# My results...



## John D. Smith (Mar 17, 2003)

I haven't visited (read nor posted to) beesource for about a year or so. Some of you may recall a small cell research project I did from 2001-2005. 

I've been doing small cell/chemical free beekeeping for the last five years. I specifically collected mite data from 2004-2005 to be used for a Masters thesis for an Environmental Science degree. Not that these documents make me smart or better qualified, just an FYI to suggest an at least quasi-scientific study! I graduated with honors and the review committee was impressed with the research. So the university warranted the study, anyway.

For those interested, my thesis was submitted as both a hard copy and electronically so you could possibly download it.

Plans were made to publish, but I'm honestly not interested in debating/arguing with either side. I funded the project myself (reflected in project scope), did the design, and data collection by myself. I'm a little burned out at this point, so I probably won't be posting much if at all. I just extracted this year's honey, which reminded me that I promised to update a few of you on the study (sorry it's a year late!)

I approached the study with an open mind and a simple hypothesis: cell size influences mite population.

Anyway, here are some excerpts from my thesis:

"9. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
It was hypothesized that obtaining a shorter brood cycle would lessen the impact of Varroa in a colony. In order to test this, some simple steps were taken. The results suggested that just as honeybees were purportedly enlarged over 100 years ago, they can be reduced to their original size or smaller. The results also demonstrated that following this reduction in size, the brood cycle of the honeybee was shortened. Studies of Varroa physiology have shown that mites reproduce inside a capped honeybee cell. They feed on the developing larva and when the bee emerges, any mites that are not mature will die. The ultimate mechanism of mite control is realized through early capping (where the cells are capped sooner so that fewer mites infest the cells) and early emergence (where the mites can't make as many offspring because they have less time). Although a shorter brood cycle was obtained and data collection revealed fewer mites in the experimental colony, the experiment, though both suggestive and corroborative of the observations of others, does not empirically prove small cell to be the cause of mite population reduction or control. Certainly, the results support my hypothesis and suggest viability, but it is inaccurate to infer statistical evidence. Further research and experiment utilizing a larger sampling population and a richer data set would be necessary to make a statistical inference."

As you can see, I didn't statistically "prove" anything and as with most research, "more research is needed". My results were supportive, however. For the antagonists (regardless of your "it works"/"it doesn't work" POV), just as you suggest the "believers" do research to prove their theory, why not do your own research to disprove their theory. Look what happened to CS Lewis.

Best Regards.


----------



## John D. Smith (Mar 17, 2003)

I just wanted to add that because of the size of the files and to a lesser degree, for protection of intellectual property, I am unable to email the study.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

Thanks for doing it and thanks for sharing it.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

Yes, thanks for sharing it with us!

We'll place it with the growing multitude of information that supports some of the aspects of small cell but did not statistically "prove" anything and "more research is needed" file.









Best Wishes,

[ September 24, 2006, 05:57 PM: Message edited by: Pcolar ]


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

If you're okay with it, I could make the PDF file available here. You will have to email it to me if interested.

- Barry


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi John and Everyone,

Ah, another mite counter and data plotter! Sure gets old in a hurry. At least it did for me, especially after a dozen hives done over about 7 years. It was almost a equal to a second job.

That's why I suggest, that before embarking on a scientific based approach, some objectives are set up in advance and an appropriate approach used. It's not a trivial task. And can be a real chore. Once the wonder and excitement wear off, all that's left is lots of drudgery through an extended time frame. 

Regards
Dennis


----------



## John D. Smith (Mar 17, 2003)

You said it Dennis. Counting mites IS NOT FUN. Doing it on a weekly basis for multiple hives while attempting to stick to a self-established, systematic, and scientific method will make you question your sanity.

I've been doing data collection and interpretation for many years. Initially in an acedemic setting well over a decade ago and in a professional setting since 2000. Regardless of the subject, data is data and results are results. There is no room for hopes and dreams in science. Choosing a study subject that you enjoy, dare I say love, WILL change your feelings for that subject. Beekeeping almost became a job rather than a hobby. When you say, "And can be a real chore. Once the wonder and excitement wear off, all that's left is lots of drudgery through an extended time frame", you are completely right and speak as one who must have been down the road before.

I've conducted research on experimental farming procedures and I've specialised in invasive species research, mostly insects, but plants as well, for the past six years.

I've looked at and collected data for virtually every facet in agriculture and land management in an effort to correct or reduce damage. Though I'm usually saddened by the results of the human virus (inside joke) on our planet, these were just interesting jobs I enjoyed. That said, nothing can match the hair-pulling envolved with the small cell project. Most of it was because I was the only rung on the ladder, doing all the work, but a small portion was the fact that the "work" element had seeped into my hobby. I almost gave my bees away.

Anyway, I've parred down the thesis and it's still 8.8 MB. If I can find an easy way to email it to Barry, I will make it available. That said, beekeepers may find it a bit elementary. Academic research, at this level, has to be written so that someone with no prior knowledge can understand and reproduce the experiment. Reading it again today, I find it very basic, from a beekeeper's POV and somewhat outdated (parts were written a few years ago). There was no Super Cell when I started, nor were there other studies like it. I don't know of specific current studies, but I'm sure they're out there. In fact, when I started, Michael Bush and the Lusbys where the only ones I knew of doing similar things (which is where I got the idea). Dadant 4.9 foundation came out just after I started (the small cell portion of chemical-free) and that was the deciding "methods how-to" factor for me to proceed. I posted the distilled important information from my project so the entire document might not be necessary.


----------



## drobbins (Jun 1, 2005)

John,

I'd really like to look at your work
My email server should handle an attachment that big
If you don't mind how bout sending it to drobbins at drobbins dot net

Thanks For Doing All The Work
Dave


----------



## MichaelW (Jun 1, 2005)

Awsome, 
I'd like to read all the boring detail about how you went about with the experiment.

Thanks for the update


----------



## PA Pete (Feb 2, 2005)

How big is it zipped? Or is 8.8MB the zipped size?


----------



## John D. Smith (Mar 17, 2003)

I'm sure most of you will be underwhelmed, but I've sent a link to Barry for download.http://download.yousendit.com/2AD4EAEC4490C536

Just to be clear, I am and was well aware of the flaws in the study. The scope was as large as my personal resources would allow at the time, but at the same time intentionally focused on a target audience. That said, it gives the small-scale, hobby beekeeper an example of what to expect (and that's the way it was designed).

FYI: I still have three colonies (the queens from the study are long gone). I lost two swarms this spring. I've never attempted to "raise" honey. In fact, I lost the taste for it and it was actually a nuiscense during the study. I usually only keep a pound and give the rest to family. 

I got 83# of honey this year and each super was started with only foundation. C1 made 24#, C2 made 18#, and EXP made 41#. One could suggest that both controls issued the swarms (thus the low production), but I'm fairly sure I witnessed the end of an EXP swarm.

I haven't treated EXP nor the Controls with anything (not even FGMO) this year and did one inspection in April. I do plan to give a series FGMO and OA treatments before it gets too cold. C1 now has the culled frames from from EXP, so you could say I have S, M, and L bees now! Next spring I plan to move completely to Super Cell.


----------



## MichaelW (Jun 1, 2005)

John,

Thanks, I enjoyed the thesis, particularly the historical discussion. 

Its a good compilation of small cell beekeeping ideas. Considering the limited resources, I think its good work.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

Interesting study, John. Thanks for sharing it!

I printed out a copy of it to read over more thoroughly when I have some more time. Just scanning over the introduction, I did have one question: why are oxalic acid (OA) and food-grade mineral oil (FGMO) "non-chemical controls?" Aren't oxalic acid and mineral oil both chemicals?

I am impressed (and surprized) that your two control colonies had such similar mite populations. I haven't had much luck in getting mite counts that vary so little between two or more hives.


----------



## John D. Smith (Mar 17, 2003)

Like CheckMite+ and gasoline, OA and FGMO are chemicals. The same can also be said of water and table salt, for that matter. They're all just a collection of atoms. The difference (to me and for the purposes of the paper) is that they occur "naturally" (in the case of OA) and are largely considered inert (FGMO). When I say "natural", I mean non-synthetic. In otherwords, they weren't engineered in a lab by Bayer Crop Sciences. Drinking a gallon of FGMO might inconvenience you for several days, but it won't affect/stop your brain function!

Those are details that were not covered in this broadcast version, but appeared in other forms of the paper. There is/was a PowerPoint presentation and accompanying document that covered those and other details. It also had more historical information. Also included was picture from about 1920 of my g-grandfather and his first known hive.

As for the numbers; we have a saying in my field: "The data is what it is." With a sampling population of three, it is impossible to say what is or isn't a statistical anomoly. I'm more surprised by the continued parallels between the controls in areas such as honey production. I would be absolutely thrilled to see a large-scale study on small cell or even mite population response to treatment. Everything I've seen thus far (including my own study) would probably not be considered statistically valid. That said, the larger the variance between two results, the smaller the sample size needed to achieve a strong degree of confidence. I could ramble on...

Thank goodness now I just collect the data and don't have to digest it.

Best of luck guys!


----------



## Beekeeper1958 (Sep 25, 2006)

John,
Great thesis. Thanks for sharing it with us.
If I didn't have all new foundation I'd be looking at doing a little regressive breeding myself.
Maybe in the future as some of the comb and foundation needs to be replaced.
Thanks again.
Meant to ask you: For your supers over the exp. hive did you use standard foundation or the small cell?

[ September 27, 2006, 01:43 PM: Message edited by: Beekeeper1958 ]


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>If I didn't have all new foundation I'd be looking at doing a little regressive breeding myself.
Maybe in the future as some of the comb and foundation needs to be replaced.

I have a lot of regular sized foundation I'll never use. I decided I'd rather raise bees than raise Varroa mites.


----------

