# Foulbrood



## clintonbemrose (Oct 23, 2001)

I kept hives as a migratory bee keeper starting in 1971 to 2003 when I retried.500+ hives. I never used antibotics in my hives. Over the years I lost about 41 hives to AFB. All were totaly burned bees and all. I did change out 2 frames a year in the hive bodes and the suppers. All were dated at the time of instlation. I was told the same as you but I wanted to limit the chemicals in the hive. Now I use FGMO/Thymol and started 8 years ago not using anything else. I feel much better not using harsh chemcals in my hives and advertise it. It seems to sell more honey
When I changed over I did not lose more hives by not using chemicals.
Clint


----------



## Dave W (Aug 3, 2002)

>moving it to a location "far away" where I only keep hives with foulbrood . . .

Is that legal in your state?


----------



## TX Ashurst (May 31, 2005)

<Is that legal in your state?>
Don't ask. lol

Burning the hives is a pretty radical treatment, but at least it doesn't leave harmful residues and it's your best protection, especially given that you don't want to use chemicals.

My worry about the disease yard is more that you'd be introducing diseased and contagious bees in the area "far away" where there is probably a feral bee population. AFB is so bad exactly because infected hives get weak and are robbed out, which contaminates the robbing hives. It can explode out from there and might come back to haunt you. I suspect there are probably feral hives even out in the west desert.

[ December 06, 2006, 04:00 PM: Message edited by: TX Ashurst ]


----------



## pahvantpiper (Apr 25, 2006)

Hmmm...maybe I'll forgo the disease yard. You guys make some good points about legality and contaminating feral hives. I'll burn 'em. I can handle a certain % loss a year I guess. Anyone know what percentage outbreak I would have on new equipment?

Hey TX Ashurst, you're familiar with the west desert? Cool.

-Rob


----------



## Dave W (Aug 3, 2002)

Deleted by DLW

[ December 07, 2006, 11:57 AM: Message edited by: Dave W ]


----------



## Dave W (Aug 3, 2002)

pahvantpiper . . .

>what percentage outbreak . . .

I have no experience, so here are some "text book" answers:

1) Most honey bees get AFB at some time and recover without you ever knowing it [ABJ 2/05, p105] 
2) About 2% of all colonies harbor it at any given time [Ref 2, p184]. 
3) AFB infects, on average, between 2 and 5% of all colonies in the US every year [Ref 19, p84].


----------



## NW IN Beekeeper (Jun 29, 2005)

[experimenting with small cell too (don't know for sure how this effects foulbrood). ]

Cell size has no impact on foulbrood. Its a small bacteria so it can get anywhere. 

Bee hygenics would have an influence. Some say that pulling infected larvae diminshes the spore count in the hive, others say thats just spreading spores it around. Comb rotation is one of the best ways to keep the potential of infection to a minimum, by removing the spore source. 

There was an article (maybe a book) in which foulbrood could be brought under control without chemicals by stratigically removing frames. It took time and proper timing to do it though.

Time and timing aren't luxuries that you have when migratory beekeeping though. 

-Jeff


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

The process of regressing bees for small cell may help provided you don't move comb between colonies. I say this just because I'm told that regression requires the manufacture of new comb and new comb has a lower pathogen load (fewer spores).


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

I agree with Aspera. 
Also because according to De Jong, smaller sized combs it appears are superior to over sized comb cells for disease resistance.

(De Jong 2003)
"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."

[ December 07, 2006, 05:03 PM: Message edited by: Pcolar ]


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Cell size has no impact on foulbrood. Its a small bacteria so it can get anywhere. 

Well, the bees won't chew out the cocoons until the size falls below a certain point. All those cocoons that build up in a 5.4mm cell (many more layers than a 4.9mm cell) are places for bacteria to hide. And then there is the shift in hygienic behavior that we see when regressing...


----------



## ozzy (Feb 5, 2005)

I had never seen AFB until I became an apiary inspector and now I can almost predict who and when someone is going to get it. (in my area at least one commercial beekeeper has it in most of his yards whether it is expressed or not) Every hobbiest case I see occurs when someone buys old equipment and introduces it into their operation. I every case where there has been another yard nearby, I have within a year found AFB in that yard too. Since Tylan has been available, most commercial yards are not expressing the disease most of the year. However if it does show up it usually is in the fall before being treated again. They problem with Tylan is just what you are worried about-it has such a long life it can easily find its way into your honey. If I remember correctly, when it does breakdown it breaksdown into another antibiotic. The recommendation is that it only be used when the hive shows tm resistant AFB but I know at least some and perhaps most commercial beekeepers use it as a preventative measure. They do it because it can effectively supress the disease for over a year after treatment and it lasts a lot longer than TM. 
I doubt that there are many feral hives with AFB because they would soon die off and quickly be overrun with wax moths, mice etc, thus rendering them unattractive to bees. Therefore, I would suggest you do as I did, which is locate my apiary at least 3 miles from any commercial apiary, or any other apiary for that matter. Don't buy old equipment and be careful when hiving swarms from unknown origin. They may still harbor spores in the honey they consumed before swarming. They can be housed in a cardboard box till they start drawing comb then rehoused in a standard hive with much less risk.


----------



## Finman (Nov 5, 2004)

.
Here is a German research. http://www.apimondia.org/apiacta/articles/2003/von_der_Ohe_1.pdf'

They have studied 9 years AFB. Spores are present in hives 2-3 years before eye can detect symptons of disease (dead pupae).

Disease can be vanished with artificial swarm with foundations.


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

From DeJong 2003:
"furthermore it appears that natural-sized comb cells are superior to over-sized comb cells for disease resistance."

In research, "it appears" has meaning that some appearance of a noted observation was made. It usually is followed by something along the lines of "But further research is needed to find out for sure". To take a statement like that and use it to make solid statements and conclusions are wrong. For DeJong to make a statement like that and not follow up the research is not good. Did he further this comment with research?

Other than this one statement, is there any other research or data showing smallcell in regards to AFB. 
The (DeJong) statement is a continuation of statement in regards to varroa, and I read it to mean something along the lines of deseases associated with mites. Taking this statement and applying it to afb is a stretch.

I do agree with regression, natural comb building, and other factors that suppress or eliminate AFB.

MB, can you talk more about "And then there is the shift in hygienic behavior that we see when regressing..." I am more than interested in data and research. Thank you.


----------



## Finman (Nov 5, 2004)

From DeJong 2003:
"furthermore it appears that natural-sized comb cells are superior to over-sized comb cells for disease resistance."

Beedeases have developed in natural combs before human start to make foundations 150 years ago.

Before antibiots beekeepers have no idea what to do with death which sweeped whole yard away. 

Continuos swarming and new clean hives were good ways to get rid of foulbrood. 

"Time goldens memories"

.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>MB, can you talk more about "And then there is the shift in hygienic behavior that we see when regressing..." 

You typically see more chewing out of larvae. I assume it's diseased in some way, mites, AFB, Chalkbrood etc. but at the time you see them chewing it out it still looks like healthy larvae. But this is hygenic behavior and most all small cell beekeepers have observed it increasing significantly when the bees are regressed.

Of course there are also the genetic components of hygenic behavior that cause uncapping and cleaning out.

The other small cell advantage I see, is less layers of cocoons before the cocoons are chewed out of the brood cells to get back to large enough cells. I never saw any of this with large cell comb. The layers just build up for decades.


----------



## Velbert (Mar 19, 2006)

In the early stage of AFB it is not catching for the first 1 or 2 days not sure on the amount of time but if the bees can clean it out before that time they will not come down with an out-brake.


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

MB, How many years have you been keeping smallcell bees? And after how many of these years did you see this chewing out of the comb so the bees could get back to a bigger size? Thank you.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>MB, How many years have you been keeping smallcell bees?

Five.

> And after how many of these years did you see this chewing out of the comb so the bees could get back to a bigger size?

I wasn't keeping track of the time, but I've been seeing that sort of thing in the observation hive for several years now. Sometimes it's hard to figure out what they are doing and then sometimes you get a clue from the sequence of events. It seems more obvious on the wax coated PermaComb. Sometimes the cocoons come out in fairly large pieces.

I never saw them chew out very many larvae before I had small cell. Occasionally I did, and I always wondered why they would kill and uncap what looks like a perfectly good larvae. After going to small cell I saw it so often it seemed normal to see it.


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

MB, do you attribute this changing of the comb as a replacement of bad/infected comb, or a desire to have larger cells? I think that a comb change every couple years is hard to comprehend. I did not think that many(or few) caccoons would make this needed on this frequency and level. Can you point me in a direction of other documented material of cell replacement on the level you mention? 

Isn't your mentioning of "killing" brood, or cleaning out of larvae, something the same as bees being mentioned by others with recent breeding efforts. And I beleive these bees are not on smallcell. If this is seen and can be enhanced by others not using smallcell, and as you say "I never saw them", I take it you are not listing this as a sole attribute to smallcell beekeeping? You do recognize that others have bees not on smallcell and this behavior is documented, just the same?

I am trying to pinpoint the "shift in hygienic behavior" as you mentioned. So far, we have changing of the comb every few years. And a hygeniec behavior others are seeing without going to smallcell. Is there anything else?


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

It is the same unanswered questions over and over. As a full time researcher with training in infectious dieases, I can see a very significant flaw in small cell research: ALL papers in this area have shown (at most) only that SC will reduce mite loads when introduced. It is necessary to demonstrate that it is SC that makes the difference, and not intesive comb culling or some other covariable. This is EASILY done using a control SC hive and "regressing" it onto progressively larger cell sizes. This hive should then become suceptible to mites. It is the simplest of experiments. The fact that no small cell researchers do this control makes me wonder if people in this field are trying to test a hypothesis or trying to find a result.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

"Well, the bees won't chew out the cocoons until the size falls below a certain point. All those cocoons that build up in a 5.4mm cell (many more layers than a 4.9mm cell) are places for bacteria to hide." -Michael Bush

Wouldn't those cocoons building up in the 5.4mm cells essentially turn them into 4.9mm over time? And, shouldn't that logically lead to fewer Varroa in hives with older comb?

If bees "regress" when forced to build new comb for a several brood cycles, wouldn't you expect them to regress similarly if cocoons start building up inside cells?


----------



## Sundance (Sep 9, 2004)

"This is EASILY done using a control SC hive and "regressing" it onto progressively larger cell sizes. This hive should then become susceptible to mites. It is the simplest of experiments."

With your background and expertise perhaps you
are the one that should do a study. Not meaning
to be rude at all here. You could do an excellent
job on it.


----------



## sierrabees (Jul 7, 2006)

Perhaps as a researcher you may have access to a grad student with the interest and enthusiasam to develope a research project along these lines. All research starts with an opinion, leading to an assumption <hypothesese>, leading to and experiment aimed to disprove the hypothese. Often the best and most accurate restults are obtained by a fresh mind with few preconcieved biases. It seems that this question is floating around at stage one and stage two. Stage three has a few inherant problems. The experimantal stage requiers that the experimenter be willing to sacrafice assets if the assumption is wrong, or in this case right. Significant numbers of hives are needed to give significant data, and significant time investment is required. Small scale beekeepers don't have the assets to spare, the big guys don't have the time to spare. This is where it all falls back on the researcher who can get funding for expendable materials and slave labor called students. Too many variables in beekeeping to rely on just one or a few colonies to do this kind of work or a researcher who has to fudge the study into the time between his wage earning work, his wife's social calander, his children's time demands, etc. If this were varroa, it might be able to tap some of the funding that the big guys are producing who donate part of their pollination fees to research but unless we reach a situation where AFB starts effecting the bottom line of a more prosperous industry it will need people like you and some of the academics who are interested in beekeeping who have access to that pool of students to keep labor cost down. Good Luck.


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

Sundance, that is an excellent question. Even if I devoted all of my hive (8) to such a study, I wouldn't have a quarter the number neccessary to reach a reasonable statistical power. Also, none of my hives are small cell because I haven't devoted the time to making them so. I would rather pursue my modest goal of adding 2-3 new hive every spring, culling one or two in Autumn and testing different queen stocks.


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

assumption does not equal hypothesis. The chain of events goes something like this.

observation-->question-->hypothesis-->experiment-->analysis--->interpretation.

Assumptions primarily enter the process in the interpretation phase, or possibly the experimental design.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

I agree with Aspera on this one. If size is all that is important, switching small cell bees back onto larger cells should make them susceptible to Varroa again. I'm planning to address that issue in the next couple of years.

Of course, for a head start on this aspect, if I had a source of small cell bees at the ready. . . how about it, Sundance? All of yours are small cell, right? Would you be willing to risk some of your hives in the name of science?


----------



## Sundance (Sep 9, 2004)

"All of yours are small cell, right? "

Not even close yet. I purchased 56 existing
colonies last year and did not have time
to start them.

Not sure what you mean by "willing to risk some
of your hives...." I don't presently use any
of the traditional chemicals and rely only
on FGMO and Thymol with OA for problimatic
colonies. 

Many of us "need" to have something verified
by a in depth study. I do not....... I see
most the successes of MB, Lusby, and myself
(to a very small degree) and that's all I
require. 

Now if it cost a load of money to do small
cell then my requirements may change. But
doing small cell requires no more time than
large cell depending on how you perform it.

I would be interested to see a study, but
don't need it for me to use it.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Wouldn't those cocoons building up in the 5.4mm cells essentially turn them into 4.9mm over time?

Over a very long time. Yes. But then we have layers and layers and layers of cocoons.

> And, shouldn't that logically lead to fewer Varroa in hives with older comb?

It would have to be very old comb, but yes, in theory, it would. But clean comb, especially chemically clean comb, or even bacterially clean comb, seems to be an important aspect of a healthy hive and the longer it's in the hive the less clean it will be.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

"Not sure what you mean by 'willing to risk some
of your hives....'" -Sundance

If you're a firm believer that small cell works -- whether or not you've experienced it for yourself -- especially if you believe small cell works to control Varroa because the cells are smaller, then "progressing" small cell colonies back to large cell would likely mean making them susceptible to Varroa again. If that's the case, you'd be likely to lose any of those colonies, assuming that Varroa are a big enough threat to destroy colonies.

I thought from threads like this in the past, http://www.beesource.com/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=006170#000003 , that you were already on small cell exclusively. I assumed that if all your colonies were already on small cell in early June 2006, they still would be on small cell, and then assumed you might be willing to "progress" some of these colonies -- or provide some bees from some of these colonies that I could "progress." I would have been happy to return any bees from those splits if it would have worked.

[ December 15, 2006, 03:01 PM: Message edited by: Kieck ]


----------



## TX Ashurst (May 31, 2005)

pahvantpiper, I was born and raised in Fillmore, so yes, I am familiar with the West Desert.

After college I worked for a few years in the Calif. county Ag. system and was a certified bee inspector. At the time, a relative of mine was pioneering use of antibiotics in his hives to inhibit AFB. Problem was, he would tell me that he had nurse yards (which was illegal), but not where they were. My boss was afronted by that, but it was the only way testing could be done so I didn't get too worked up about it, especially since it seemed to be working. Turns out he was correct that AFB can be held in check with antibiotics. That it's a good idea is not likely, but it is good to know.
On the other hand, one time a midwest beek dropped a truckload of hives off along the edge of the desert to overwinter. They were full of AFB. I red-tagged them, but nobody responded, and the phone number we had was never answered. Being unable to contact the beek, I got to go in and burn those hives. Bad news, by then most were already dead and robbed out. The remaining hives were all failing from AFB. There were several beeks overwintering in the same area and it was bad news all around. I made some calls to warn the ones I knew, but it spread out from there for a while.
I learned something interesting, though. Beehives burn really well. They're like giant candles. Even honey burns pretty good. Makes me sad to think of it. Shortly after that, I left the Ag. service and took up computers.

Getting back to your original question, [Can it be done without chemicals] yes it can. Check your hives regularly, keep them healthy and strong, cull any with signs of foulbrood, and you shouldn't have much problem. Outbreaks are not too common for those who take good care of their bees. If a hive does come down with it, you just HAVE to remove that hive and all its contents before the doomed hive is too weak to defend its stores, else it will spread the heavy bacterial load to nearby hives. The honey is safe for people to eat, but I wouldn't contaminate extractors or other equipment with it for fear of spreading it back to my own hives, and don't let any bees get at it while you are removing it or you'll just have it to do all over again.

[ December 15, 2006, 04:01 PM: Message edited by: TX Ashurst ]


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

That's quite a story TX. Thanks for sharing. Another interesting story that I have heard from several people. The strains of AFB that are exceptionally lethal to larva rarely seem to kill colonies as quickly or as well. Instead, the larva die and are removed without producing as many spores. It would be interesting to try innoculating AFB infected yards with certain strains of bacteria as a vaccine of sorts.


----------



## pahvantpiper (Apr 25, 2006)

Thank you Texas Ashurst, that's what I was looking for. All of the beekeepers I personally know use antibiotics to keep AFB in check or use it after they get it. I would never criticize anyone for that. I just want to try and see if I can make it work without antibiotics. I have some old equipment to cull out over the course of the next year or two but I eventually want to have all comb less than 5 years old and keep a good rotation going so I keep it all under 5 years.

Maybe it won't work for me but I would love to be able to advertise honey that comes from chemical free and antibiotic free hives. On our dairy we get away with using far less antibiotics than any other dairyfarmer I know and less than our vet recommends. Just hoping it will work with the bees.

-Rob


----------



## Sundance (Sep 9, 2004)

Kieck...... If I gave the impression that
I was completely and solely on small cell
I apologize for that. I was only able to 
get a few frames introduced into my 56
acquired colonies before my honey house ate
most all my time.

I have a darn good start though. My starting
yard is nearly completely regressed and
so far mite counts are low. I do treat with
FGMO and thymol.

You may also have the misconception that
I feel the need to "prove" small cell works.
I don't. Reverting to large cell? I won't.
Not a chance......


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

I think I'm more confused now than I was before, Sundance.

Last June, you posted:

"My last years State Inspection (I asked for) also found zero varroa in an ether roll test done on 3 of my 20 colonies.

Like Michael said so well, I am sure I have them, but there aren't too many from all my indications.

I only do small cell. I just got in 56 purchased colonies that were treated with chemicals prior to delivery (at my request, they were in the almonds). I will be spliting them off next week and inserting small cell into those colonies.

With Dadant selling wired SC foundation, and Honey SuperCell in production, why not give it a go." -Sundance

I assumed this meant you were already on small cell (fully "regressed"), liked the results you were seeing, and were advocating that others try it.

Now, the way I read your posts, you have few if any colonies that are on small cell?

What Aspera suggested was taking some small cell colonies and putting them back onto large cell ("progressing," was the term I used, if you will) to see if the bees become susceptible to mites. Theoretically, if the bees are prone to mites only because of the sizes of their comb cells, "progressing" small-cell bees into large-cell bees should make them vulnerable again.

Since you, Sundance, were following this thread, and I believed you had a number of small-cell colonies, and I am planning to try exactly what Aspera suggested, I thought you might be willing to contribute some packages or nucs for an experiment. I was not suggesting that you should revert entirely to large cell. Just that you might be will to contribute (bees) to an experiment to test some of the beliefs you hold. I guessed you might not, and I don't blame you.

"Prove" small cell works? That's not my goal at all. I'm working to see if small cell has a significant advantage over large cell for Varroa control. No "proof," just evidence.


----------



## Sundance (Sep 9, 2004)

Good golly.... This is getting borderline
goofy.

When the state inspector arrived it was my
first year, I purchased 30 frames of brood
from a non-small cell beekeeper. I have only
introduced small cell foundation to them.

At the time of the inspection I was at 20
or so colonies only. They were well into
the process of regression. Presently that
yard is at 25 colonies and is certainly
my most regressed yard. I have not measured
this summer (way, way, to busy) but they
may be fully regressed (or maybe not).

The inspector found no mites in 3 tests or
so. Does that mean there are no mites at
all in those or the other colonies. Of
course not!! Again, wrong assumption.

The only foundation I own and introduce is
small cell. I have purchased 12 cases of
the HSC and have introduced only a few
frames and will be putting 50 or so packages
exclusively on HSC this spring.

The 56 colonies I purchased this spring were
large cell. I split them off and again used
small cell. Those colonies and the splits
from them are at least a year from regression
IMO.

Simply "using" and introducing small cell is
does not equate to "fully regressed". Rather
it is a process, a lengthy one at that. Or
quite short if you run HSC.

"I assumed this meant you were already on small cell (fully "regressed")...." -Kieck

Your assumption was just that, and assumption,
and incorrect regarding the "fully regressed"
part.

"Just that you might be will to contribute (bees) to an experiment to test some of the beliefs you hold." -Kieck

Not willing or financially able, to contribute
any of my bees.

But if anyone has a burning desire to try
or test small cell, then do it. It can be
done easily and inexpensively with a minimum
of effort.

My efforts to date have been encouraging.
Enough so that I made a considerable purchase
of HSC, even being on a limited budget.

"I'm working to see if small cell has a significant advantage over large cell for Varroa control." -Kieck

Then get to it, and order up some small cell
foundation. Southwest Bee has a great price
on it, but Peggjam has really high quality
stuff.

If you want to take a run up next summer I'd
be glad to share a cup or two of coffee and
show you what I'm doing.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

No offense intended by me, Sundance. I realize I shouldn't leap to conclusions, or make assumptions, or things along those lines. Still, did you go back and re-read the thread that I was talking about? Do you see how I reached my assumptions? The thread seemed to be a discussion of the difference between SC and LC; some guys brought up the apparent reduction in mite loads by switching to SC, and you added your comments that the state inspector didn't find any mites on your bees (although some mites were likely there) and you only use SC. 

So, I apologize. I believed SC bees were fully "regressed" by definition (otherwise, they'd be somewhat larger than SC if they're still in the steps of "regression"), and I believed you only had SC bees.

Being unwilling/unable to contribute to a study is common. I don't hold that against anyone. I had, optimistically, thought that you had enough hives that you might be willing to contribute a few packages of SC bees, but I hadn't expected it.

As far as "get[ting] to it," the beekeeping season here in SD isn't that much different than the season there in ND.  But I am working on it. Remember the "SC experiment" threads?


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi Guys,

>The fact that no small cell researchers do this control makes me wonder if people in this field are trying to test a hypothesis or trying to find a result....

I'm not a paid researcher, but I been there and done that. Check out:

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

I've not only unregressed them. I've re-regressed unregressed bees. And measured the cell size distribution along the way :>)))

Regards
Dennis


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

Nice info, Dennis! Now I remember reading your information in the past. I don't know why I didn't remember it earlier.

Did you do any statistical analyses on the data you collected? I'm not trying to be critical here, I'm just curious what you tried and how you might have analyzed the data.

Some of the information you provide is quite different than what others claim. I appreciate that. I'd like to sort through some of the information floating around.

"And it was impossible to determine which hives contained large or small cell comb by looking at the bee's size. So I took a few pictures and did a little measuring. The results of this experiment don't exactly follow what is written about bee size versus cell size in the regression literature." - Dennis Murrell, from link provided

I still keep hearing that bees on small cell are distinctly smaller than bees on large cell. I intend to measure random samples this year from various sources, too, to see what I come up with.

By the way, what made you pioneers of reverting to SC decide to use the term "regression?" The negative connotation makes the word seem like an odd choice to me, and I've always wondered why "regression" was chosen over "reversion," or some other term. "Regression" implies a reversion to an earlier, worse condition.


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

Well done Dennis. If you have numbers you should write it up and publish it. I'll even do the stats for you. If you don't have numbers, you should still write it up as an observation and try to get it out to ABJ or a similar magazine.


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi Guys,

I'll share my foulbrood/small cell experience. At that time I believed in the regression/survivor bee small cell ideas.

After my first season of regression, I lost the majority of my bees. Only a few very weak 'survivor' hives were left. I breed of off these survivors my second season. At this point all my hives were on small cell comb as I had lots of it available from the failed hives.

At the start of the third season, I obtained some fully regressed small cell nucs. All my hives built up rapidly. When the typical June dearth occurred, one of the nucs absconded leaving two and a half deep supers filled with brood. I distributed the brood between the rest of the small cell hives. I noticed a few dead larva on the periphera and thought they had been chilled when the bees departed. Bad mistake!

Within two weeks, I saw the first signs of what appeared to be classic European foulbrood. I'd dealt with it before during my 35 beekeeping years. I thought, no big problem.

But that wasn't the case. This stuff was virulent. Within another two weeks all my small cell hives, but two, were in big trouble. What I saw wasn't American foulbrood, but was Para foulbrood. I hadn't seen it before. It will easily kill a large, prosperous hive in two brood cycles. And my 'survivor' bees were particularly susceptible to it.

What to do? Kill them all? Burn it all and start over? Not me. I got some tetra and dusted them three times. And I bought a variety of queens and requeened them. The hives fully recovered and were boomers by the end of the season.

I haven't seen any sign of any kind of foulbrood since. And I haven't treated since then either. And it's been 5 seasons.

The results of treating: I saved about 30 boxes of small cell comb, selected from about twice that amount of improperly drawn small cell foundation. I didn't know about natural comb size at that time.

Regards
Dennis


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi Kieck and Aspera,

>Did you do any statistical analyses...

Initially, I did. But the results were so obvious, after the first season, that I stopped counting and reverted to the sink or swim test.

>...to see what I come up with...
I'll be most interested in the results. 

>By the way, what made you pioneers of reverting to SC decide to use the term "regression?"

Dee Lusby, who starting reducing foundation sizes a decade before the rest of us, coined several terms to describe the process. Regression and retrogression are a couple I can think of.

>I'll even do the stats for you...
Thank you. That's a generous offer. I started out collecting data with a eye to substantiate(or not) my observations. But that's not the case now. I now hope my observations will provide a spring board for others to do a better job than I did. And in the process discover some new, interesting stuff.

Who knows, I might have to revise some of my web pages. ;>)

Regards
Dennis

[ December 19, 2006, 11:34 AM: Message edited by: D. Murrell ]


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

"Retrogression," huh? That seems to have even a poor definition, much less connotation.

"Retrogression: n. 1) The act or process of deteriorating or declining. 
2) [Biology] A return to a less complex or more primitive state or stage." -American Heritage Dictionary

I wonder why "reversion" wasn't used. . . ?


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi Kieck,

After attempting to commit 'regression' against my bees, I must confess that it was I, who for a few seasons, was regressed.

But after a few seasons off the pesticides and with clean, healthy bees and honey, I've experienced some progress which negates much of those regressive effects. :>)))

Regards
Dennis 
Have a great Christmas, Everyone


----------

