varroa. With small cell none will. Now if that is universally true...then, indeed he is fighting the 'good fight'. If it isn't true.....what is he doing?[/QU.
> 
> I'll bet he was on the grassy knoll?


----------



## WLC

It's an observation. Nothing more.


----------



## Routt Bee

WLC said:


> It's an observation. Nothing more.



Actually, it's a question, and it has the appropriate interrogative 
punctuation.

Your statement is an observation, but not a correct one.


----------



## Barry Digman

beemandan said:


> The sermon that MB preaches is that without small cell all hives will collapse from varroa. With small cell none will.


Hmmm. I've never heard him say that, nor have I read it in any of his writings. What I hear consistently is "This is what works for me".


----------



## WLC

No, I mean MB's observations about small cell. Not the other stuff.


----------



## Routt Bee

WLC said:


> No, I mean MB's observations about small cell. Not the other stuff.


10-4. Still excited about the prospect of a major beekeeping conspiracy.


----------



## rhaldridge

beemandan said:


> The sermon that MB preaches is that without small cell all hives will collapse from varroa. With small cell none will.


I haven't heard him say that, so you're starting from a falsehood, as far as I can tell. What I have seen him write is that *his* hives collapsed until he got them on small cell. And he also said that he couldn't get his hives to winter successfully until he stocked them with local ferals.

Michael, not being equipped with tunnel vision glasses, is surely aware that there are successful TF beekeepers who don't use small cell.


----------



## rhaldridge

beemandan said:


> Ray, has anyone ever told you that you have a tendency to exaggerate? Other than the term debunked....I don't recall any of the study supporters saying that it 'proved that small cell doesn't work'.


Dan, do you know what the word 'debunked' means?


----------



## beemandan

Barry Digman said:


> Hmmm. I've never heard him say that, nor have I read it in any of his writings. What I hear consistently is "This is what works for me".


If you are influential to new beekeepers and you regularly state....before I went to small cell, 100% of my hives died from varroa. After....none. I'm sorry....that's a sermon. If he'd state....'works for me but doesn't seem to for everyone else. I'd recommend that you try it but suggest that you follow your mite loads'....I'd take a different view.
That ain't his story. It isn't about genetics....it is cell size only for mite control. PERIOD.
And putting up the 'good fight' as VanceG stated only reinforces that sermon.
My farmer's market starts Saturday. $10....heck no.....$100 says some former beekeeper will come up to me and ask why their hives died. I'll ask about mites. They'll say....didn't have any....I was using small cell (or foundationless). It is as sure as the sun rises....I'll get dozens of 'em every season.
And that is the part of the story that annoys me.


----------



## beemandan

rhaldridge said:


> Dan, do you know what the word 'debunked' means?


Ray....didn't I acknowledge that? Otherwise.....did you see anyone 'crowing that the study proved that small cell didn't work'? Sheesh....again....did I ask you already....has anyone ever suggested that you might exaggerate....just a little?


----------



## Vance G

I JUST Don't understand the spleen in this issue? Why is your OX gored? If you don't like it can't you just let it pass? Hank said that first.


beemandan said:


> The sermon that MB preaches is that without small cell all hives will collapse from varroa. With small cell none will. Now if that is universally true...then, indeed he is fighting the 'good fight'. If it isn't true.....what is he doing?


----------



## Barry

beemandan said:


> And that is the part of the story that annoys me.


If I made a stink every time someone said something that annoyed me . . . you get the picture.
We don't have to be the protector of information from all those we may see as less edumacated on the subject, do we? inch:


----------



## rhaldridge

beemandan said:


> If you are influential to new beekeepers and you regularly state....before I went to small cell, 100% of my hives died from varroa. After....none. I'm sorry....that's a sermon


Except that isn't what he says, at all. From his site:



> Losses
> 
> New beekeepers often assume that every hive should live forever and every hive should make it through the winter. Some winters, they do. But most winters kill off at least a few of the hives. Obviously the more hives you have the more this happens. I went years without losing a hive, but I only had a few and I always combined any that were borderline on strength and those were the days before Tracheal mites, Varroa mites, Nosema cerana, small hive beetles, and a host of viruses we now have. Now I have around a hundred hives and try to overwinter a lot of nucs, of marginal strength and there are those many new diseases and pests to stress them out. No winter losses is an unrealistic expectation. But high winter losses are a sign that you must be doing something wrong or the weather did something quirky.
> 
> I always try to figure out the cause of winter losses. Often it is starvation from getting stuck on brood. Sometimes with nucs or small clusters it’s a hard cold snap (-10 to -30 F) and the cluster just wasn’t big enough to keep warm. I always look for dead Varroa. Finding thousands of dead Varroa in the dead bees is usually a good indication that the Varroa were the primary cause of their death. A lack of such evidence is probably good evidence that it was something else.
> 
> Again, the point is that sometimes wintering exceeds or falls below even realistic expectations. But it’s helpful to start with realistic expectations and work from there. Realistic expectations from healthy hives as far as losses are probably in the 10% range with some years worse and some years better.


Again, making up stuff about people you don't agree with is no way to win an argument.


----------



## Routt Bee

Vance G said:


> I JUST Don't understand the spleen in this issue? Why is your OX gored? If you don't like it can't you just let it pass? Hank said that first.


Large investment of time & $ + old age?


----------



## Barry Digman

beemandan said:


> If you are influential to new beekeepers and you regularly state....before I went to small cell, 100% of my hives died from varroa. After....none.



But you wrote that:


> The sermon that MB preaches is that without small cell all hives will collapse from varroa. With small cell none will.


That first statement of yours is significantly different from your second I believe:


> ....before I went to small cell, 100% of my hives died from varroa. After....none.



In the first you seem to be stating that he tells people that all their hives will die. In the second you state his observations on what happened in his own hives. 

The two statements aren't at all similar, are they? Perhaps it's a matter of interpretation.


----------



## beemandan

Barry said:


> We don't have to be the protector of information from all those we may see as less edumacated on the subject, do we? inch:


I know Barry. I try to keep it impersonal. But then someone talks about the 'good fight' and I think about all those lost beekeepers .....I'll try to be good.....it just get's my goat.


----------



## WLC

I've formed the opinion, based in no small part on the success of small cell in reducing mites on AHB colonies (it's cited in the 2010 paper), that MB's ferals may have AHB genetics.

We can say the same for Dee's bees as well.

Thus, their small cell claims.

Of course, if they made that clear from the get go, we wouldn't be going round in circles every time the topic of small cell comes up.


----------



## Oldtimer

I'll drink to that.


----------



## D Semple

WLC said:


> that MB's ferals may have AHB genetics.


Michael Bush is in Nebraska for crying out loud. 

I've never seen any and he is 200 miles north of me.

Don


----------



## Saltybee

beemandan said:


> Let me get this straight. When they counted mites....it was BAD SCIENCE. When they counted bees it was....?
> Yo....VanceG....you see what I mean?


Yes it is bad science, conclusions are incomplete and about as limited "a so far so good and the parachute".
Having a little trouble with the frequency of mite counts and the absence of live bee counts in your postings. Without going back through 15 pages I believe there has been some mention of "no benefit at all" by some posters.


----------



## rhaldridge

A quote that may discourage the folks who are trying to portray MB as some sort of fanatic evangelist:



> Worst case scenario
> 
> So let's look at worst case scenario. Let's assume that cell size isn't an issue one way or the other. It's unreasonable to assume that bees will be any LESS healthy on natural sized comb, so at worst they will be on a cell size no better. At worst the cost is less than rotating out your contaminated combs for contaminated wax foundation. There is hardly a down side to that. The WORK is less than wiring wax foundation. The cost is less than wiring wax foundation. The wax will be uncontaminated (at least unless or until YOU contaminate it) and we KNOW that wax contamination is contributing to lack of longevity and fertility in queens and drones. So we know the bees will be healthier and the queens will do better.


Yeah, I'm not holding my breath.


----------



## WLC

D Semple said:


> Michael Bush is in Nebraska for crying out loud.
> I've never seen any and he is 200 miles north of me.
> Don


Fine. Call them ferals if you prefer.

Small cell hasn't reduced mite loads in the studies using domestic stocks to date.


----------



## sqkcrk

WLC said:


> I've formed the opinion, based in no small part on the success of small cell in reducing mites on AHB colonies (it's cited in the 2010 paper), that MB's ferals may have AHB genetics.
> 
> We can say the same for Dee's bees as well.
> 
> Thus, their small cell claims.
> 
> Of course, if they made that clear from the get go, we wouldn't be going round in circles every time the topic of small cell comes up.


But they, and others, categorically deny it. So it must be something else.

After a time, won't all of the bees in the US have some AHB genetics in them?


----------



## Oldtimer

Yes that is a good point. I don't know enough about genetics so this is posed as a question, but is it possible that Africanised bees could get this diluted down till there is a bee with not much African genetics or behaviour, which can then live in cold or wet climates?

Then to further extrapolate that, if there actually are some genetics in the Africans that help them resist mites in various ways, that by luck, eventually there could be a bee that has those, without some of the more negative characteristics.

Something that may support that, is that comments on Beesource about BeeWeaver queens range from they are docile, to they are so aggressive I couldn't work them. Assuming all those queens were mite resistant, it could be that the docile ones contain whatever is needed to resist mites but without some of the baggage. Which in turn holds out hope that enough time will produce a reliably docile but mite resistant bee.


----------



## WLC

sqkcrk said:


> But they, and others, categorically deny it. So it must be something else.
> After a time, won't all of the bees in the US have some AHB genetics in them?


It could be something else. Sure. But, we don't know what at this time.

Although wing morphology could help identify what kind of stocks MB and Dee have, it isn't perfect.

The scientific literature is only showing that small cell reduces mite loads in AHB stocks at this time.

As for the spread of AHB genetics in the U.S., it is happening to various degrees.

I had very little trouble getting a stock containing AHB genetics.

Frankly, if I were to do another small cell test, I would start with BeeWeavers to see if they can serve as a positive control.

Like Beemandan, I do find the colony losses due to TF beekeeper, small cell trials to be unnecessary.

We need to identify which stocks do best in small cell, TF beekeeping without the waste.

PS-MB used to keep BeeWeavers. So, he could conceivably have AHB genetics in his ferals.


----------



## Michael Palmer

WLC said:


> Although wing morphology could help identify what kind of stocks MB and Dee have, it isn't perfect.


Hasn't it already been done? Dee sent bees to Michael House in Florida…yes the Housel Position guy..and Florida destroyed them because they were so defensive. Florida did the FABIS test and determined they were African. Dee claims the positive test was a conspiracy. 

Correct me if I've got it wrong.


----------



## peterloringborst

Determining Africanization is not cut and dried. People who have studied it closely tend to lean towards the opinion that behavior is the definitive test.




> In Texas, the first state to have Africanized bees, it was suggested that the rate
> of Africanization was enhanced by the decimation of European feral and managed
> colonies by the Varroa destructor mite (Pinto et al. 2005). The Varroa mite created a
> selection pressure as Africanized bees survive infestation. It was also suggested that
> Texas may be the northernmost range of Africanization possible (Pinto et al. 2005),
> while the most recent map of Africanization in the United States shows that as being a
> false prediction.
> 
> Africanized samples from Florida/Alabama/Georgia still grouped with unmanaged and
> managed samples collected along the east coast. This could be due to the very recent
> Africanization of Florida (2010) or could be due to an incomplete Africanization of
> the entire east coast as supplanted by the migratory queen rearing and caged bee trade.
> Our data shows that the Africanized bees from Florida/Alabama/Georgia were
> morphometrically Africanized only using USDA-ID not the GWV technique, and not
> necessarily genetically similar enough to the African bee to be considered an
> Africanized bee.
> 
> The lack of definitiveness in the three diagnostic tools leads us to the conclusion that
> sensitivity of genetic markers may not be the most useful factor in determining
> desirable stock for managing honey bees. Perhaps the best way to evaluate a hive is
> by phenotypic traits, such as aggressive tendencies, and other undesirable traits such
> as swarming and absconding, and not by genotypic traits. Containing a blend of
> markers denotes a level of Africanization but perhaps negative behavior should be the
> first line of diagnosis.
> 
> DETERMINING LOW LEVELS OF AFRICANIZATION
> IN UNMANAGED HONEY BEE COLONIES
> USING THREE DIAGNOSTIC TECHNIQUES
> by Katherine Darger


----------



## Michael Bush

>PS-MB used to keep BeeWeavers. So, he could conceivably have AHB genetics in his ferals. 

I eliminated all of them back in 2001 when they all swarmed in a drought in August and went berserk.

>I've formed the opinion, based in no small part on the success of small cell in reducing mites on AHB colonies (it's cited in the 2010 paper), that MB's ferals may have AHB genetics.

I doubt those BWeaver bees survived the drought. It was the worst possible time to swarm. But either way, they did DNA and mtDNA on my bees in this study, a decade later. There was no indication they were Africanized. The bee inspector inspects them every year with nothing but a veil and has no issues with them. The bee club has met there many times with many people not wearing a veil. I only get comments on how nice they are, never the other way around.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10528-014-9644-y#page-1
http://www.researchgate.net/publica...aged_colonies_and_swarms_in_the_United_States
http://comp.uark.edu/~aszalan/magnus_esa_2010.jpg

If you look at the bottom of the .jpg link you'll see my name in the acknowledgments. Somewhere I have the results of that study on my bees and if I ever get finished moving and unpacking, I will scan and post them, but at my current rate of progress, I wouldn't hold your breath.

I don't think I've ever claimed what other people will get for results on anything they try in the realm of beekeeping other than stacking the odds or things that are typical bee behavior. Bees do what they want. Results vary by climate, locale and even from colony to colony in the same locale in the same year. My favorite quote on the topic of expectations is from Alexander Pope: "Blessed is the man who expects nothing, for he shall never be disappointed"

http://bushfarms.com/beesexpectations.htm

>The sermon that MB preaches...

I don't think I'm the one preaching...


----------



## Routt Bee

Riskybizz said:


> Barry perhaps its time to pull the plug on the original thread, as most of the recent posts have nothing to do with Delaplane's study.


I can get this sucker back on track, but I suspect it's gonna make folks even more unhappy.

In the esteemed Mr. Delaplane's study did they start with the same number of bees on each size foundation?

If so, why were there twice +- as many bees on small cell at the end of the "scientific" study?

If not, why not start the study with the same +- number on each type of foundation?

Did the Bees have the opportunity to "drift"?

If they were able to "drift" would that explain the larger number of bees on small cell at the end of the study?

Could there be a connection between the increased bees and increased mites on small cell?

Does anyone here know why the St. Johns River flows north?


----------



## peterloringborst

> Does anyone here know why the St. Johns River flows north?


It goes down hill.

Pete


----------



## peterloringborst

> You are simply jumping to conclusions about their primary motivation. Not a very scientific thing to do...


I don't think so. The article was about how they would deal with AHB. "Meeting the Challenge of the Africanized Honey Bee -- One Beekeeping Family's Approach". And the method was to raise smaller bees: " bee breeders of tomorrow should strive to breed smaller and faster." These are direct unambiguous quotes.

Now, how would you do that? Smaller cells is one way, although not permanent because you can't impose a size on the bee and have it change genetically (shades of Lamark). The only way to have smaller bees is to select them. If you are selecting for smaller bees in an African zone, you will find that the Africans are smaller than the Europeans, naturally. 

But it is a moot point. There are reams of documents to show that the ferals of Arizona, San Diego, L.A, etc are African hybrids, irrespective of what else is in their bloodlines.

Pete


----------



## Routt Bee

Thx!


----------



## Dominic

rhaldridge said:


> A quote that may discourage the folks who are trying to portray MB as some sort of fanatic evangelist:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I'm not holding my breath.


That assumption is valid in the environment where the bees evolved, in my opinion, namely northern Africa and Europe. The assumption that natural cell size is, at worst, no better than large cell size is less valid for environments in which the bees did not evolve. For example, it is within the realm of the reasonable to suspect that North America's flora might be more adapted to larger pollinators (in general), such as bumblebees, than smaller ones like honey bees. If our flora consists of more flowers with deeper corollas, and if larger cells produce bigger bees with longer tongues, then *maybe* large-cell bees would have an advantage over small-cell bees. That's a lot of "if"s though, and as such I don't think it justified to presume anything, one way or another.


----------



## peterloringborst

> North America's flora might be more adapted to larger pollinators (in general), such as bumblebees, than smaller ones like honey bees.


Flowers and pollinators come in a very wide range of sizes and habits. There are few examples of closely linked species; most successful pollinators are generalists and most pollinators can find something to eat among the many choices. It is more correct to think of the pollinator web which includes thousands of species, some present or absent in any given year. The web does not depend on the presence of any single species to thrive.

P


----------



## Michael Bush

>Does anyone here know why the St. Johns River flows north? 

Because at the point where it flows north, north is downhill. At least that question is an easy one... 

>I don't think so. The article was about how they would deal with AHB. "Meeting the Challenge of the Africanized Honey Bee -- One Beekeeping Family's Approach". And the method was to raise smaller bees: " bee breeders of tomorrow should strive to breed smaller and faster." These are direct unambiguous quotes.

The point is that it was an afterthought not the cause. That was back when she was regressing to try to deal with tracheal mites. The research studies I linked were a result of that work. But she is not wrong. The reproductive advantages that AHB have could be somewhat mitigated by smaller faster drones that don't tire out and go home early... If you would listen to the video of Dr. Erikson talking about when Dee and Ed brought him all these different sized foundations I think you would find it enlightening...

http://vimeo.com/19816966


----------



## rhaldridge

Dominic said:


> For example, it is within the realm of the reasonable to suspect that North America's flora might be more adapted to larger pollinators (in general), such as bumblebees, than smaller ones like honey bees.


Interesting point. I think there are many native bees and other native pollinators that are smaller than honeybees. According to my reading, bees spread through North America quite rapidly when they first arrived, (and were presumably smaller than modern bees.) Also, if you read bee journals of the late 19th and early 20th century there was much talk of making bees bigger. I remember one reference that made the argument that big lorries could haul more stuff than small lorries, so why not bigger bees?


----------



## WLC

Michael Bush said:


> >...I eliminated all of them back in 2001 when they all swarmed in a drought in August and went berserk...I doubt those BWeaver bees survived the drought. It was the worst possible time to swarm. But either way, they did DNA and mtDNA on my bees in this study, a decade later. There was no indication they were Africanized. The bee inspector inspects them every year with nothing but a veil and has no issues with them. The bee club has met there many times with many people not wearing a veil. I only get comments on how nice they are, never the other way around.http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10528-014-9644-y#page-1 http://www.researchgate.net/publica...aged_colonies_and_swarms_in_the_United_States http://comp.uark.edu/~aszalan/magnus_esa_2010.jpg http://bushfarms.com/beesexpectations.htm


Thanks Mike. It's important to note that you may well have created your own 'hybrid swarm' using BeeWeaver/Weaver genetics since you've used them for up to 30 years, and you've had that 2001 incident where they 'went berserk' and swarmed.

By the way, those genetic studies are for mitochondrial haplotypes and don't address any known nuclear AHB markers.

Just because they're currently 'manageable' doesn't mean that they don't have any AHB genetic inheritance.

The Brazilian studies are the ones that pointed to small cell reducing mites in AHB colonies, and perhaps you're seeing that AHB/small cell inheritance in your feral derived, resistant stocks. I'm glad that the small cell 'gene' isn't linked with the mean gene in AHB.


----------



## Michael Bush

You can believe whatever you choose, of course. I consider it EXTREMELY unlikely those swarms survived the drought and I bought new mated queens to requeen all of those hives. I am fairly certain I have no BWeaver genetics. Most of my stock after that came from cutouts or swarm traps from 20-60 miles away and some even further.


----------



## WLC

My opinion is based on the scientific literature and beekeeper anecdotes.

Some stocks, like AHB, can reduce mite loads on small cell.

It's not a 'belief' if it's based on the literature. It's an actual hypothesis.

Perhaps someone will follow up one day.


----------



## Michael Bush

I find it interesting how people try to fit the facts into their view of the world rather than adjust their view of the world. I put Olivarez packages on natural comb and most of them drew 4.7mm in the core of the brood nest. Here are a couple of pictures of one of those combs:

http://www.bushfarms.com/images/47mmCombMeasurement.jpg
http://www.bushfarms.com/images/47mmComb.JPG

I'm quite certain none of them had mated with any escaped BWeaver stock in the woods by my house. They drew small cell just fine and survived just fine that year and the next several.

I've noticed many people like to assume Dee's survival rates are due to Varroa losses selecting for Varroa resistance, but she took those losses before Varroa showed up and the losses were due to other issues like AFB and the stress of regression. I've seen the same theory applied to me, quoting my losses, yet I had no survivors from Varroa to breed from when I put those commercial bees on natural comb and small cell foundation and took no large losses from Varroa after that. It helps to get all the facts straight before you come up with theories.

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

The sequence of things is important constructing a hypothesis.

If I accidently won the bee lottery and got gentle resistant bees then people should be lined up to buy queens at $1,000 a crack... but that isn't going to happen.


----------



## Oldtimer

Mike for you, I think there must also be an environmental factor, or something.

How else do you explain these two things. 1. bees that although fully regressed to 4.9, if allowed to build natural comb will no way build any as small as 4.9, and 2. people who use small cell but still lose bees to mites.


----------



## WLC

"The sequence of things is important constructing a hypothesis."

Right. So, the studies showing that small cell didn't reduce mite loads never even tried to use a positive control like AHB derived stocks.

They just put domestic stocks on small cell.

Mike, nobody with a talent for experimental design ignores 'positive controls' described in the literature.

These U.S. studies skipped a step even though they have positive controls available.

Curious, no?


----------



## Oldtimer

Thing is WLC, if a genuinely resistant bee was used, most of them do well, what does that prove?

To test the small cell hypothesis, a non resistant bee must be used.


----------



## WLC

Oldtimer said:


> Thing is WLC, if a genuinely resistant bee was used, most of them do well, what does that prove?
> To test the small cell hypothesis, a non resistant bee must be used.


Well, that's not necessary to the experimental design. You could use various stocks both resistant and non-resistant on both small and large cell.

The key part of any such experimental design would be using a known stock that does show a reduced mite load on small cell relative to large cell.

For example, you need to have an identifiable trait before you can identify any potential genes responsible. 

I've mentioned that there were flaws in the experimental design of the 2010 paper.

It doesn't allow for the next logical steps.


----------



## Oldtimer

:thumbsup:


----------



## Barry Digman

Someone should design the experiment and then post it so others could run it.

But I repeat myself...


----------



## Saltybee

Michael Bush,
One logical (therefore unlikely with bees) possible mechanism for small cell would be a slightly denser, hence warmer & faster brood cycle. Narrow frames would seem to also create a denser brood area. Is there any consistency within SC of the use of narrow frames?


----------



## Roland

Oldtimer - Per your question on AHB genes and cold weather, every time we run into suspected AHB genes in package queens, the real test is the first hard frost.Typically they will quickly perish when it gets cold. With our recent "Global Warming" winter, I think they have all been purged from the land of Brats and Beer. From that observation, I would surmise that any migration of AHB genes will be quite slow and diluted, if perceptible at all.

I imagine it could be determined if the aggression gene and the cold weather survival gene are on the same chromosome. 

Crazy Roland


----------



## Oldtimer

Thanks Roland interesting observation. Yes the thing is where the aggression and cold weather survival gene / genes are and if they can be separated.



Barry Digman said:


> Someone should design the experiment and then post it so others could run it.
> 
> But I repeat myself...


I think I can design one that would satisfy all parties, but cost would be prohibitive.

Total hives involved should be 50 or 100, depending on general consensus. For now, & to keep it simple let's say 50. The hives should be set up on pre drawn comb that has had at least one cycle of brood through it & then been irradiated to eliminate any differences in virus levels. 1/2 the hives are small cell, 1/2 large cell, and should comprise of 2 deeps each. 90% + correctly drawn small cell comb for the small cell hives.

The hives are started with package bees. For 24 hours before installing the bees should be mixed in one huge cage, and then thoroughly shaken before being made back into 3 lb packages, one per hive. The queens should all be sister queens open mated at the same site, a not very mite resistant bee will show any differences the best.

Bees and queens are installed into the broodless hives and run for 2 to 3 years, management is confined to adding and taking away honey supers over excluders, any losses are allowed to happen. Any queen failures are replaced with sister queens to rule out hives dying from queenlessness affecting the statistics.

The only difficult part is hive placement. One view is the small cell hives should be at a different site to the large cell to avoid cross contamination. But that of course means some other local environment factor could affect the outcome. The other view is that the hives be at the same site so any local factors affect all hives equally. But that of course will allow cross contamination.

My own opinion is the hives should be at one location but widely separated, say, 10 yards between each hive, and sc, lc, should be alternated through the yard.

100 hives would be better than 50 hives but cost is the issue. I believe 50 hives ie 25 of each would still give a workable conclusion.

Such an experiment would in my opinion settle the matter, but I doubt it will ever be carried out the cost is too much & many scientists believe the matter is already settled.


----------



## Barry Digman

Thanks! I like it. It doesn't seem like it would be that expensive. If you had to put a total cost on it, what do you think it would be? My guess for the 50 hive experiment for 3 years would be $100k or less. Is that reasonable?


----------



## Oldtimer

I don't know the cost to pay a US panel of experts to run it LOL. 

The other biggy might be getting sufficient properly drawn sc comb to start things off right, but IMO this is essential to get proper results.


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

One could use plastic drawn comb. I did when I tried to regress bees down to 4.9 mm. The bees lived (well...) on it for a year. The next stage was wax foundation. Even after a year on plastic small cell, only half of the foundation was drawn properly 4.9 mm, the rest was a mess. Culled out a lot of comb over and over again. Didn't get any better. They simply didn't like it.

Anyway, drawn small cell plastic comb would do and is easy accessible, although a bit expensive. Brands are Honey Super Cell (HSC) from the US or Rovergarden from Italy.


----------



## Oldtimer

Plastic drawn comb was used in a study that found, basically, that small cell did not work.

However the study was then criticized by small cell proponents, on the basis that the comb used was.... plastic drawn comb. The only way to have the study acceptable to all parties would be to use wax comb built on wax foundation. Good comb can be produced and I know because my own bees have done it. But I think it may be easier with certain bees and in certain climates.


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

I tried different things. Drawn plastic comb, plastic foundation, wax foundation. All small cell. 

Bees work plastic small cells.









This is the Rovergarden drawn small cell comb. 









Carnica queen on small cell plastic comb.


















Eggs in drawn small cell plastic comb.










Mannlake small cell plastic foundation.









The Mannlake foundations get drawn pretty good. I did measures and it was 4.9 mm mostly. 









Regular comb. 









Eggs in small cell plastic foundation.









So it can be done. I have put them on plastic first, than I put them on wax foundation (small cell). If they had the chance to build free comb, they went large cell again. Foundation was drawn properly 50 %, the other half was horrible.


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

Brood in small cell plastic drawn comb.









Cappings are normal. Some observed sunken caps with drawn plastic combs. Did not see this.


















Mannlake small cell plastic foundation.



























Beebread.


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

I always wear my protection hat when working the bees. 










Measuring small cell wax foundation:



















They produced lots of crooked comb. This one was stuffed with pollen:










This brood comb has large cells, too, reworked by the bees from small cell foundation. 









Tried Carnicas, Buckfast and dark bees. None of them seemed to like small cells. I have some success with 5.1 mm foundation, though. I think it is the lower limit of the natural range, that is acceptable for the bees I keep. But 4.9 mm is too much work for me to cull it out all the time. With no significant effects in my trials. I mean beside all the extra costs and work produced. Which certainly was significant.


----------



## Oldtimer

Nice pics Bernhard.


----------



## beemandan

Oldtimer said:


> Plastic drawn comb was used in a study that found, basically, that small cell did not work.


What you really meant to say was 'didn't reduce mite infestation'....right? 
One must pick one's words using great care with this crowd.


----------



## Michael Bush

>Plastic drawn comb was used in a study that found, basically, that small cell did not work.

Actually Randy Oliver got the the opposite--less mites, but then Randy tried to explain it as the plastic offgassing.

http://scientificbeekeeping.com/trial-of-honeysupercell-small-cell-combs/

>How else do you explain these two things. 
>1. bees that although fully regressed to 4.9, if allowed to build natural comb will no way build any as small as 4.9

I have not had that experience. I have pictures and measurements from people all over the country who have not had the experience. I have no doubt there is a genetic component and SOME bees might not build cells that small, but my experience is that the core of the brood nest tends to be 4.6mm or so while the outside edges tend to be 5.2mm or so. This works fine for Varroa in my experience.

>2. people who use small cell but still lose bees to mites. 

I know far more who are on small cell and don't lose their bees to mites than I know of those who do. Obviously everything to do with bees is tied to so many outside forces that it is hard to predict outcomes 100% of the time.

>Right. So, the studies showing that small cell didn't reduce mite loads never even tried to use a positive control like AHB derived stocks.

Who wants AHB derived stocks and how would that help? I have no interest in AHB unless there are no other alternatives and there are alternatives.

>They just put domestic stocks on small cell.

Which is exactly what I did to start and it worked fine as far as Varroa mites. All of my bees were dead. All of the bees I bought at the time were from a commercial producer in California. The only issues were winter survival. Some did fine and breeding from those did fine. Some did not. It takes a round of winter to cull out the ones who can't survive Nebraska winters.

>One logical (therefore unlikely with bees) possible mechanism for small cell would be a slightly denser, hence warmer & faster brood cycle. Narrow frames would seem to also create a denser brood area. Is there any consistency within SC of the use of narrow frames? 

Judging by my mail I would say a fair number but well below 50% are doing narrow frames. It's just a guess but I'd say 30% maybe. Small cell brood is already denser without the narrow frames but is more dense with them, of course. It makes for an explosive buildup sometimes in the spring when conditions are right.


----------



## D Semple

Saltybee said:


> Michael Bush,
> Is there any consistency within SC of the use of narrow frames?



I get a lot more consistency drawing out nice and straight SC brood comb using 1 1/4" spacing. 


Don


----------



## Michael Bush

>I get a lot more consistency drawing out nice and straight SC brood comb using 1 1/4" spacing. 

I did too. I think the spacing communicates the intent of the comb being built which affects the size of the comb being built.


----------



## odfrank

>but my experience is that the core of the brood nest tends to be 4.6mm or so while the outside edges tend to be 5.2mm or so.

But as one works hives it would be a huge chore to keep these frames with different cell size in the right location. That is why I tried Michael and Dee's suggested "Housel positioning" and quickly found it to be unmanageable. 
After ten years of trying small cell I am abandoning it as I renovate combs. But, I just dumped a big swarm on one of my last attempts at SC foundation on 1 1/4" spacing. I will report on how they do. My trust of Michael Bush is on the line in that box.


----------



## shinbone

A little off topic:

I have been inserting foundationless frames into the middle of the brood nest to control swarming this Spring. Of the two rounds of inserted frames I have done so far, each frame has been built out as drone comb. The first frame I was okay with, but I was disappointed to see so much drone comb on the second frame, too. This for multiple hives.

I may just cut this drone comb out before the drones emerge and write it off as varroa control through drone trapping, and let the bees start over. Maybe I will get less drone comb later in the Spring.


----------



## jmgi

odfrank said:


> My trust of Michael Bush is on the line in that box.


I'm sure you are just kidding, right?


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

Must be because you are on the other side of the planet, that my experiences are a bit of the opposite. :thumbsup:



Michael Bush said:


> I have pictures and measurements from people all over the country who have not had the experience.


We sampled a lot of natural comb and all over the country...and people have had that experience. Virtually no colony had cells below 5.0 mm. Such small cells are unknown to bees over here all over the country. Extremely rare. Bees refuse to build them, too, they all try to build larger cells as soon you leave them some freedom.



Michael Bush said:


> brood nest tends to be 4.6mm or so while the outside edges tend to be 5.2mm or so. This works fine for Varroa in my experience.


As above. What I can confirm by my observations is, that the core broodnest's cells are smaller than the outside ones. Me thinks this is because of heat. The hotter, the more fluid is the wax, the smaller the cells. Inside the building cluster the highest temperatures can be found, thus the cells are smaller in the core. Maybe your climate or bees are hotter than ours...



Michael Bush said:


> I know far more who are on small cell and don't lose their bees to mites than I know of those who do.


I know far more people that failed on small cells without any other treatments. Weired. Maybe the failed folk doesn't contact you after the fail?

Reality is confusing.


----------



## Saltybee

odfrank,
What happens if they have an alternate empty outside frame for drone?


----------



## Saltybee

BernhardHeuvel said:


> Reality is confusing.


It is easier if you ignore it.


----------



## Michael Bush

>That is why I tried Michael and Dee's suggested "Housel positioning" and quickly found it to be unmanageable. 

Housel positioning may have been Dee's suggestion. I don't think I've ever recommended it. I posted several times on not being able to find any pattern of Housel positioning in natural comb... you were involved in most of those threads, but to jog your memory, here are a few of those:

http://www.beesource.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-206192.html
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?206327-Housel-Positioning&p=199277#post199277
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?206281-Housel-positioning-observations
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?206355-Housel-Positioning&p=199510#post199510
http://www.beesource.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-249236.html
http://www.beesource.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-188469.html
http://www.beesource.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-253145.html?


----------



## Michael Bush

>We sampled a lot of natural comb and all over the country...and people have had that experience. Virtually no colony had cells below 5.0 mm. Such small cells are unknown to bees over here all over the country. Extremely rare. Bees refuse to build them, too, they all try to build larger cells as soon you leave them some freedom.

It is quite likely that the genetic makeup of bees in Germany is not the same as the genetic makeup of the bees here. Why not let them build what they want?


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

I am repeating myself: did that for ten years. In skeps, logs, all sorts of boxes and Warré hives. Did not help with varroa, though. Neither did swarming, wintering on honey and all the other magic. :scratch:


----------



## CtyAcres

Bernard, Small cell or large cell whatever you use, what is your approximate percentage of winter loss to varroa in Germany?


----------



## Oldtimer

Shinbone. If your hive does not contain enough drone brood for the bees satisfaction and you give them an empty frame, they will build drone brood as that is what they want. If you cut the drone brood out & put the frame back they will do it again.

The way to do it is this. Put in 3 empty frames, if it is a strong hive they will make them all fairly solid drone comb. Allow the bees to raise drones in these combs. About the time the drones start hatching remove some frames of worker comb from the hive and replace with empty frames, dotted through the brood nest. The bees, now satisfied with drone production, will build worker comb. If you want a natural cell but no drone comb hive, just keep removing worker comb from the hive & replacing with empty frames for them to fill with worker comb. Once you have plenty remove the 3 drone combs & replace with the extra natural cell worker combs you have.

Using this method I have hives of foundationless worker comb which is so perfect you would swear it was built on foundation. I also have frames of pure drone comb which I use to control drone production in the colonies I want to make drones for mating.


----------



## Riskybizz

There have been many fascinating comments thrown around regarding this thread. In January, 2014 on another thread, AR Beekeeper posted a comment that I find quite apropos : "Normal cell size for worker cells is 5.25mm. The cell size is an average of what worker cells measured when the comb was removed from box hives that were being changed out for modern frame hives. These measurements were made before 1893, the year that Ursmar Baudoux put forth his idea of larger bees being more efficient. Worker cells were measured by Langstroth, Dadant, Root, Doolittle, Dr. Gallup, Dr. C. C. Miller and many others. They said normal worker cell size was in a range of 5.1 to 5.2. When A.I. Root made his first foundation mill he made the cell size 5.0mm and the bees used it, but the queens were reluctant to lay in it if they could find slightly larger cells. When his son H. H. Root built a mill later, and used the 5.2mm size, the queens used those size cells with no hesitation. To my mind honey bee queens are the authority on cell size, and they prefer the range of 5.1 on the low side to 5.4mm on the high side. I think the larger 5.4 cell size is because the manufactures wanted an all purpose size, one the bees would use for brood and a cell size large enough to make honey extraction easy.

Drone cell size was not increased to my knowledge, the researcher was on the worker. Drone cells are around 6.4mm to 6.8mm in size.

Varroa does not reproduce as fast in worker brood, but it is not because of the cell size".

Infestation by varroa mites damages drones in many ways, exposure to chemicals will damage them also. To produce drones for mating we need to control varroa and do it in a manner that is least damaging to queens and drones. We should also increase the numbers of drone producing colonies around our mating yards and not rely on "wild colony drones" to mate with our virgins. Well said AR.


----------



## peterloringborst

deleted irrelevant


----------



## peterloringborst

In my 1949 edition of the Hive and the Honey Bee, I find this interesting
and relevant passage by Henry C. Dadant (inventor of crimp-wired foundation):

"Cells of natural comb vary ... By taking the measurements along rows of
hexagons, side by side, sealed worker brood has been found to vary from 5
cells measuring 1 1/32 inches to 1 1/16 inches."

"Standard comb foundation usually is made on dies providing 857 cells per
square decimeter" [this figure is based upon the measurements just quoted]

"Races of bees such as the Italian, Carniolan and Caucasian build cells of
practically identical size, and accept *standard foundation* readily."

"The native-German black bees build smaller cells."

So, Dadant was taking the size 5.3 to 5.4 as the *natural size* for Italian,
Carniolan and Caucasian bees and using it as the standard. 

Meanwhile, Europeans were trying to upsize the Black bees (A. m. m.) to be
as bigger than these sizes. (quote: "They experimented with comb foundation
having 760, 700, and 640 cells per sq. dec. ... the excessive claims of
Baudoux were not substantiated.")

Bottom line, according to my reading of this work, the standard of 5.3 to
5.4 was based on natural comb sizes of Italian, Carniolan and Caucasian
bees. Apis mellifera mellifera was a smaller bee that they tried to upsize.


----------



## squarepeg

interesting. as noted in an earlier post my feral derivatives have thrived on the 5.4 that they were reared on and i have continued to use. the smattering of foundationless frames i've placed now have mostly drone comb in them, but i do have one colony with exclusively natural comb all through the core of the brood nest. the cells in the middle of these frames average 4.9 mm, and the bees in this colony do appear to be a little smaller than their cohorts. i have suspected they may have a.m.m. ancestory based on their history and delaney's finding that the majority of unmanaged tree bees in this area were found to have a.m.m. mitotypes.


----------



## DRUR

Treatment free since 2009 with small cell. Works for me.

Kindest Regards


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

CtyAcres said:


> ... is your approximate percentage of winter loss to varroa in Germany?


I consider every winter with more than 3 % losses a complete fail. There are queenless hives sometimes. You can't really prevent that. But to varroa I do not loose any hives anymore. I do treat if I see problems, so problem solved. I don't use the hard chemicals but formic acid, oxalic acid or lactic acid. Whatever is appropiate in that situation.

With treatment free hives, the situation was different. Some years I did fine with only few losses. But there were disastrous years, too. Like waves of varroa every other year. I jumped in head first and hit the ground, so I became more careful and choosed a more careful approach of treating when necessary, breeding from the best.


----------



## jmgi

peterloringborst said:


> So, Dadant was taking the size 5.3 to 5.4 as the *natural size* for Italian,
> Carniolan and Caucasian bees and using it as the standard.


Not doubting his measurements, but where did he take these measurements, in the core of the brood nest or outside of that? It does matter.


----------



## Barry

I don't put a lot of weight in anyone who make statements like "the natural cell size for bees is xxx". Unless they say "xxx to xxx brood size", their number lacks any real meaning.


----------



## Michael Bush

>Not doubting his measurements, but where did he take these measurements, in the core of the brood nest or outside of that? It does matter. 

This has always been a bit of a mystery to me. I've seen measurements from people all over the country. We all know, I hope, by now that the measurements vary. Many of us have noted the center is the smallest and the outside edges the largest. So are these measurements the core of the brood nest? The outside edges of the brood nest? An average of all the cells? Honey storage around the brood nest? Dennis Murrel mapped them quite extensively and posted the results on his web site. For Varroa issues my observation is that the core of the brood nest is what is significant not the outside edges, not the honey storage cells.


----------



## NewbeeInNH

Maybe all the sugar we're feeding our bees is making them fatter.


----------



## peterloringborst

> Not doubting his measurements, but where did he take these measurements, in the core of the brood nest or outside of that? It does matter.


The calculations were made using cells per square decimeter which is far more accurate and representative than cells per linear inch. These figures represent averages. If you measure comb in a small colony building up they are apt to have smaller cells than a prosperous colony, due to the need to conserve resources. This is true with bumble bees, as well. They start with small cells, raising small bees and gradually enlarge the bees till they are full sized queens and males, to mate and produce the next generation.


----------



## Saltybee

So the arguments really could be;

Is 4.9 mm per length the same as xx per square decimeter?
Is the brood core or the brood fringe more beneficial to the hive?


----------



## jmgi

In terms of varroa, the link to the study presented earlier in this discussion my MB, if I understand it correctly, seems to show that a smaller brood cell could possibly be detrimental to the mite simply because there is less room in the cell for both the developing bee and the reproducing mite and her offspring, and may result in the mites being fatally injured or crushed at some point. This would therefore be one possible benefit of a cell size at the lower end of the natural size range.


----------



## 2ndCharter

Saltybee said:


> So the arguments really could be;
> 
> Is 4.9 mm per length the same as xx per square decimeter?
> Is the brood core or the brood fringe more beneficial to the hive?


Another point often overlooked is that not only is natural cell sized variable but it depends on the source stock. LC bees should draw larger NC sizes than SC bees will. Due to this you can't point to cutouts and say "here is what is truly NC size" because you have to consider the colony iterations leading up to the establishment of that colony.


----------



## peterloringborst

> Meanwhile, Europeans were trying to upsize the Black bees (A. m. m.) to be
> as bigger than these sizes. (quote: "They experimented with comb foundation
> having 760, 700, and 640 cells per sq. dec. ... the excessive claims of
> Baudoux were not substantiated.")


To put this into perspective, the sizes were

760 = 5.5mm
700 = 5.7mm
640 = 6.0mm

so they were trying to upsize from bees that built 5.3mm cells by using cells nearly as big as drone cells. Drone is 6.4mm.

On the other hand, 4.9mm works out to 962 per sq. decimeter. African bees average 1000 cells per sq. dec (counting both sides of the comb) and range from about 4.7 to 4.9mm

See:
http://www.honeybeeworld.com/misc/cellcount.htm


----------



## Michael Bush

Baudoux's charts are in the old ABC & XYZ of Beekeeping books. I have several that have them in it. They were reproduced by Barry here:
http://www.beesource.com/files/lusby-influence-cell-size-3.jpg

This is from Baudoux's work. He was working from 4.7mm to 5.96mm for workers. It looks like he was trying to enlarge them from 4.7mm to 5.96mm doesn't it? This is Baudoux's work.

Here are the articles that Baudoux wrote on his work that include the above chart:
http://www.beesource.com/point-of-v...-cell-size/the-influence-of-cell-size-part-1/
http://www.beesource.com/point-of-v...-cell-size/the-influence-of-cell-size-part-2/

You can read it for yourself.


----------



## peterloringborst

> You can read it for yourself.


That's funny. I have read these things, I have been studying this for 15 years. I think you have misrepresented the facts time and time again. I have in my hands an article from the American Bee Journal 1968, that completely spells it out in plain English, and proves beyond a doubt that European bees never had cells on average smaller than 5.2- 5.4, that Badoux et al were trying to enlarge to 5.7 and beyond, that the whole scheme was abandoned as pointless, and most importantly -- the touted cell range of 4.7 to 4.9 is -- and always has been -- characteristic of the bees of Africa. However, unless one person asks for more information, I am ready to drop the matter.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

> proves beyond a doubt that European bees never had cells on average smaller than 5.2- 5.4,

"never"?

A quote from the Badoux link Michael provided above ...


> About 1891, foundation with cells 920 to the sq. dm. was introduced into our country. [HIGHLIGHT]Beekeepers all adopted this size of cell.[/HIGHLIGHT] The experts of that time believed that it was advantageous to produce as many bees as possible on the least possible surface of comb.
> 
> http://www.beesource.com/point-of-v...-cell-size/the-influence-of-cell-size-part-1/


If 920 to the sq. dm. foundation was adopted in a _widespread ('_all'_) _manner as Badoux says, that shows that at that time there was a widespread use of approximately 4.9 to 5.0 bees/foundation.

Following the 900 to 950 in the left column in the "worker" section of the chart below shows a cell size of between 4.9mm and 5.0mm ...


----------



## AR Beekeeper

I think the key phrase is "the bees were miserable specimens."


----------



## peterloringborst

> If 920 to the sq. dm. was adopted in a widespread manner as Badoux says, that shows that at that time there was a widespread use of approximately 4.9 bees/foundation.


This was never widespread. In fact, in the 1890s the overwhelming majority of colonies were in non-frame hives (skeps, etc.) building their own combs. The use of small cells in those days was a fad, produced dwarfish bees, and was very quickly dropped. Same with the abnormally enlarged cells (5.7+) Some foundation makers opted for slightly larger 5.4 cell foundation, but this is in the normal range for European bees, especially the C lineage (Italian, Carniolan).


----------



## Saltybee

Parsing the truth from historical records is interesting but; unless you have some 1891 bees on hand it really does not mean much.
Peter has asked his bees what size they preferred. Michael has asked his bees. Until the bees get their stories straight we will never know.

Or, maybe today there are two different answers(at least two).


----------



## peterloringborst

> Peter has asked his bees what size they preferred


I am guessing this is tongue in cheek, but honestly -- I don't talk to bees. I talk to my pet dog, but I don't fool myself into thinking he has any idea what I am talking about. 
Honey bees, by the way, only regard humans in two ways: ignore them or attempt to drive them away, same as bears, skunks, etc. Their consciousness simply cannot conceptualize a higher order of being than them. What we do with bees is a trick, we trick them into living with us. If they "knew" what we were doing, they would not approve.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

> If they "knew" what we were doing, they would not approve.

Is this tongue in cheek also? :scratch: :s



Its fairly clear from what Badoux wrote (in 1933) that he did not approve of the "small cell" foundation that he wrote of being used in the 1890s. But if it was never used "all" over, why did he feel the need to rail about it 40 years after the fact?


----------



## peterloringborst

> why did he feel the need to rail about it 40 years after the fact?


To put it simply, just because somebody makes a big deal about something, it does not necessarily follow that's it's a big deal.


----------



## jmgi

Maybe Baudaux wasn't complaining specifically of the 900 or so cells to the sq. dec. foundation, but larger cell foundation, maybe even 5.2-5.4 mm. that would have been in widespread use in the early 30's. After all, wasn't his intention to develop a super bee?


----------



## peterloringborst




----------



## Duncan151

peterloringborst said:


> To put it simply, just because somebody makes a big deal about something, it does not necessarily follow that's it's a big deal.
> 
> View attachment 9929


Peter, does this apply to the Big Deal that you have been making about all this small cell stuff not working?


----------



## peterloringborst

> Peter, does this apply to the Big Deal that you have been making about all this small cell stuff not working?


Sure, why not? Anyway, I said in the first place that I thought cell size doesn't matter, not that it doesn't work. But on the other hand, I have been trying to point out that there is a serious error in the understanding of bee biology. The mainstream of bee biology clearly states the natural cell sizes (Eva Crane, Dadant, Grout, etc.) and yet folks seem to think all those people are wrong, that European bees are supposed to be the same size as African bees. 

You go back centuries, before foundation was even invented and people knew that African bees were smaller than European bees. (See: A VOYAGE TO SENEGAL, M. ADANSON -- 1759). If you raise European bees on cells the size of African bee foundation is, you will make the bees smaller. But if you think that is natural, you're quite mistaken. On the other hand, using top bars, or foundationless frames will give you the natural combs of the bees, for sure. 

I have no agenda other than to present the whole picture which can only be assembled from all the parts, not by isolating some outliers and relying on those as somehow reflecting the real story that everyone else has missed.


----------



## Oldtimer

Saltybee said:


> Or, maybe today there are two different answers(at least two).


Much wisdom in those words.

I would even go further & say there's often several different answers, all correct in certain locations / bee types/ circumstances. Add to that a few wrong answers and 1/2 truths that get thrown into the mix as well, and we have a chat site thread.


----------



## squarepeg

agree with sb and ot. i have seen bees beat varroa on 5.4 rite cell foundation. i do like the idea of letting them draw it like they want it though. the few foundationless frames i've given them so far have ended up mostly full frames of drone comb, but i have a few 'mixed' frames of natural comb with small 4.9 cells in the middle and increasing to drone size at the edges. i'll be rotating out the foundation frames to the outer two positions and be working toward having natural cells on the inner six frames. the medium frames in my supers will continue to be rite cell, which will get brood raised in it during spring expansion (now) when the expand the broodnest up into two or three supers before retreating it back down after swarm season and during main flow.


----------



## mac

60 hives all med no foundation and I still fog even though that doesn'work


----------

