# Constructive Comments for Small Cell Experiment



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Please post any constructive comments on small cell that will help Kieck and Pahvantpiper in their goal to produce a valid study.

Take it away!


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

A simple model would be twenty hives of so of large cell and twenty hives or so of small cell and simply count natural mite drops, honey produced, and survival rates for hives for a couple of years.

More complex experiments would be things like:

Questions to answer:
What sizes of cells do EHB build naturally and how do they use them?
This requires several shakedowns to give the bees an opportunity to
regress first and to document that natural regression. This would be
BEST done by raising them in a box hive where they can space the combs
the way they want. It could be combined with the next question of
spacing. Bees may build different sized cells depending on the
spacing of the combs. So using frames might interfere with accurate
results.

What is the natural spacing of honey comb and brood comb and drone
comb? (1 3/8", 1 1/4"?) Again, you will have to let the bees build
what they want in a box or some kind of hive where there are no frames
or starter strips. I've done it by putting 1 x 2's up against each
other for the lid on top of a standard Langstroth box. This is just
to allow you to remove a 1 x 2 and not have to break all of the comb.
Could use ONE blank starter strip of wax to get the combs to run the
same as the length of the boards so that the chance of getting the
combs on the bars increases. You can also tip the box up on end to
get into the combs. Basically after the bees have filled out the box
you would run the bees out (I smoked and drummed them but you could
use bee quick) and then cut each comb out and document what kind of
comb it is (worker brood, drone brood, honey, pollen etc. and
distribution of cell size), and what distance the center of this comb
is from the adjacent combs. Also how thick the comb is. You can tie
the brood comb removed into frames and give it to a hive to hatch and
smash the honey comb and strain it. The bees, of course would have to
be regressed to natural size for this to be valid information on what
bees naturally do. But documenting each stage of regression would be
useful information.

What is the natural orientation of the cells (the "Y" on the bottom of
the cell)? (Housel Positioning? Center combs?)
<http://www.beesource.com/pov/lusby/housel.htm> This could be
combined with the above two experiments.

If you space the combs closer or further does it give the bees clues
how to use the comb? E.g. does wider spaced comb get built as larger
cells and used for honey? Does narrow spacing cause them to build
smaller cells?

Do the sizes being built by natural sized bees, change over the
progression of the seasons? Some beekeepers have observed that the
bees seem to prefer to build small cells for worker brood in the
spring and larger cells for worker brood in the fall.

What are the capping times. For different sized cells. Does a quicker
capping time reduce Varroa infestation in the cell?

What are the emergence times for worker and drone brood for various
cell sizes? 5.4mm 4.9mm 4.85mm 4.8mm

What is the preference of the Varroa for various cell sizes? 6.5mm
(drone) 5.8mm (7/11) 5.4mm ("standard" worker) 4.9mm (Dadant small
cell) 4.85mm (Dee's small cell) 4.8mm (African standard worker)

What is the preference (or lack of preference) of the Varroa for
latter capping times?

Does the Varroa home in on cell size or on pheromones given off by the
drone or worker brood. In other words, is the preference that Varroa
have for drones based only on cell size or other pheromones or a
combination of both? Could use a laying worker to test this or graft
drone brood into worker cells and visa versa.

How much effect on Varroa reproduction by cell size is due to shorter
emergence?

How much effect on Varroa reproduction is due to lack of room to find
a mate inside the cell?

How much smaller are the spiracles on small cell bees? How does this
affect Tracheal mites? Or does it?


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

Yikes!!! If a person could come up with funding, all those questions could keep one researcher busy for several careers!

OK, so here's the quick and dirty version of what we're attempting to find. Really, it matches Michael's "simple model" fairly closely, except in numbers.

Right now, we're interested in three issues:
1) Survival of small-cell colonies versus survival of commercial-cell colonies.
2) Natural mite drops, comparing the two types.
3) Honey production, comparing the two types.

We intend to run several versions of comb, hopefully to produce a good array of data:
1) Commercial-sized foundation.
2) Commerical-sized, drawn comb.
3) 4.9mm HSS (from what we've read, this should give us "small-cell bees" very quickly)
4) Starter strips, to let the bees build "natural comb."

Obviously, several changes of frames may be necessary for the "natural comb" to really stabilize at "natural" dimensions.

We do intend to run a lot more than 20 hives of each treatment, primarily because of the variability among hives. Large variability means that reaching significant results with a small number of hives is unlikely, and one of the surest ways to have scientific papers rejected is to be unable to show signficance in statistical analyses.

Some of the other questions would be very, very difficult in South Dakota. I can't speak for Utah, or other states, but SD requires that honey bees be kept in moveable-frame equipment for state inspections. Conducting an experiment without frames would require extra work obtaining exceptions from the state.

Right now, we're interested in just the one experiment. Your ideas sound good, Michael, but would take years and could generate dozens of papers or even fill books.


----------



## BULLSEYE BILL (Oct 2, 2002)

I know it's trivial, but, Honey Super Cell = HSC

>Your ideas sound good, Michael, but would take years and could generate dozens of papers or even fill books. 

But shouldn't this test take years, at least three to four, anyway?

All those variables that MB brings up is the fuel that the nay sayers will bring up to try to disprove the results if they are not accounted for.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

<<3- 4.9mm HSS [from what we've read, this should give us "small-cell bees" very quickly]
4- Starter strips, to let the bees build "natural comb.">>

You will need years to adequately regress and stabilize bees to work with along with enough SC comb to work with before any true testing can be done. Do you already have bees and comb to work with? How are you going to deal with this factor in your study? If the test is going to be between LC bees and SC bees, you can't really start testing till you have both. Seems to me you have some preliminary work to do first.

- Barry


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

"I know it's trivial, but, Honey Super Cell = HSC" -Bullseye Bill

Right. My fault. I picked up the "HSS" from references to Honey Super Cell as "HSS" on other threads, and never gave it a thought. I'm sorry.

"But shouldn't this test take years, at least three to four, anyway?" -Bullseye Bill

Right again. I'm planning on three years, assuming all goes well. If the results are strong enough to warrant publication after three years, hopefully we can get a paper ready then.

What I should have stated earlier was that Michael's suggestions would take years and years and years to complete studies. Not just three or four, but maybe 25 or 30 years or more. Many of his suggested studies would require large-scale, time-intensive experiments to get results that have meaning to them.

"You will need years to adequately regress and stabilize bees to work with along with enough SC comb to work with before any true testing can be done." -Barry

I understand that "regressing" and stabilizing cell sizes if bees are allowed to make their own comb will take years. However, from what Michael Bush and others have posted about fully-drawn, plastic, small-cell comb, I believed that bees put on such comb would "regress" fairly quickly; not over years or even months, but within a very short period of time. From what you're saying, Barry, I believe you disagree with Michael's past comments about using Honey Super Cell to quickly "regress" bees?

So, for those who've had some experience, how long does it take to "regress" bees using Honey Super Cell? Could we assume, that beginning this year with packages, the bees on Honey Super Cell will be "regressed" by fall, when overwinter survival might be an issue? Do we need to add time to length of the study to accomodate the time for the bees on the Honey Super Cell to shrink?

The reason for the starter strips, in my mind, was simply to see whether building "natural comb," even if not small cell in the beginning, gave the bees any advantage. Some beekeepers claim that bees building natural comb are healthier than bees on manufactured foundation. My idea was to see whether the processes of building their own comb (on starter strips) would be an advantage; in other words, is it the smaller cell sizes that seem to give SC bees an advantage, or is it building their own comb (since most SC beekeepers up until recently had to let their bees build natural comb to reach smaller cell sizes).


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

<<From what you're saying, Barry, I believe you disagree with Michael's past comments about using Honey Super Cell to quickly "regress" bees?>>

No, I don't disagree with Michael if he has had firsthand experience with HSC. I have not. But I think this is the first issue you must face and adequately allow for. For me, doing it the hard way with shake downs and such, it was a hard couple of years before things were ironed out. What do other's feel about a proper length of time to get "stable" SC bees?

- Barry


----------



## pahvantpiper (Apr 25, 2006)

"I know it's trivial, but, Honey Super Cell = HSC" 
Sorry, I think I'm the one that started "HSS."

I appreciate the comments on both sides. Definately some great points being made. I hope none of you with experience in SC think I'm trying to steal your thunder - I'm not. You guys have all proved to yourself that it works for you and I believe that's what's most important. That was my origional intent, to see if I can have the same success you guys do and prove it to myself. Then I got talking to Kieck and now I think maybe a study could be beneficial to all beekeepers - not just me. 

Anyway, I know it will take a few years and that's what I'm preparing for. I have no bias either way but I must say, it would sure be nice if SC would make it so I didn't have to treat. I look at it from a business point of view. Will it make my beekeeping business more lucrative with less work? Thanx again everyone, I appreciate your collective knowledge. I am a better beekeeper because of your advice.

-Rob


----------



## MichaelW (Jun 1, 2005)

> My idea was to see whether the processes of building their own comb (on starter strips) would be an advantage;


Yes, there are different variables involved with bees on SC foundation and foundationless. Such as, as many drones as they want. Varroa love drones, so an increase in drones must have some effect on not only varroa populations, but weather or not they will kill the hive. It could even have the opposite effect that one would expect, given the reported success of foundationless beekeepers.

Considering Dennis Murell questions "regression" and that no experiements look at "regression" its appropriate to begin the study with regular bees and move them towards small cell and foundationless. Most all beekeepers have to do it that way anyway. So it would be helpful to have well documented information about what happens when you do that, and how things change in the first 3 years. What you do with those hives after 3 years could be another experiment.

Sounds interesting Kiek!
This article may be helpful with your foundationless hives?
http://www.beesource.com/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000350

[ September 14, 2006, 12:16 PM: Message edited by: MichaelW ]


----------



## Scot Mc Pherson (Oct 12, 2001)

Just to chime in on some of the comments.

A test will not be worth anything unless if involves several years of study. First thing, beginning small cells often loose all their live stocks while regressing and while learning HOW to keep bees naturally in the general sense.

A test of less than 2 years would not provide any data whatsoever, and 4 years is prefered in my opinion.

It should also be noted that controls don't quite work so well when it comes to varroa. It should be noted that when beekeepers keep a few small cell hives in a large cell apiary with mite pressure, the small cell hives don't do as well as an apiary of small cell hives. Likewise large cell colonies do better than ordinary in an otherwise small cell apiary. Therefore if their are going to be controls, there must be counter-countrols to measure the effect the control itself has on the test, or the test on the controls.

Its not so easy to keep it isolated unless you isolated the each "type" of apiary from one another by a good distance where there isn't any meeting of bees from each. Might sound stupid, but its not...


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi Guys,

If the first part of the test includes 'regressing' the bees, don't start comparing large cell and small cell colonies until the small cell colonies are stabilized on small cell.

A shakedown and stopping treatments are very disruptive/devastating during the first season. That takes about two years and most of the colonies will be lost during the first season due to mite overload.

Personally, at the end of the first season, I would treat the small cell colonies with a non-contaiminating miticide to keep most of them alive. If the surviving colonies come through the winter in a weak condition. Give them another season on small cell. Then abandon treatments after they have recovered to full colony strength. A comparison can be done at this point.

When establishing you bees on small cell, I would pick a yard and convert the whole yard over to small cell. Then, for a side by side comparison a couple of seasons later, a test yard could be setup and the small cell hives moved into the test yard in random locations. Have the hives numbered, but don't use a system that readily/outwardly identifies small or large cell hives. 

Once the test yard is stocked, all hives should be treated with a non-contaminating miticide to equalize the mite load. Then let the test roll.

Abandon all treatments. Manage all hives the same way. Record your data/observations. And see what happens. 

For your own observations, a half dozen hives of each kind would be sufficient. For a more scientific look, try a least 16 or more of each kind.

I counted mites manually, by dividing the mite tray into sections and counting all mites in each section. A statistical approach could be used on the mite trays, which would negate much of the mite counting. I think Marla Spivak published the approach in one of the b mags some time ago. If you're into statistics, it wouldn't be hard to generate your own scheme.

Another option might be to use digital photographs of the mite trays. It would be fast, efficient, permanent and the wind/interruptions wouldn't mess with your results. Then the data could be gathered in a multitude of ways and analyzed on snow days.

Once the test begins, it should run for at least 3 more years. You'll see and know enough for yourself after the first test year. After 3 years, queen problems will increase, introducing a lot of new variables into the test.

It has never been my intent to discourage testing out small cell. In fact, I would encourage everyone to try a few small cell hives. It can be very interesting and enjoyable.

But I would discourage most beekeepers from trying to do a rigorous scientific test. For most, it's just too demanding and the pace is too slow. 

Regards
Dennis


----------



## pahvantpiper (Apr 25, 2006)

"Have the hives numbered, but don't use a system that readily/outwardly identifies small or large cell hives."

Dennis, I was planning on doing both. Is there something wrong with putting some sort of mark on the outside of the hive to more easily identify the SC from the LC? Appreciate your comments and website!

-Rob

[ September 15, 2006, 03:17 AM: Message edited by: pahvantpiper ]


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

To me, a more fair representation of "performance" of SC bees is to have a yard with only SC bees and not mixed with LC. When one goes the SC route, we don't keep LC hives along with them. At least I don't. What we want to see with SC is how they deal with the impact of other bees that might be in the area, not ones sitting right next to them.

- Barry

Dennis, I sure appreciate your knack for observation and your valuable experience in this area.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

"Considering Dennis Murell questions "regression" and that no experiements look at "regression" its appropriate to begin the study with regular bees and move them towards small cell and foundationless. Most all beekeepers have to do it that way anyway. So it would be helpful to have well documented information about what happens when you do that, and how things change in the first 3 years." -MichaelW

Thanks, MichaelW! I had similar ideas. My thoughts were to start with "regular" bees, then put them through the "regression" for a few reasons:

1) It might show some impacts of shrinking on the bees. Based on what Dennis and Barry and others have written, I've been led to believe that bees in the steps of regression are even more likely to die than "commercial-sized" bees that have heavy mite loads. If that's the case, why? I doubt this experiment will be able to answer the "why," but I'd like to compare the rates of survival going through "regression" to the rates of survival of larger bees with heavy mite populations.

2) Starting with large bees provides some baseline data on mite infestations. It confirms that the bees are not somehow genetically resistant to the mites, and it provides some initial counts to, hopefully, demonstrate that mites counts (will be less)/(will stay the same)/(will be greater) after going through "regression."

3) Like MichaelW pointed out, beekeepers would have to start with "regular" bees and "regress" them. The data collected along the way could be valuable.

Of course, if Honey Super Cell really speeds up the process, I expect pretty well "regressed" bees by fall of next year. From what I've read on threads in this forum, HSC should work that quickly. Comments, or disagreements, especially from those who've tried "regressing" bees with HSC?

"A test of less than 2 years would not provide any data whatsoever. . . ." -Scot McPherson

Sure it will. "Data" are not the same as conclusions. If I start this experiment today and go out and count mites, I already have data. What do those data mean? That might be impossible to determine, or, at best, spawn many arguments, but it's still data.

Let's be honest, very, very few scientific experiments settle things once and for all. I don't view this experiment as a definitive, once-and-for-all type experiment. I view it as a starting point. Hopefully, we'll get enough data to draw some meaningful conclusions.

From what I gather from Dennis and Barry and Scot, you guys are claiming that small cell might not work if mixed in the same yard as hives on large cell. Why not? Is isolation really that necessary to see results from SC? Is it the isolation, then, or the SC that's producing the results you guys have seen?

That, really, is one reason for mixing hives with SC and hives with LC in apiaries. Is the SC having an significant effect, or is some other factor in play?

Another reason is consistency. If the LC bees are in one yard, and that yard is in a more favorable location than the yard with SC bees, it could skew the results. By mixing them, we should have comparable numbers in comparable locations.

"For a more scientific look, try a least 16 or more of each kind." -B Wrangler

From my calculations, 16 of each kind is far too few to reach statistically significant results, which are important if we hope to see this work published. Right now, we're planning on at least 250 total hives, and maybe as many as 400 or more. I agree, though, that for a simple try-it-yourself-and-see, just a handful of hives would work.

"Once the test yard is stocked, all hives should be treated with a non-contaminating miticide to equalize the mite load. Then let the test roll." -B Wrangler

Actually, I was planning on no treatments. The sheer numbers of hives involved in the experiment, randomization, and statistics can overcome inequal mite loads among hives.

"Have the hives numbered, but don't use a system that readily/outwardly identifies small or large cell hives." -B Wrangler

In other words, do the experiment "blind." That makes good sense to me, but some parts won't be "blind" anyway. For example, if we have to feed frames into hives, we need to know which comb goes into which hives. And, in examining comb, the differences are likely to be apparent.

For much of the data collection, though, I agree that "blind" is the way to do the experiment. It reduces observer bias in collecting data.

One other thing, while I'm rambling on: why call SC bees "regressed?" Do we have historic data on cell measurements that suggest a reversion? Most data from long-standing feral bees show cells to be about 5.0mm to 5.2mm in diameter, rather than the 4.8mm to 4.9mm that seem to occur in some of these "regressed" colonies. Also, wouldn't "reverted" be a better term, assuming the bees are returning to a more natural condition? "Regression" has a connotation of returning to a poorer state, while "reversion" means returning to a previous state without the connotation of degrading along the way.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--One other thing, while I'm rambling on: why call SC bees "regressed?" Do we have historic data on cell measurements that suggest a reversion? Most data from long-standing feral bees show cells to be about 5.0mm to 5.2mm in diameter, rather than the 4.8mm to 4.9mm that seem to occur in some of these "regressed" colonies.--(Kieck)

There is data on this from measurements taken long ago, but my files are lost, I think MB has a bunch of references pertaining to this.

When talking small cell or natural sizing, these are sizes that range anywhere from 4.5 mm to 5.2 mm depending on climate. For the northern USA, the cell range is 4.9 to 5.1 mm, anything above this range would be considered unnatural and of large cell type, any thing below would be considered unnatural sizing also.

You read of some beeks in the north talking of getting smaller sizes, but this is actually a cell size that is not suited for the climate and could be as harmful to be too far to the small side as it is harmful to be too far to the large. Smaller is not necessarily better. 

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


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--You will need years to adequately regress and stabilize bees to work with along with enough SC comb to work with before any true testing can be done.--(Barry)

Barrys spot on here!

I see that many here what to test and take notes on the small cell group as they are being regressed. Well, my opinion here is that while regressing, these bees are under a great deal of stress. Occasionally, chalk brood, or other symptoms of stress will show during regression with supercedure occurring also..

--3) Like MichaelW pointed out, beekeepers would have to start with "regular" bees and "regress" them. The data collected along the way could be valuable.--(Kieck)

Although, this would be interesting information to note, regressing can be difficult and you may need experiences small cell beekeepers overseeing the regression process. Also, during the recording of this information , should you screw up (as many do during regression), then what? small cell gets recorded as a failure before the test even begins?

As Barry suggested, you need to start with regressed and stabilized colonies. Then requeen them with sister queens and start with an equal playing field.

[ September 15, 2006, 05:13 PM: Message edited by: Pcolar ]


----------



## wayacoyote (Nov 3, 2003)

I'm with Barry on this last point. 

I'll add that our state apiary inspector is claiming that many of us will suffice without any treatments at all (with no regard to SC beekeeping). Therefore, survivability can't be the only means of analysis. Ex. just because a hive is treated with miticides, that doesn't mean that the miticide was the cause of its survival. this would go for SC as well. 

So a "baseline" of some sort would have to be established, either upon the expected survivability of untreated LC hives or on infestation levels. this has been what has hendered me.

Waya


----------



## fat/beeman (Aug 23, 2002)

may I just add few thingson small cell.I purchased and 4.9 mill and have been pesticide free for long time. as you know I sell lot of nuc;s and I perfer to use full sheets. also will add when people trade frames on exchange of frames for nuc's I find the sc queens and workers will adapt to regular cell and build over it to a smaller size{4.9=5.0}
have any other people noticed that?
I have no degrees or PHD's just common sense beekeeping.
I use 4.9 all thru the hives and no starter strips.
hope this adds to your ideas.
Don


----------



## wayacoyote (Nov 3, 2003)

Some comments were added while I was compiling my last.... Regarding the issue of risk to bees while regressing, I think that is/ should be considered a second issue. For the sake of theorists and critics, first an experiment should be done to identify the effectiveness of SC on the health of bees. I see this as the priority. 

Secondarily is why regressing bees are at risk and how do we minimize that. 

I speak toward the industry as a whole and not to the individual whose has her/his on specific areas of interest or focus. But if the first issue can't be established to the satisfaction of all, then the second issue is moot to all but "SC crowd" anyway.

Waya


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi Guys,

If you want to start the large cell/small cell comparison from the point of the shake down, then all donor colonies must be treated or in some other way, mite load equalized.

Then, all bee must go through the shake down/regression management, both large and small cell bees. Put some on large cell foundation and others on small cell foundation. All of them in the same yard. Terminate treatments for all hives and start the test.

I don't think you will enjoy this experience, as I suspect all but a hive or two will perish within the first two seasons. And then there's not much of a comparison to be made after that.

I've run large cell and small cell hives, together in the same yard. And I left them all untreated. All (100%) of the large cell hives would have perished at the end of the second year without any treatments. A few of the large cell hives required treatment at the end of the first season. None of the small cell hives required any treatment at all . And it might be interesting to note that the bees in the large cell hives originated from small cell hives that had survived without treatment before being un-regressed onto large cell comb. Check out:

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

Mite loads will increase in the small cell hives when they have mite rearing colonies in the same yard. But they never increased to levels that required treatment in the small cell hives. Even though the large cell hives were perishing.

The main reason for mixing up the hives and obscuring their type is to remove factors such as drifting and observer bias.

It's interesting to see how fast things are getting complicated. It's certainly much easier to test/prove something to yourself! ;>)

Regards
Dennis


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> beginning small cells often loose all their 
> live stocks while regressing 

This is a very interesting comment.
If a "beginning" small-cell beekeeper loses
all his "live stocks" (hives) while regressing,
what has he "regressed"? Some comb, perhaps,
but if he must replace all the bees, what 
does he replace them with? How are these
bees different, and how do they survive where
existing bees did not?

> and while learning HOW to keep bees 
> naturally in the general sense.

Semantics and dogma aside, it would be 
interesting to hear what it is felt that
one "needs to do", given that the claims
made about "small-cell" have been broad 
and extensive, leading at least me to 
think that one would return to pre-1985
beekeeping, where one simply did not 
need to test or treat, and there would be
no special management practices required.

What tangible things might be included in
"_HOW to keep bees naturally in the general 
sense_", other than the obvious need to
ignore the dichotomy between the phrases "keep 
bees" and "natural"?









> A test of less than 2 years would not 
> provide any data whatsoever, and 4 years 
> is prefered in my opinion.

The reality of study design is that funding
is rarely made available for more than a
single calender year. I'm not sure how to
overcome this, as multi-year studies are 
rare, precisely because multi-year grants are.

> It should also be noted that controls don't
> quite work so well when it comes to varroa. 

Howso? Control hives tend to collapse if 
left untreated, but there would be no reason
to leave control hives untreated in this case.
It would be sufficient to leave the small-cell
hives untreated, and if they survived at all,
let alone thrived as well as the treated hives,
most folks would call it "a fair test".

> It should be noted that when beekeepers keep 
> a few small cell hives in a large cell apiary 
> with mite pressure, the small cell hives don't
> do as well as an apiary of small cell hives. 

OK, so now you want separate apiaries. It would
certainly open the results to critique to
not have "side by side" hives, but one could
limit the "varroa pressure" to the overt 
introduction of some limited number of mite
infested colonies for a short period, no more
than required for varroa to be found in the
small-cell hives in sufficient numbers to
prove that varroa had opportunity to move in,
and did move in.

> Therefore if their are going to be controls, 
> there must be counter-countrols to measure 
> the effect the control itself has on the test, 
> or the test on the controls.

The statement above is proof of why experiment 
design is as important as execution. Let the
researchers design the experiments. Let's just
eliminate the excuse/accusation that researchers
had no properly regressed the bees, shall we?









[ September 15, 2006, 08:31 PM: Message edited by: Jim Fischer ]


----------



## Fusion_power (Jan 14, 2005)

Breed of bees may also be a factor to consider. I would suggest starting with a good commercial breed.

Given that significant loss will occur, raising queens from the survivors and making splits to build up the number of small cell colonies would seem to be a major objective. Be careful how you set this up though, after a couple of years, genetic differences could have a big impact comparing large cell bees with small cell.

Fusion


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--I purchased and 4.9 mill and have been pesticide free for long time.--(Fat Bee Man) 

Yes, 4.9 from fat beeman would be where to get the foundation for any test, as he is no pesticides, and no pesticides in the colony seems to be a prerequisite for success with small cell. Even regressed bees would be great to get from him for the test because they will have been stabilized also. 

--I find the sc queens and workers will adapt to regular cell and build over it to a smaller size{4.9=5.0}have any other people noticed that?--(Fat Bee Man) 

I have noticed something similar in that stabilized small cell colonies will build small cells on large cell foundation, totally ignoring the larger pattern.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

Kieck,

There are a few conducting, or considering conducting small cell experiments on the Organicbeekeepers list. You may be able to follow these discussions for ideas, or contact them personally for the possibility of conducting a coordinated study between all three or sharing ideas.

---->

Charles Fry
A non-profit organization called the Innovative Farmers of Ohio (IFO). http://www.ifoh.org One of our focus areas is "Research and Development." As such, we have many contacts at the ag school of Ohio State University, a premier land-grant
university and leader in agricultural research.

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Organicbeekeepers/message/28135?var=1&l=1 

---->

Dr. Edwin J. Geels
Professor of Chemistry, Dordt College
A scientist (Chemist & teacher for 42 years now) and did
have a small research grant from the NSF for a summer undergraduate
research project on parasites of honeybees. Our funds were modest but
enough for the establishment of 12 hives of small cell Carniolan bees
and salaries for the two students.

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Organicbeekeepers/message/28103 

--->


Another person that has had much experience with small cell bees and conducting tests is Erik Osterlund in Sweden. Not sure how involved Erik was in the Norway small cell study that Hans-Otto Johnsen conducted, but he did assist in some fashion. I keep up an occasional correspondence with him, IMO, Erik is among the top three experts in the world concerning small cell beekeeping and its affects on the biology of honeybees. Much of the effects of small cell can be suttle and often go unnoticed with many that are regressing. But Erik seems to have observational skills and understanding of honeybee biology not often seen in the world of beekeeping today. I myself would certainly ask Eriks for advice on things to watch for and test for in a small cell study.

[ September 16, 2006, 08:52 AM: Message edited by: Pcolar ]


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Michael's suggestions would take years and years and years to complete studies. Not just three or four, but maybe 25 or 30 years or more. Many of his suggested studies would require large-scale, time-intensive experiments to get results that have meaning to them.

Certainly. But I think they are valid questions and some of those things could be measured in the process of doing any small cell experiment. It's hard to have too many measurements in an experiment.









I was presenting two extremes. Both are fine with me. One is just take 20 hives or so of each (LC and SC) and manage them both the same with not treatments and see how many of each survive. Certainly they should be as alike as possible (same source for queens etc.). For this experiment it would be nice to have fully drawn comb in both 4.9mm and 5.4mm but we don't. So the next best thing would be to start with all regressed bees and put half on 4.9mm wax foundation and half on 5.4mm wax foundation. Fatbeeman has regressed, chemically clean nucs for sale.

Certainly I think every little thing in a hive works together to some extent and small things can make a difference, but in my experience cell size is the heart of the matter and that's what should be tested and addressed first. A "whole" approach could be in a follow-up to see how other factors are involved, but for the present they would muddy the waters too much.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

<<Another reason is consistency. If the LC bees are in one yard, and that yard is in a more favorable location than the yard with SC bees, it could skew the results. By mixing them, we should have comparable numbers in comparable locations.>>

Seems to me that either way you cannot make it totally equal. The nature of the beast. However, I believe it to be more equal if the two types are kept separate and not in the same apiary if you are wanting to measure the ability of each without the direct influence of the other. If you can afford to do it both ways, that would be best. I would have less concern having both side by side if you are starting with fully regressed bees stabilized on SC for a period of time. I agree with Dennis for purposes of the test, all colonies should be treated with something like OA to level the field regarding mites at the start.

Regards,
Barry


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi Guys,

>It would be sufficient to leave the small-cell
hives untreated, and if they survived at all,
let alone thrived as well as the treated hives,
most folks would call it "a fair test"....


That's just what I've done. But it seems that a fair test is poor science. And poor science sure isn't a fair test. :>)))

Regards
Dennis

[ September 16, 2006, 11:41 AM: Message edited by: B Wrangler ]


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--Seems to me that either way you cannot make it totally equal. The nature of the beast. However,,,,--(Barry)

But there is a way to make the nature of the beast work for you in the study!









It would be interesting after a point in the latter stages of the experiment to shake all the bees from the large cell nests onto the small cell nests and the small cell bees onto the large cell nests.

What would be the need to make it equal then?,,, As they both would be subjected to each others perceived advantage or disadvantage You may also in the process effectively kill off the arguments of those expressing a concern that the test was unfair or not equal. 

PS. Would be best done during the early flow when mite counts may not have immediate impact on the health of the colonies involved.

[ September 16, 2006, 12:04 PM: Message edited by: Pcolar ]


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi Guys,

>It would be interesting after a point in the latter stages of the experiment to shake all the bees from the large cell nests onto the small cell nests and the small cell bees onto the large cell nests.


Well, I didn't do all of them, but I've done some of them.

It will be most interesting to see the results from your testing.

Regards
Dennis


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

OK, guys, some of you have been offering a lot of suggestions, even making comments that you've done (or know people who have done) some of these steps. This thread started as a request for constructive comments; now I'd like some really constructive information from you.

The numbers we've come up with for this test, and the reasons I've been interested in beginning with the process of shrinking commercial-sized bees, have resulted from statistical calculations I've made from some data I've collected. Since many of you are offering suggestions, I'd like some offers of numbers.

You guys that have done this, here's what I'd like:
1) How many hives you started, how many made it through "regression."
2) Mite counts from those hives. Not averages, not qualitative amounts, but actual mite counts.
3) Production amounts. How much honey did each of the hives produce? Not totals, not averages, but amounts for each of the hives.

Using those numbers, I will have a better idea of the variability among bees.

Just to keep this short, I'll reply to some of the other comments in separate posts.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

"Seems to me that either way you cannot make it totally equal. The nature of the beast. However, I believe it to be more equal if the two types are kept separate and not in the same apiary if you are wanting to measure the ability of each without the direct influence of the other. If you can afford to do it both ways, that would be best. I would have less concern having both side by side if you are starting with fully regressed bees stabilized on SC for a period of time. I agree with Dennis for purposes of the test, all colonies should be treated with something like OA to level the field regarding mites at the start." -Barry

I'm not sure how "equal" figures into this.

What we are attempting to do is come up with some data to test the effects of SC comb/bees on Varroa populations and production and survival. To compare two hives, they need comparable mites populations, comparable resources, and comparable climatic conditions (small scale climate, as well as general climate). Leaving the mite population stuff alone for a moment, the easiest way (and most comparable) to achieve similar resources and similar climate is to have the hives sitting side-by-side. Otherwise, one yard might be in an area of better forage than the other, one yard might experience more favorable weather conditions, etc.

The idea that hives sitting next to each other have a strong enough effect on one another negates any potential benefit from SC suggests to me that any benefit from SC must be very, very small to begin with. What effects would LC hives have on SC hives sitting next to them, and vice versa? If SC allows the bees to combat Varroa more effectively, SC should help bees with mite-infested, LC colonies close by just as much as SC helps bees far from any other bees. Otherwise, logically, the isolation from other bees is likely far more significant is reducing mite loads than SC is.

So, what are the influences that hives have on adjacent hives (in the context of this discussion)?

As far as "leveling the field" by using OA at the "beginning" of the experiment, I doubt that's really necessary. If/when I get some of the numbers I requested from you guys, I will have a better idea if a treatment is necessary to "level the field." However, most field experiments, run under field conditions, on pests, run with differing populations of those pests. Statistically, with enough replicates, those differents get ironed out along the way.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

"Therefore if their are going to be controls, there must be counter-countrols to measure the effect the control itself has on the test, or the test on the controls." -Scot McPherson

I've never encountered the term "counter-controls" in an experimental design. Do you happen to have examples of "counter-controls?"

"It should also be noted that controls don't quite work so well when it comes to varroa." -Scot McPherson

Ah, but we're not testing the effects that Varroa have on hives with this experiment. We're testing the effects that SC comb/bees have on Varroa populations, survival and production. Our control will be LC comb/bees, or "commercial-size," if you'd prefer. If mite populations are significantly lower in the SC hives, for instance, than in our "controls" (the LC hives), the significance comes through comparison with a standard, also known as a "control." 

If we really want to get fancy, we might be able to compare both groups (LC and SC) to an average, to see if LC is significantly higher/lower than the average and if SC is significantly higher/lower than the average.

Joe, thanks for posting the information on historical/natural cell sizes. I guess what I was referring to, more than a strict return to historic cell sizes, was a return to a worse condition. "Regression" implies reverting to a worse condition, as opposed to "prgression." Maybe "reversion" would be a better term than "regression?"


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi Kieck,

>You guys that have done this, here's what I'd like:
1) How many hives you started, how many made it through "regression."
2) Mite counts from those hives. Not averages, not qualitative amounts, but actual mite counts.
3) Production amounts. How much honey did each of the hives produce? Not totals, not averages, but amounts for each of the hives...

I've got the specifics. And I've got them for 12-16 hives over seven years. The mite counts were done on a weekly basis for most hives and on a daily basis for a few hives throughout the active season. And on a weekly basis for a few hives and a monthly basis for the rest during the inactive season.

But without all the other supporting data and field notes, that level of detail would be useless. It wouldn't provide any more real data than the summaries I've already posted. A search at bee-l or here should yield most of those results.

It's time for those who want that kind of data to generate it for themselves. Maybe they will do a better job of it, if they generate anything at all. Maybe not :>)

I've spent far too much time typing on this issue. My beekeeping interests are way beyond it. 

Biologic beekeeping includes a lot more than cell size. That's where my focus is. And, unless I get sucked up like lint into a vacuum cleaner, this will be my last post on small cell. The info is out there. Use it or loose it.

Regards
Dennis

[ September 18, 2006, 04:57 PM: Message edited by: B Wrangler ]


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

"But without all the other supporting data and field notes, that level of detail would be useless." -B Wrangler

"The info is out there. Use it or loose it." -B Wrangler

No, the information is NOT out there. I've looked. Sure, averages and differences are out there, but the information I need for the statistical calculations need to include more than averages and ranges. What about standard deviations? What about p-values? What about other statistical measures?

They are NOT out there. If I have the original data, I can calculate the statistics from them. Otherwise, to help calculate how many hives are needed, previous averages and even ranges do very, very little.

If you've got the specifics handy, especially if they're already in a computer ("I've got the specifics. And I've got them for 12-16 hives over seven years." -B Wrangler), I'd appreciate receiving a copy of them. You could simply PM me if you don't wish to post them.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

<<2) Mite counts from those hives. Not averages, not qualitative amounts, but actual mite counts.
3) Production amounts. How much honey did each of the hives produce? Not totals, not averages, but amounts for each of the hives.>>

Sorry, I'm not into making a chore out of beekeeping. I have none of this info. I do have bees that do just fine on their own though. I don't do mite counts. Never have, never will. Honey? More than enough for my needs. Again, this sort of stuff does not interest me. I'm glad it interests you and look forward to seeing what your data tells you.

- Barry


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

Thanks anyway, Barry! I didn't expect much, honestly, in response to my request. I don't think beekeeping should be a chore, but, if you wish to convince others of your results, you need some evidence. I'm not criticizing you for a lack of data, just trying to point out why arguments without data aren't very convincing.

How do you KNOW that SC bees do better than LC bees? You might believe the rate of survival is higher, but, without numbers, there's no way of determining if the cell sizes make any difference. You might think SC hives have fewer Varroa, but, without counts, there's no way to know. Maybe it was the years in which you kept the different types of bees, maybe it was the genetics of the bees, maybe it was something else completely unrelated. Maybe it's just an impression than SC bees do better than LC bees.

I'm surprized that, so far, no one who has claimed great success with SC has provided even rough numbers for any of the measures I requested. Do any of you have the numbers (other than Dennis), or are you just unwilling to share?


----------



## MichaelW (Jun 1, 2005)

If small cell beekeeping needs to be done in isolated yards, there is no practical use for it in the eastern part of this state and likely a great part of the US. My bees are within flight of 6 other beekeepers that I know of. If this is actually true, I would have appreciated an acknowledgement of that earlier as I am gearing up for year two with my own Natural Sized Cell "experimentation".

Sorry for the negative comment in the postitive thread!

Kiek, 
I seriously doubt any beekeepers besides Dennis has those kind of numbers. I think a researchers job, in this case, will be to take those generalizations, "averages and differences ", and anecdotal observations and build an experiment around them. Then under painfully boring scrutiny record data about what happens and confirm, deny, or modify those anecdotal observations.

I've crawled, and searched, Dennis's posts here and at Bee-l, and studied his website and he has provided lots of really good observations, conclusions, and some data. No other small cell beekeeper that I know of has provided this much info based in at least some scientfic method. I'm sure a compilation would be very benifitial to an experiment design, but there really is alot already out there. 

Don't give up yet Dennis!

[ September 19, 2006, 08:37 AM: Message edited by: MichaelW ]


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> I do have bees that do just fine on their own
> though. I don't do mite counts. Never have, 
> never will. Honey? More than enough 
> for my needs.

To each his own, but how does one control that
which one does not measure? 

How can one say "my hives survive mites" and
then say "I don't do mite counts"? Have you
ever seen ANY mites in your SC hives, and if
so, did you at least note gestalt levels,
such as "hive 3 had more mites than hive 2"?

As for as the problems of regression, lets
just admit that part of the funds for the
experiment will have to be put towards
buying complete hives that have been 
"regressed", and are on small-cell brood
comb. (I doubt if small-cell hives need
small-cell supers, but I am guessing here.)
I think that small-cell hives provided by
small-cell advocates is the ONLY way to
avoid the endless rounds of "BMW" about
attempts to put small-cell to the test
under controlled conditions.

But this focus on keeping the small-cell bees
isolated from large-cell bees really bothers
me, as it sounds like drifting and robbing bees
carrying varroa, and re-introducing varroa to
a small-cell hive cannot be tolerated by
small-cell colonies, which implies that small-cell
is suddenly admitted to be much less of a 
success than many would like us to believe.

What's the problem with adult varroa getting into
a small-cell hive, if the claim is that smaller
cells prevent a significant percentage of those 
adult varroa from reproducing?

What specific experience(s) in this scenario 
raises the concern? Knowing details might 
help to influence the experiment design in
a major way.

Understand that researchers want to publish
a paper when they are done, so they avoid 
starting studies that look like "losers"
and provide a negative result, so a clear
understanding of HOW and WHY small cell
"works for some" but "not for others" would
help to narrow the issues.

A few years ago, I was passed a considerable
amount of paperwork and correspondence concerning
Sodium Diacetate and AFB. A beekeeper who had
worked in the food industry was convinced that
he had found a food-grade treatment for AFB.

Sodium Diacetate is used in production of 
low-end "store bought" bread. The purpose 
is to prevent the growth of mold in the bread 
during the otherwise unacceptably long time 
that the bread sits around before it is eaten.

For example, the Panera bread that so many view 
as an "artisan" loaf is produced in the same 
manner as Subway produces their rolls, factory 
"par-baked" bread that is simply subjected to a 
final "baking off" at the store, so there could
be days between mixing of the dough and final
baking off, with a serious need for a mold
inhibitor. (Buyer beware, quality bread is
nearly impossible to find anywhere except 
where the owner's name appears above the door, 
and the owner has flour on his apron).

Anyway, preventing the growth of mold in the
first place seemed like a reasonable approach
as molds are similar to bacteria, so there was 
an easy-to-understand mechanism to explain how 
it might work, and the fellow said firmly that 
it worked for him, it worked for his peers, and 
so on.

...until Science stepped in, and did the standard
test, which is to culture some AFB in a simple
petri dish, and put some of what you are testing
right smack dab in the middle of the colony
of bacteria, to create a "zone of inhibition",
an area where the AFB had been killed, or
prevented from growing further.

So, in a simple test of the ability of the
chemical to inhibit the growth of the bacterium 
which causes AFB, six different dilutions were 
totally inactive, yielding "zones of inhibition" 
of ZERO millimeters, no effect at all. By 
comparison, 5 micrograms of tetracycline yielded 
a zone of inhibition of 56 millimeters in 
diameter, which is a respectable result if one 
wants to kill AFB.

So, what's a scientist to do with results like 
that? Publish a paper saying "_Sodium Diacetate
fails to control AFB_", and expect someone to 
publish it? One could just as easily submit a 
paper stating that crystals and incense fail to 
control AFB.

Do too many studies that end up in the trash,
and one's superiors tend to wonder when one
is going to start doing some *productive*
work, something publishable, something that
will contribute to the body of knowledge, 
something useful, or at least interesting.

See, most scientists have bosses, and budgets,
and limits on how long they can mess around
in the lab before they have to emerge with
something of value to someone, somewhere.

What really happened with the Sodium Diacetate?
Those beekeepers were *lucky*, and did not 
have serious AFB outbreaks. That's not all 
that unusual, as many beekeepers never find
AFB, nor do they see any symptoms of AFB.

You really, really want to avoid giving the
impression that a study of small-cell will
only be publishable in ABJ. ABJ is where
papers rejected by the "real journals" go,
and few people are fooled into thinking that
the requirements for getting "a paper" 
published in ABJ requires more than an 
ability to spell, and the purchase of a stamp.

But ABJ is a valuable way to get a pesticide
or drug study published if the mainstream 
journals view it as tedious, as the FDA/EPA 
rules merely say "publish", and don't specify
_where_. The most recent example of ABJ
"saving the day" in this manner was with Tylan,
where a sutdy HAD to be published to get approval
from the FDA to allow the use in beekeeping.

If not for ABJ, we'd likely not have Tylan
to use right now, and I am not exaggerating 
at all.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

<<To each his own, but how does one control that
which one does not measure?>>

I don't directly control it. The last time I did that was when I put Apistan in the hives twice in one year. Years and years ago. Any control is done by the bees, not me. Why should I be at all concerned about something that isn't a problem?

<<How can one say "my hives survive mites" and
then say "I don't do mite counts"? Have you
ever seen ANY mites in your SC hives, and if
so, did you at least note gestalt levels,
such as "hive 3 had more mites than hive 2"?>>

Well, now that you mention it, I actually haven't seen any mites on the bees or in the hive for at least 5 years. That doesn't mean they're not there, just that I haven't seen any, or really tried to find any. I saw mites the first couple years of regression. I'll try to find a mite the next time I stick my nose in their space. If I can find at least one, then I can say they do have mites.

<<But this focus on keeping the small-cell bees
isolated from large-cell bees really bothers
me, as it sounds like drifting and robbing bees
carrying varroa, and re-introducing varroa to
a small-cell hive cannot be tolerated by
small-cell colonies, which implies that small-cell
is suddenly admitted to be much less of a 
success than many would like us to believe.

What's the problem with adult varroa getting into
a small-cell hive, if the claim is that smaller
cells prevent a significant percentage of those 
adult varroa from reproducing?

What specific experiences in this scenario 
raises the concern? Knowing details might 
help to influence the experiment design in
a major way.>>

No specific experience here except that it seems most logical that if you want to conduct a test that replicates what I've got, and I'll assume what others have to ?, it would be a yard of all SC. I don't keep LC and SC side by side. I don't keep any LC. My results come from the way I just stated. You may or may not get different results by having the two together. Do others keep the two together? I think Dennis might, or at least did for a time. Let's hear from others.

- Barry


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

>but, if you wish to convince others of your results, you need some evidence.

I don't say this with any disrespect, but honestly, I gave up trying to convince anyone that the way I do beekeeping is the answer. I don't have the kind of evidence you are looking for, nor do I have any interest in obtaining it. That would take all the enjoyment out of it for me. I simply keep saying that those who do want the kind of evidence you are asking should either get it themselves or be okay with some of us sharing our unscientific experiences.

>How do you KNOW that SC bees do better than LC bees?

Well, it's pretty simple for me. When I had LC bees, they died without treatment. My SC bees live without treatment. Unscientific, I know, but you can't argue with the fact of life. I know it's not the water cause other beekeepers report the same thing with their SC bees and the water is different.

>You might think SC hives have fewer Varroa, but, without counts, there's no way to know.

They may have more Varroa, I can't say for fact as I've never counted them. But my common sense observation tells me they don't have more, but less, or at least able to deal with the same number.

>Maybe it was the years in which you kept the different types of bees, maybe it was the genetics of the bees, >maybe it was something else completely unrelated. Maybe it's just an impression than SC bees do better than
>LC bees.

Maybe. If so, it's all coincidental to the time I switched to SC.









>I'm surprized that, so far, no one who has claimed great success with SC has provided even rough numbers for >any of the measures I requested.

Why? We're beekeepers, not data keepers. Well, maybe Dennis wears two coats at times.

- Barry


----------



## rweakley (Jul 2, 2004)

I don't want to get involved in the debate on small cell works or doesn't work, but I just wanted to mention that great quantities of money need not be spend to get "regressed bees". With the new availability of honey super cell. You would have regressed bees basically after the package bees died off. Unless you consider buying the honey super cell to be great $$. Is there a fully drawn out 5.4 frame out there you could use for the control group???


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--If small cell beekeeping needs to be done in isolated yards, there is no practical use for it in the eastern part of this state and likely a great part of the US.--(michael)

I don't think they stated the colonies had to be in "isolated" yards. And if it was stated, it was stated for proper testing purposes.

For a proper test, it would help if the groups were separated a bit to reduce drifting which might affect the tests. I would suspect a separation of 100 feet would be sufficient.


----------



## MichaelW (Jun 1, 2005)

What about this scenario. During regression, people are "weaning" their yards off mite treatments. What if during that process, population dynamics between the bees and mites stabalize and the hives survive. This would explain why some beekeepers with large cell hives have success without treating too. You see this pesticide "addiction" in gardening too. 

I don't know the exact process that would explain this for the bees, but it seems a possibility? 

I think during the experiment, there needs to be an attempt to wean the control group off pesticides at the same rate as you attempt to wean the small cell hives. I'm assuming you plan to treat any hive that is about to collapse from mites to get it through the "regression" period and to maintain the hive numbers. 

Beekeepers seem to either let hives die during regression or treat on an "as needed" basis. The second option is more realistic for most beekeepers, and doing it that way in an experiment will help establis a documented protocol beekeepers can repeat.


----------



## MichaelW (Jun 1, 2005)

Speaking of what is realistic for most beekeepers to repeat,
I think it would be best to run an experiment in a way that is

1. an established way to "regress" bees and
2. the most convienient, realistic way that beekeepers can repeat, without incurring excessive labor and expense.

You can see what I mean with Drone Comb Trapping. It positively works, has been well studied, documented, and repeated. But few beekeepers, especially larger scale beekeepers follow this protocol because it is unrealistic for beekeepers to be able to devote the time to it.

So, thinking about the "Natural Cell" Hives (since that what I'm working with) would this be a decent way to "regress" the bees in an experiment? Lets say they are all medium boxes to keep it simple.

1. start 5 frame nucs.
2. add empty frames in test hives, add foundation frames in controll.
3. when enough comb is built, remove the original comb from the nucs in both groups and replace with either empty frames or foundation frames.
4. build up to standard hives.
5. measure cells in test, varroa in both, organize hives to reflect a "natural bee tree nest" That is with drone on the outer edges, honey on top, broodnest in middle.

Year 2
1. Begin expanding broodnest in both hives by placeing empty or foundation frames in the broodnest area, add a super, move some drawn frames up, keeping in mind the "natural broodnest structure"

2. begin agressively culling out larger cell frames in the "natural cell" hives and remove equal amounts (and general locations) of frames in the control group. Keep about %17 drone comb in natural cell hives to reflect the "natural bee tree." Replace with empty or foundation frames. 

Note: this step could be combined with pulling nucs for sale which is something many beekeepers do anyway.

3. Super for honey production in the same manner for both groups. If comb is drawn, add excluder.

4. measure cell sizes and varroa


Doing it this way seems more economically viable and realistic than shakeing all the bees off the comb and restarting them each year. Or, restarting each year with nucs. Do people find this is an effective way to "regress" bees?

[ September 20, 2006, 08:22 AM: Message edited by: MichaelW ]


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

"No specific experience here except that it seems most logical that if you want to conduct a test that replicates what I've got, and I'll assume what others have to ?, it would be a yard of all SC." -Barry

Again, no offense, Barry, but the intention of this study isn't to test a replication of what you have. The intention is to test the effects of SC versus LC. If SC has the effects that proponents claim, the effects should appear even when hives on SC comb are mixed with hives on LC comb, right? Otherwise, is it the SC that's having an effect, or something else? How would you eliminate other possibilities without having the two types sitting side by side?

"I don't think they stated the colonies had to be in "isolated" yards. And if it was stated, it was stated for proper testing purposes." -Pcolar

"Isolated" might have been used, but that wasn't the idea as I understood it. "Separate" yards would have been better. Some of the SC proponents are claiming that SC won't be effective unless the SC hives and the LC hives are in separate yards. If I can come up with enough hives/yards, we may try some separate-but-close yards, as well as mixed yards.

My plan (I haven't checked with Pahvantpiper) during this experiment was to simply not treat. I've waffled on this one, and I haven't settled on a protocol yet. I've also considered comparing 1) LC, no treatment; 2) LC, treatments (probably Apistan, since it's the "standard"); and, 3) SC, no treatment. Arguments exist for testing either SC versus LC without treatments, or testing the three groups I outlined above. Both tests make sense, but test somewhat different things.

"Speaking of what is realistic for most beekeepers to repeat,
I think it would be best to run an experiment in a way that is

1. an established way to "regress" bees and
2. the most convienient, realistic way that beekeepers can repeat, without incurring excessive labor and expense." -MichaelW

I agree with you, Michael. Part of the reason we planned to use Honey Super Cell was that we have read that regression is very rapid and very simply using HSC. I'd still appreciate comments on that from people who have tried it; does it work? Does it work as rapidly as some have suggested? Do any of you with specific experience have reasons to encourage or discourage "regression" with HSC? Is the "end product" really the same as letting the bees build their own comb and repeatedly removing it until the cell sizes are smaller?


----------



## MichaelW (Jun 1, 2005)

Since Apistan builds up in the wax, you may want to go with something that will go away, so that it can not make a long term effect on the experiment. Formic Acid reduces to natural levels dosen't it? Its used pretty widely too. If there is any affect from "weaning from chemicals" involved in regression, I would think Apistan residue could interfear with that.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

>The intention is to test the effects of SC versus LC.

Okay, then I can't help you in regards to setting up this dynamic as I only have experience with LC years ago and then entirely SC for the last 6 years.

>How would you eliminate other possibilities without having the two types sitting side by side?

I don't know. I'm not a "card-carrying statistician."

>Some of the SC proponents are claiming that SC won't be effective unless the SC hives and
>the LC hives are in separate yards.

I don't know what the effect will be with LC and SC sitting side by side. All I know personally is that I have all SC hives sitting at one location and results are very good.

>I agree with you, Michael. Part of the reason we planned to use Honey Super Cell was that we have read that >regression is very rapid and very simply using HSC. I'd still appreciate comments on that from people who have >tried it; does it work? Does it work as rapidly as some have suggested?

Perhaps the study should be about HSC. It's new and not something I have used so I can't comment on it.

- Barry


----------



## raybmn (Sep 22, 2003)

Hi all,
I have some thoughts I would like to pass on that might help simplify this study.

First, a question. Is the objective of this study to compare Large Cell to Small Cell while not using any chemical input of any kind?

If so, than I believe regression of the bees should not be a part of it.

The study can be started with clean,fully drawn comb of the proper size that is comparable in age and condition. Then just have to come to a conclussion of genetics to use to keep it fair in that department. Using genetics that have been surviving for others I think would be best. Of course no chemical use could be allowed period.

Then, just have the same number of hives in each group and then just run them for an extended study for several years. Each group should be large enough when the test starts so that there should be some survivors each spring. Then work the bees in a manner that the deadouts are replenished from thier own group each year to the same number of hives started with. The first test needs to be working towards measuring survival only, or at least mostly.

I think that using the same genetics in both groups at the start would make it so the whole study could be run in the same location. Possibly keeping each group a short disance apart. Both groups tended as they need to be, but not on a equal schedule, only as they need to be. (Like super them according to each hives individual needs, not super all of them because today it is scheduled to do so.)

If this were to be done for a lengthy study I think the potential of coming to conclussions in the matter could possibly come about.

These ideas need to be fine tuned I'm sure, but maybe they can help this study work out for all.

Have a good day,
Ray B.


----------



## MichaelW (Jun 1, 2005)

"Both groups tended as they need to be, but not on a equal schedule, only as they need to be. (Like super them according to each hives individual needs, not super all of them because today it is scheduled to do so.)"

good point, supering a hive before it needs it can put it at a disadvantage. Supereing them all at the same time is not treating them all the same.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Well, it's pretty simple for me. When I had LC bees, they died without treatment. My SC bees live without treatment.

Every hive I had that was LC and not treated died from being overwelmed with Varroa within two years as evidenced by the tens of thousands of Varroa on the bottom board and the DWV bees and the time of year they died (early winter). I lost all of them three different times this way.

Every hive I have that is SC had flourished or has only died from the usually suspects. e.g. swarmed and then robbed, or gone queenless and drifted. I have not seen any of the die from Varroa and I most certainly have not seen ALL of them die of Varroa.

>1. an established way to "regress" bees and

What if you just start with regressed bees? I've done it on wax coated PermaComb and I would expect (but haven't had enough experience yet) that the Honey Super Cell will be similar.

>2. the most convienient, realistic way that beekeepers can repeat, without incurring excessive labor and expense.

The "one step" process would be wax coated PermaComb or Honey Super Cell or buying regressed bees.


----------



## BULLSEYE BILL (Oct 2, 2002)

>The "one step" process would be wax coated PermaComb or Honey Super Cell or buying regressed bees.

Or all of the above.

Max Hamby could be approached about sponsoring part of this test with a donation of HSC. It could be very good advertising for him.

I have seen reduced mite loads and good survivability with unwaxed Permacomb and no treatments. John Seets could be approached too.


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

Your control groups also need to be "regressed" on to fresh foundation. Ideally, you would take S.C. bees and make them large cell.


----------



## MichaelW (Jun 1, 2005)

Permacomb or HSC is not a realistic option for me, or most beekeepers I know around here. Neither is buying small cell nucs. We are small scale sideline beekeepers that do it for fun, but also try and make a little profit on it. Purley hobbiests could do it, but not small scale sideliners. The margin of profit is so thin that the expense for either fully drawn plastic comb or starting over with high dollar nucs is not acceptable. Most beekeepers here treat once or twice a year and don't worry about varroa. However, if we could easily change management practices to develop natural cell hives that are varroa tollerent, expenses would decrease from not buying mite treatments and foundation, and we could really not worry about varroa.

So, I would like to see an experiment that would set up a protocol for that situation.

For strictly a "does small cell work or not?" experiment I would compare only HSC and Permacomb. Reduce the differences between the hives to simply "all the cells of the control hives are 5.4mm and all the cells of the test hives are 4.9mm." Simple!

I'm assuming permacomb is 5.4mm


----------



## BULLSEYE BILL (Oct 2, 2002)

>I'm assuming permacomb is 5.4mm

No, it's around 5.0 to 5.1.

I consider myself a small sideliner and I use fully drawn plastic comb *almost* exclusively in my 100 hives.

The main thing I have found true about using fully drawn plastic is that managment parctices have to be changed. Not more difficult, just slight tweeks on the way things are done and equipment manipulated.

Put me in the camp of 'what works for me, works', just don't expect it to blindly work for you if you do it differently.

[ September 21, 2006, 02:50 PM: Message edited by: BULLSEYE BILL ]


----------



## MichaelW (Jun 1, 2005)

"5.0 - 5.1"

Oh.., well strike that suggestion then.


----------



## db_land (Aug 29, 2003)

Kieck & Pahvantpiper
I think it's great that you guys are willing to go through the expense, time and headaches to do this. Over the past year plus a few months I regressed 60 hives to SC (10 of which have since died from SHB). I used only small cell (4.9) foundation and all of the bees are from cut-outs and swarms. The sc foundation was introduced gradually (1 or 2 frames at a time) into the brood nest until the entire brood nest was on sc. Last fall, Nov/Dec I treated about 10 of the hives with Oxalic vapor because of mite loads. Since then the mites seem to be under control - no DWV and I havn't seen a mite since early spring. I measured the cell size in most of these hives and it is at 4.9mm (+/- 1 ir 2 mm). Anecdotal observation: the bees appear to prefer the newly drawn comb over the old stuff. Don't know if it's because it's fresh, clean wax or because it's sc.

Kieck: If it will help you guys, I'm willing to pick say 3 sc hives in each of 3 different locations and do weekly mite counts (using SBB insert) through December. In central & eastern NC brood rearing slows down but never actually stops entirely.

How are you going to factor out the genetic variances if you use open mated queens? In another thread MB and some of the other SC beeks described their bee's markings - they could have been describing my bees. A couple of reasons I'm not totally on the SC bandwagon: 1) not enough treatment free time has passed; 2) I think there could be genetic factor(s) - for example, after 1 one 2 years the original queen has been superceded and the new queen open mates with drones from feral survivor colonies (hence all the sc bees have the same markings). Anyway, how do you plan on controlling this X factor? Has anyone figured out how to clone bees?


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

-- Anyway, how do you plan on controlling this X factor? 


Depends on when the starting point of the test is. If you are going to take notes on the regressing part, then it is only fair that you let the colonies do as they wish, because this is part of the adjustment for their wants and needs on this new cell size. By forcing colonies to conform to the observers wishes, you may be preventing these colonies from developing at their own pace. Colonies want to supercede when regressing, so by controlling this natural want to replace the queen, you may be influencing the test.

You could do as I did, force supercedeure on all colonies across the board after each step of regressing.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

Sorry, I've been away working on other research projects.

The sheer number of colonies should "control" the variability within groups. We're planning to use bees from the same source for both LC and SC colonies. Assuming the variability is the same for both starting groups (and it should be), by assigning bees at random to one of the groups, the variability should be "controlled." Furthermore, this is part of the reason why keeping both LC and SC colonies in the same yards is important for the statistical part of the experiment.

I would appreciate counts, Db_land, if you're willing to provide them. The variability of the population levels of Varroa would be very useful.


----------



## pahvantpiper (Apr 25, 2006)

Db_land,
I think I see what you are saying. Even though we start with the same genetics for both the SC and LC bees, the regression process to SC encites the SC bees to supercede more readily. Hence, a greater number of SC colonies will have the genetics of the local feral colonies after a certain period of time but the LC bees will still carry the origional genetics.

That's a good point. My yards will each have between 32 and 64 hives which, I hope, will greatly outnumber any feral hives. The colonies that do supercede should be mated mostly by drones from the origional stock. Also, I see very few feral hives. Lots of farm land and not many trees. But I guess a queen will fly many miles to mate...Maybe one of the test yards should start off with fully regressed bees. Are there any packages of SC for sale close to Utah? I've ordered packages in the mail before with terrible success-most of them totally dead.

Another question: A few of you have suggested equalizing, to the extent possible, the mites in the hives by treating. How 'bout if I treat the packages before installing them. What would be the best thing? OA, Sucrocide, or how 'bout an Apistan strip since it won't hurt any comb as it will only be inserted in the package. I would like to start off with as few mites as possible. If I start off with only a few mites per hive, the hives that are being regressed may not need another treatment while regressing.

Thanx,
-Rob


----------



## db_land (Aug 29, 2003)

pahvantpiper & kieck,
Even if you start all test colonies with open mated queens (from same supplier and having the same "race"), after a year or two, depending on feral (defined here to be any bees outside your control population) drones, frequency of supercedure, etc, the study bees will be genetically different. Assumming genetics plays some role - especially if the bee supplier has been actively selecting for mite resistance - this could skew results one way or the other. IMHO and I think historically, genetic inheritance plays at least a 70-80% role in the behavior characteristics of bees, including survivability and disease tolerance. Maybe it's 30% SC and 70% genetics that results in mite tolerant/resistant bees? I think your study will prove (at least to yourselves) that SC bees need no treatment for mites. I was hoping it would also answer the more important question "why?".


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>the regression process to SC encites the SC bees to supercede more readily. 

I have not found that to be true.

>What would be the best thing? OA, Sucrocide, or how 'bout an Apistan strip since it won't hurt any comb as it will only be inserted in the package. I would like to start off with as few mites as possible. 

According to the research here at the University of Nebraska, powdered sugar is much more effective with the bees out of the hive and, of course, with no brood. That seems like the obvious choice. It should get rid of 90% of them if it's done right. You NEED some mites or you won't find out how they handle them.


----------



## MichaelW (Jun 1, 2005)

Some variation in queen genetics is unavoidable. All bee studies have to deal with that to some degree. If a varroa treatment is effective, it will show differences in the treatment and controll colonies despite the influence of genetics. If you can't see a difference, then its probably not an effective controll.

Seems like studies either, get all their queens from the same supplier, or get a mix of queens from different suppliers (with equal amounts in each test/control group) to level the playing field. 

If you loose a queen from swarms or whatever, you should probably requeen ASAP to avoid a break in the brood cycle.

[ September 28, 2006, 07:38 AM: Message edited by: MichaelW ]


----------



## db_land (Aug 29, 2003)

It was too nasty to vidit the outyards today so I just counted mite drop for 3 "Home" (H) hives. All hives are small cell:

Hive	Mites	Days	24hr	Date
H1	4	7.3	0.5	10/7/2006
H2	16	7.3	2.2	10/7/2006
H3	12	7.3	1.6	10/7/2006


----------



## JaiPea (Sep 27, 2005)

> Please post any constructive comments on small cell that will help 
> Kieck and Pahvantpiper in their goal to produce a valid study.

The willingness to attempt a study with objective criteria and statistical analysis is admirable. 

Another way to look at SC/LC is market forces. Ten years ago there was nothing on the market for beeks to give SC a trial and it took both determination and commitment by a handful of experimenters to regress bees.

Premises: 

- Varroa mites are endemic country wide
- External controls involve operational costs for 
labor/chemicals (Apistan, FGMO, et al)
- Small cell has no operational labor/chemical costs
- Small cell may involve regression/startup costs (HSC)
- Essential oils have a spotty record

Evolution:

- SC foundation appeared a few years ago
- Fully drawn SC combs became available this year (HSC)
- SC queens are available

Conclusion:

- SC advocates have succeeded in turning a concept into a market.
- Any hobbyists who want to try SC can now do so at a reasonable 
cost and without much effort. 

Commercial beekeeping needs a strong infrastructure which does not yet exist for SC. However, it is likely that at least some large scale beeks are running trials of SC on a pilot basis. If SC provides them an operational benefit the demand will rise. 

Until (if ever) SC becomes the norm, I suspect the results of any study of SC/LC and varroa mites will always be relegated to anecdotal and empirical experience rather than a form of scientific proof. 

This thread has already established that there are a huge number of variables to consider. All of these will provide fodder to criticize and deride the results by whichever side 'loses' in the study. 

That in no way diminishes the value of the study. I look forward to the results of Kieck and Pahvantpiper doing the best they can with the resources available to them. 

JP


----------



## db_land (Aug 29, 2003)

Here's the 1st weeks mite drop count for my small cell hives:

Hive___Mites____Days____24hr____Date
H1______4_______7.3_____0.5_____10/7/2006
H2______16______7.3_____2.2_____10/7/2006
H3______12______7.3_____1.6_____10/7/2006

S1______107_____8.3_____12.9____10/8/2006
S2______111_____8.3_____13.4____10/8/2006
S3______78______8.3_____9.4_____10/8/2006

R1______57______8.3_____6.9_____10/8/2006
R2______34______8.3_____4.1_____10/8/2006

P1______0_______9.3_____0.0_____10/9/2006


----------



## drobbins (Jun 1, 2005)

that's what I call a "constructive comment"








any idea what's different about the "S" location?
(I'm assuming the letter denotes different locations)

Dave


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Here's the 1st weeks mite drop count for my small cell hives

Nice.


----------



## db_land (Aug 29, 2003)

Dave, the only real difference is that the S* hives are larger. These tend to be > than the equivalent of 2 deeps and have big bee populations. Like most hives there is a story behind each. I know it's not relevant to The Experiment, but I hope you all don't mind me including these here:
S1: A former beek had left some old (rotten)equipment off in the weeds. Unbeknownst to him a swarm moved in .... he found out when he decided to clean up the area in prep for selling and got a couple of stings. He called me ... I moved the frames into new equip and took them to location S. The frames had long since been stripped down to bare plastic and the bees had buildt comb from the edge of the top bars down to the edge of the bottom bars - leaving a good space between the comb and plastic. These are very nice bees and I wanted to keep the queen but it took me several trips to find her. I put her on some small cell foundation under an excluder and began removing the old frames (replacing with sc foundation) as brood emerged.
S2: This hive started off as a NUC with a NWC queen. I combined it with another NUC to be half of a two queen setup. In May I split it off to become S2 (the other half went to Clinton for pollination duties). As far as I know they still have the store bought NWC queen.
S3: This hive started off as a trap-out from a Doctor's office building about 1.5 years ago. I would bait the trap NUC with a frame of brood. When the NUC became full of bees I would combine with the previous trapped NUCs (I did this at least 5 times). The bees made their own queen -> the population dwindled -> they superceded her and began building up again.
I was surprised by the zero count for P1 so will give it's background as well.
P1: Started as a small (about 2 lbs) swarm from some hive at the "S" apiary. I put it in a NUC box with sc foundation. They drew out some of the comb, but something happened to the queen and workers began laying. I shook out the bees about 50 yards away, added two frames of brood (with nurse bees), and a Minnesota Hygienic queen. They started building up; I moved them into a full deep and (over a 3 or 4 week period) combined the remaining populations (with some brood) from at least three other hives. The only word to describe their build up since then is "amazing". As far as I know they still have the MH queen.


----------



## db_land (Aug 29, 2003)

2nd week's counts:

H1______6_______7_______0.9_____10/14/2006
H2______34______7_______4.9_____10/14/2006
H3______22______7_______3.1_____10/14/2006

S1______68______7_______9.7_____10/15/2006
S2______97______7______13.9_____10/15/2006
S3______49______7_______7.0_____10/15/2006

R1______82______7______11.7_____10/15/2006
R2______68______7_______9.7_____10/15/2006

P1______0_______7_______0.0_____10/16/2006

There's another hive a few feet away from P1. I think I'll start monitoring it instead of P1.


----------



## db_land (Aug 29, 2003)

H1______9_______7_______1.3_____10/21/2006
H2______74______7_______10.6____10/21/2006
H3______19______7_______2.7_____10/21/2006

S1______19______6_______3.2_____10/21/2006
S2______73______6_______12.2____10/21/2006
S3______24______6_______4.0_____10/21/2006

R1______67______6_______11.2____10/21/2006
R2______48______6_______8.0_____10/21/2006

P1______0_______6_______0.0_____10/21/2006


----------



## drobbins (Jun 1, 2005)

that pesky P1 just won't produce will it??









Dave


----------



## db_land (Aug 29, 2003)

Hi Dave,
There's another hive about 4 or 5 feet away from P1 that I put a SBB insert into yesterday. I suspect this one will do a better job of producing mites  

How are your hives doing? Ready for winter? Do you count mites?

[ October 22, 2006, 08:11 PM: Message edited by: db_land ]


----------



## db_land (Aug 29, 2003)

H1______12______7_______1.7_____10/28/2006
H2______223_____7_______31.9____10/28/2006
H3______49______7_______7.0_____10/28/2006

S1______37______7_______5.3_____10/28/2006
S2______53______7_______7.6_____10/28/2006
S3______20______7_______2.9_____10/28/2006

R1______78______7_______11.1____10/28/2006
R2______56______7_______8.0_____10/28/2006

P1______0_______7_______0.0_____10/28/2006
P2______59______7_______8.4_____10/28/2006

Couldn't resist checking P1. What's up with H2 - also noted a couple of shrivel winged bees crawling  . H2 is a very strong hive, good winter stores. Guess I'll have to open it up and check things out the next warm-enough day.


----------



## sierrabees (Jul 7, 2006)

I have been following this thread for some time now. I find it an interesting comparison between applied science (eg. MB) and theoretical science (J. Fisher) "East is East and West is West and never the twain shall meet." It looks like the twain has met.

It is encouraging to see how the input from both sides of the problem has led to a lot of cooperation. Although I don't plan on doing any research on anything (I don't buy green bannanas anymore because I'm not sure there is enough time left for them to ripen) I find this thread to be very valuable to someone who just wants to understand SC.


----------



## db_land (Aug 29, 2003)

Hive____Mites___Days____24hr____Date
H1______28______8_______3.5_____11/5/06
H2______287_____8_______35.9____11/5/06
H3______30______8_______3.8_____11/5/06

S1______25______9_______2.8_____11/6/06
S2______6_______9_______0.7_____11/6/06
S3______43______9_______4.8_____11/6/06

P1______6_______12______0.5_____11/9/06
P2______71______12______5.9_____11/9/06

S1______14______13______1.1_____11/10/06
S2______7_______13______0.5_____11/10/06
S3______16______13______1.2_____11/10/06

R1______288_____13______22.2____11/10/06
R2______152_____13______11.7____11/10/06

H1______19______20______1.0_____11/24/06
H2______1152____20______57.6____11/24/06
H3______37______20______1.9_____11/24/06

S1______35______19______1.8_____11/24/06
S2______5_______19______0.3_____11/24/06
S3______33______19______1.7_____11/24/06

R1______164_____15______10.9____11/24/06
R2______37______15______2.5_____11/24/06

P1______23______16______1.4_____11/24/06
P2______51______16______3.2_____11/24/06

I guess I'll break out the OA equipment for H2 and R1. Both are very strong hives with good winter stores. If they are still looking strong in January I'll treat with OA to give them a boost against the mites while they continue regressing to SC in spring.


----------



## db_land (Aug 29, 2003)

Hive______Mites______Days______24hr______Date
H1______29______8_______3.6_____12/2/2006
H2______323_____8______40.4_____12/2/2006
H3______17______8_______2.1_____12/2/2006

S1______22______8_______2.8_____12/2/2006
S2______8_______8_______1.0_____12/2/2006
S3______30______8_______3.8_____12/2/2006

H1______11______7_______1.6_____12/9/2006
H2______330_____7______47.1_____12/9/2006
H3______92______7______13.1_____12/9/2006

S1______6_______7_______0.9_____12/9/2006
S2______10______7_______1.4_____12/9/2006
S3______9_______7_______1.3_____12/9/2006

R1______163_____15_____10.9_____12/9/2006
R2______63______15______4.2_____12/9/2006

P1______28______15______1.9_____12/9/2006
P2______96______15______6.4_____12/9/2006


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

Db_land:

Thanks for providing the numbers! Like I'd found, too, the variability is pretty great among hives. That variability is what makes a large sample size necessary.

For instance, look at the "H" series. HUGE differences among the three hives. Sure, genetics or some other factor may be at play, but an experiment has to be large enough to account for variations within groups like that.


----------



## db_land (Aug 29, 2003)

Hive____Mites___Days____24hr____Date

H1______8_______7_______1.1_____12/16/2006
H2______274_____7_______39.1____12/16/2006
H3______34______7_______4.9_____12/16/2006

S1______21______7_______3.0_____12/16/2006
S2______11______7_______1.6_____12/16/2006
S3______13______7_______1.9_____12/16/2006

R1______48______15______3.2_____12/16/2006
R2______20______15______1.3_____12/16/2006

H1______10______8_______1.3_____12/24/2006
H2______332_____8_______41.5____12/24/2006
H3______5_______8_______0.6_____12/24/2006

S1______6_______8_______0.8_____12/24/2006
S2______4_______8_______0.5_____12/24/2006
S3______16______8_______2.0_____12/24/2006

R1______50______8_______6.3_____12/24/2006
R2______15______8_______1.9_____12/24/2006

P1______99______15______6.6_____12/24/2006
P2______69______15______4.6_____12/24/2006


----------



## thorbue (Dec 22, 2005)

Are these mite droppings "natural background" or the result of some treatment?

Reseach on IPMG from my contry is saying:
Varroa population = mite dropping (pr.24 hour) * 120

For wintering safely Varoa-pop. should be 50-75 mites ore less.
Hives with mitedroppings > 8 mites pr. 24 hour should be treated imidiatly.

This is just some comments - I did browse the thread quickly and if I missed something important in the concept - I'm sorry...

----
Thor Bue


----------



## db_land (Aug 29, 2003)

Hi Thor Bue,
The mite drop counts are all natural - no treatments of any kind. The only hive that appears to be in real trouble is H2. BUT, H2 shows no signs of disease or weakness that is normally associated with heavy mite infestations. It's possible (I'm hopeful) that H2 tolerates mites without significant damage. We shall see as I have no intention of treating any of these hives. In fact, if H2 makes it into spring and builds up normally, I intend to get as many queens and splits from it as possible.


----------



## drobbins (Jun 1, 2005)

Hey db

question for ya
speaking of queens and splits, do you graft?

Dave


----------



## thorbue (Dec 22, 2005)

db land:
I would expect H2 to break down during next season or winter... 
Swarming (which would be natual if it's a strong colony) would reduce the varroa level in the swarms for the next winter - giving the bees a year or two befor varoapop is critical again. Splits might have the same effect depending on the amount of varroa you transfer in the proces.

You might want to see some of the results from the "Bond-tests" (live and let die) made on Gotland, Sweden by Ingemar Fries.
I was unable to find them on the web but some has been published in Apidologie (abstracts are available free at Apidologie)
search for Ingemar Fries

Happy newyear...


----------



## db_land (Aug 29, 2003)

Hi Dave,
I've never tried grafting. I don't have the tools or something like the Jenter system to raise queens. Maybe you can show me how to graft? If H2 starts building strong this spring and there are still no signs of any of the mite related diseases, I would like to propagate a few queens from it. Iddee and I discussed requeening the H2 mite-factory with one of his queens as an experiment to see if the Iddee Queen cleans up the varroa.


----------



## drobbins (Jun 1, 2005)

I have some of iddee's bees and he said you'd probably like one of the daughters to try
I've never raised queens either, but I do have a new Jenter system (Christmas present)
let's get together come spring and figure out how to raise a few

Dave


----------



## db_land (Aug 29, 2003)

Hive____Mites___Days____24hr____Date
H1______5_______6_______0.8_____12/30/2006
H2______187_____6_______31.2____12/30/2006
H3______11______6_______1.8_____12/30/2006

S1______5_______6_______0.8_____12/30/2006
S2______4_______6_______0.7_____12/30/2006
S3______9_______6_______1.5_____12/30/2006

R1______9_______6_______1.5_____12/30/2006
R2______9_______6	1.5	12/30/2006

P1______27______6_______4.5_____12/30/2006
P2______40______6_______6.7_____12/30/2006

I think I'll keep on counting mite drops for a while just to see what happen's as spring build up begins. Is there an easy way to correlate brood emergence with mite drops? In the "winter" the queen is limited to a few cells which she can easily lay up in a single day. If so, it seems there should be mite-drop-spikes every 18-20 days. I put the numbers for a single hive (like H2) into a spreadsheet line-chart. I can see spikes but they seem to occur every 25 to 30 days. Any ideas? Maybe I need daily counts to see the cycle?


----------



## Chrissy Shaw (Nov 21, 2006)

*Alright, here are some questions*

If a queen lays in sc, three weeks, roughly, later you have a worker from a 4.9 cell. Once that colony exchanges the brood to workers in mid season, how on God's Green Earth can there be a reversal? To have such would imply a memory that to date i have seen no research to provide that a worker can recall what happened the generation before.

Here is a very limited experience: I put two nucs on PF-100 from Mann Lake. Now i understand that Dee says it is 5., Dennis still says 4.9 and Michael and i are roughly between 4.96-8 in our measures. Here is what happened. the bees first were Italian of unkown origin with four frames of old dark brood frames. The five additional frames were the PF-100s. The flow was heavy and the bees (increasingly Taber variety Russian) drew the foundation out full, to the point of honey-plugged. I split those bees with Olympic Apiares cross bred Russian etc. The Mann Lake frames were fine, but a couple weeks in i though i was seeing AFB in the second nucs. It was the Olympic bees cleaning out much worker brood out of the old frames added. There was no such work on the brood in the PF-100s. 

The flow ended and three week later the first Taber queen took off with a swarm, a week later the other did the same. Plenty of room, split long enough to disallow the honey plug as cause. neither virgin mated and i salvaged them on to the back of the other two. 

Those two colonies, on low stores, wintered and save for starvation i staved off in february in one of these nucs, there seems to be nothing but great buildup now in both. Both are hauling balsam root pollen and willow pollen when they can, but it is still too cool to open up safely. 

Am i to expect that these two colonies who chew the mites and live on mostly PF-100 frames (they are and did brood on them last year and this) I can see the clusters movements) that they will now fail? How on earth, when these bees are cleaners and living on this sc type frame can they now revert and react to the same comb they live on?

I don't think that sc alone can do it, it really seems to me that you need mite resistance and sc to effectively keep bees on this stuff. I did not and will not treat so long as there is no secondary effect. I plan on adding the Dadant sheets one at a time, feeding all the while and checking to make sure pollen is coming in, under those conditions i did not have the problems i have heard so often from people who are having trouble with the smaller cells. 

This year i will mix it up a great deal with lines and breeds and see if there is something there, i think the reaction of the Olympic queens illustrates at least a marker that the larger cells were more of a problem, from treatments by the former owner, failure of the Taber queens to clean out the mites, or the larger cells. There will be around twenty-five or thirty going into winter this year on PF-100s exclusively. Feral, Russian x open, Minn. Hyg., Italian, carniolan. 

Iwant to address one last thing. A good test of a line needs at minimum ten queens located at various point in the same yards to determine most baseline traits. It is better done with larger numbers, again using random placement against a known line, why would small cell and large cell tests be different than this? I agree that one would spread a test over more than one season, in the case of queens it gives a lines breeder source a better example. With the failure with mites taking a period of time, that has to be considered to be at all a viable test. 

Is not the best test result, success in five years of consistant run of a line of known bees on sc? If breed is critical, i think it must be, then varried breed in a test of cell size alone will be thrown off by the lines used and their abillity to stave off mites with a sc advantage. All tests should be done with queens from one breeder queen, open mated F1s. That variable has to be eliminated as best as possible. There has to be a tandem test on the line alone to establish failure rates of the line re: the source of the line. That would elimiinate the variable of average performance of the stock. 

There is no way of a valid test result to be had without eliminating stock viability per given season, per given line. If you simply dump bees on sc all results will be full of questions because of the base line being varried. 

I understand this is all terribly complex. My estimation for stack testing alone is ten years, two orders two years in a row of a line of queens five each per year. That is to locate ten breeder queens for four lines unrelated. I note things like what the Olympic queens bees did with old combs as interesting but i would not now conclude that these are breed worthy unless that trait could come from one of ten test queens F1s open mated. Then there is fixing the trait, a much harder deal than establishing a worker force of smaller sized bees in my extremely limited experience. 

Chrissy Shaw


----------



## Myron Denny (Sep 27, 2009)

Did this test die, it looks to me like there are many unaswered questions left hanging. Did the large cell small cell tests that Jennifer Berry do answer any of these question? Are her tests still in progress? Is anyone doing cell tests for longivity?
Myron Denny


----------

