# Poll for no treatments on Large Cell



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

It only lets you have short version above. Here the longer versions:

1) Varroa mite levels that are hard to detect and no noticeable losses of hives to Varroa or related problems. Varroa are a non-issue for me.

2) Varroa mite levels that are usually acceptable and only minor losses that might be do to Varroa. Varroa are a minor problem.

3) Varroa mite levels that occasionally get out of line and are always a burden to the bees, but although my losses to Varroa are acceptable they are higher than I would like. Varroa are my main beekeeping problem.

4) Varroa mite levels that are not under control and I lose a lot of hives every year to Varroa. Varroa are a scourge.

5) I don't like any of the answers and will specify in my post what I think.

6) I can’t participate in the poll because I don’t meet the criteria but I want to see the results.


----------



## stangardener (Mar 8, 2005)

thank you for adding choice # 6). in the past i've seen polls where you can't see the results with out participating. that would have been hard for an interested person who uses only natural comb.


----------



## TwT (Aug 5, 2004)

well I shouldn't have voted but did before I read the post below, I vote #1 because they aren't a issue for me, I have never done a mite count because I don't worry about mites in my hives, I have a good base of bee's that do fine, now when I remove swarms and don't re queen with mine I lose about 65-75% of those, but if I re-queen with my queens they do fine, I have been thinking that I am going to make a out yard just for removal hives and swarms I get called to remove, if they make it 3-4 years I will raise from them. so sorry, I shouldn't have voted not for not doing mite counts...,


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

I had stopped in on this thread earlier when it first posted. I wanted to wait to see what the conversation developed into before saying anything. So I just now go into vote, and it says I already voted.
I know I had not voted on this poll before. I hope it got it right.... 

A couple days ago, I logged onto beesource and instead of the regular homepage, a huge picture of Barry greeted me. I about crapped my pants....  Not sure what they was all about.


----------



## Fuzzy (Aug 4, 2005)

Michael,

In answer to your original question. Over the last 6 yrs, I have kept as many as 5 hives and as few as 2. I do not treat, or count at all. I lost 1 hive the first year due to varroa, but none since. Located in sunny, urban, S.F Bay Area. All hives make 3 or more supers of honey per year.

Fuzzy


----------



## PFA (Sep 1, 2006)

My experiences are similar to Fuzzy's. Over the last several years I have had between 2 and 10 hives. Two hives were last treated with Mite Away II five years ago and that was the first and only treatment ever to any hives. I have been running mostly russians with a mongrel hive given to me by an aquaintance moving south which appears to be italians. I do monitor mite drop periodically and the bee inspector takes a sample every year as well. I typically see no more than 4 mites over a 24 hour period. Some hives I see none. Two years ago the bee inspectors sample showed no mites when I was seeing drops of 2 or 3. I also had one russian hive three years ago that suddenly showed drops of 10 or so mites the end of August. I let it go, took 2 supers of honey off, and figured I would lose them over the winter. They came thru, weakened, but survived and I actually made a split from them the following year. I have taken 2+ supers of honey from production hives.

I should add that I am considering going to natural cell as added insurance, but mostly to save money on the cost of foundation.


----------



## tecumseh (Apr 26, 2005)

well michael at least the poll should measure beekeeper's (on large cell and who use no treatment) impressions about the relative importance of varroa as a problem.

my question is exactly what does NO TREATMENT mean? does it actually mean nothing nada, zip in the way of product or beekeeper manipulation in regards to his hives? or does it mean something else?

first...I ask this in that I have 'heard' at least one person (on this forum) making claims to using NO TREATMENT but then admits to using a varroa type product to control shb. for myself I do scrape a lot of drone cells in the early spring... would this be treatment or no treatment? so where do (or can) you draw the line in answering the simple question of no treatment vs treatment?


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

Who could that be?


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

Hey, I could be that one person making claims of NO TREATMENTS and perhaps some ignorance coming into play with someone suggesting that I also use varroa mite treatments for SHB.

So lets set the record straight. And if it pertains to others in the same boat, then so be it. This way, casual observations can be seen more clearly without round about vague comments that supposedly claim "something" against "someone".

I claim no treatments. I run over 400 hives per year. But do I also make claims of having success using varroa mite treatments to treat SHB? You betcha!

I had 1 hive 4 years ago that I had the opportunity to treat after they were infested with SHB. I used this "varroa mite" treatment, and it worked really well. I have also helped others over the past several years apply PROPERLY the use of checkmite for SHB concerns. My experience in my own operation is one hive. My experience collectively in treating hives is more than that.

I have a farm where much of my testing is done. I have played around and used almost EVERY possible treatment on the market. Sometimes my experience in some items, such as the vinegar cyclone machine as example, comes from using it with beekeepers I know and regularly visit to monitor progress and effectiveness. But having a test yard or self-testing treatments on a hive or two, can hardly be claimed to using these treatments in my normal operation.

I think anyone with the time, should test as many products as they can. Play around, see what works. See what you can come up with yourself.

So perhaps others are like myself. I speak of experience with treating hives all the time. But its far from suggesting that I use varroa mite treatments for control of SHB. 

"I do not use treatments" can be claimed without someone suggesting that it should carry the meaning of having someone never testing a product or being totally ignorant on the issues of whatever treatments that may be.


----------



## odfrank (May 13, 2002)

I keep about 40 hives, no treatments for three or more years, lose about 30% a year, same as the last year I used Apistan. I lose as many that are on SC foundation as LC foundation, in fact maybe even more. Some droughted hungry ones this year got really nailed by mites, both SC and LC.


----------



## Fuzzy (Aug 4, 2005)

I for one fully comprehend the definition of "NO" treatment. I have used nothing, nada, zip, zed...... I do nothing about drones, drone combs. I do not cast spells or use a screened bottom board. I do not feed the bees. I leave the bees ALONE. If the survive (and apparently most do) great. If they should croak, so be it. I will then clean the box out, freeze it, and dump another swarm into it in the spring. 

Fuzzy


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>my question is exactly what does NO TREATMENT mean? does it actually mean nothing nada, zip in the way of product or beekeeper manipulation in regards to his hives? or does it mean something else?

To me it means nada. I don't care about SBB, I don't think they make much difference in the mites anyway, although I like them for ventilation etc. but no treatments is what I meant. No drone trapping. No powdered sugar. The point was to compare it to small cell and most of use are doing nothing. I wanted to see if people on large cell who say they are not treating have, like many of us small cell people, no longer deal with Varroa as a problem at all. If you're doing Drone trapping then you're still dealing with Varroa. Or if they are just accepting large losses in the hopes of those eventually going away.


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

Michael Bush said:


> >. The point was to compare it to small cell and most of use are doing nothing. I wanted to see if people on large cell who say they are not treating have, like many of us small cell people, no longer deal with Varroa as a problem at all.


I thought maybe you wanted to learn and broaden your knowledge. But I see your agenda is quite clear....


----------



## odfrank (May 13, 2002)

Michael Bush said:


> > like many of us small cell people, no longer deal with Varroa as a problem at all.


How can you know for sure that small cell is the reason you don't have mites? Forty percent of the LC'ers are saying mites are minor or no problem. Maybe climate, resistance, a predatory mite disease or some other is reason you have no mites. My SC colonies succumb in similar numbers as the large cell.


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

odfrank,
I have previously said that "Over time, you will hear more and more come forward" and make the same comments that you have.

Not sure how many studies, or how many beekeepers saying what your saying, will change much in anyone's thought process about smallcell. I see denial, ignoring, and flat out refusal, being around a long time.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

odfrank said:


> My SC colonies succumb in similar numbers as the large cell.


Did you have them in the same yard? Within what time frame did they croak? 1 year, 2 years? I believe Ed and Dee always said to convert a whole yard and not do it half way. I know when I went to SC, I did everything. Had the first year hit like others who went SC, but within a couple years they all evened out and as MB said, mites are now a non issue.

- Barry


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Michael Bush said:


> I wanted to see if people on large cell who say they are not treating have, like many of us small cell people, no longer deal with Varroa as a problem at all. If you're doing Drone trapping then you're still dealing with Varroa. Or if they are just accepting large losses in the hopes of those eventually going away.


This is the way I see it too. Let's get all the details out on the table so we can compare apples to apples.

- Barry


----------



## odfrank (May 13, 2002)

BjornBee;will change much in anyone's thought process about smallcell. I see denial said:


> I doubt that you will hear anyone come forward. Would a Catholic ever admit that maybe there is no God?
> The more I read posts from small celler's and TBH'ers the more I see posts sounding like religious fanatics - Jehovah's Witness', Shiites, etc. They are more and more saying that SC and TBH are the cure for all diseases and that Lang hives are the cause of the downfall of agriculture and society as we know it. I find it hard to believe that all bee diseases originated in the 1850's with the advent of frame hives and LC foundation.
> MB hangs on every word of DL, when to me a lot of what she writes reads like she is drunk or on drugs. I gave up on anything she says when she claimed to have produced 100 barrels of honey pulling the crop using only a bee brush. Show me the 100 barrels and I'll change my tune.
> Because of them I even tried Housel Positioning, feeling that it was bunk, quickly proving to myself that one could only maintain it if you never had a black comb, never took a divide from a ten frame hive, and had an extra helper at ones side at all times with the hives and in the extracting room to make sure each frame got put back in properly positioned.


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

Barry,
The poll is not designed to answer those questions. The poll is only designed to group people together, and compare apple to apples as you say, and thus not get to the basic underlying reasons.

Many people here have commented about using NO treatments. But where are the pointed questions directed towards those folks? The best way to find out these answers is to ask pointed questions. Not some poll that includes in the statistics everyone including those who have a hands off approach and thus lets die what dies, and has no problems with buying packages every spring. The poll is not designed to answer the first question as to HOW anybody is not treating hives on LC. It only is a ploy to use some numbers in a skewed comparison of apples to apples , and thereby as some "in the end" yet to be seen comments, about how superior SC is too LC.

MB says he now acknowledges that he has been hearing people with stories of no treatments for the past two years. And for two years its been nothing but ignoring those posts. No questions, no acknowledgement, no consideration. Why? Because the only agenda I've ever seen is promotion of smallcell. Period.

But now, its not to understand or find out what others are doing. Its all about comparing one to the other, and thus degrading one, or justifying another.

I tell you what Barry. When you bloodied and dirtied your hands like I have over three years, doing what I've done to get where I'm at, ask me some questions. Maybe I'll answer some questions....  I do believe that's about the position you took last week when I asked some questions of smallcell.


----------



## tecumseh (Apr 26, 2005)

some folks can certainly bend like a pretzel to at least make the appearance of truthfulness...

thanks for your direct response to my question mr bush. I just wanted to get my dictionary in line with the purpose of the polls.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>I thought maybe you wanted to learn and broaden your knowledge. But I see your agenda is quite clear....

I think my agenda is clear. I want to know if people not treating on large cell are having the kind of success I'm seeing on small cell. I just put up a poll to try to find the answer. Do you think I worded the questions to skew the poll? If so, how would you have asked them? Would you like me to post the exact same poll with the question being small cell? I was considering that anyway for my own curiosity.

I have never been a "believer" in the sense of believing something just because someone said it. I "believe" in small cell because the results were dramatic. I am beginning to think that the research on mite numbers evening out might reveal the cause of those who have only a few or even half of their hives on small cell. I did them all. I'd already tried not treating on large cell and lost them all several times. They were all dead before I started regressing because of Apistan resistant Varroa, so it wasn't hard to do all of them at once as I was starting over anyway.


----------



## TwT (Aug 5, 2004)

Michael Bush said:


> >?
> 
> To me it means nada. I don't care about SBB, I don't think they make much difference in the mites anyway, although I like them for ventilation etc. but no treatments is what I meant. No drone trapping. No powdered sugar. The point was to compare it to small cell and most of use are doing nothing. I wanted to see if people on large cell who say they are not treating have, like many of us small cell people, no longer deal with Varroa as a problem at all. If you're doing Drone trapping then you're still dealing with Varroa. Or if they are just accepting large losses in the hopes of those eventually going away.



I got one for ya, drone trapping and such is consider treating then why not SC, it is a extra cost and if it wasn't for mites you would be using the same size cell I am using now, so to me if you look at it that way and my bee's survive without any kinda treatment including small cell then my bee's and others like me that don't use treatments like SC, drone trapping, etc are way ahead of the game.... so why not call SC a treatment? I know it sounds stupid but by changing the cell size you are manipulating a hive from the time before mites and I see it this way only because of the mites, no other reason you would have changed except for mites then why not call it a treatment for mites.....


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

MB,
This whole "evening out" of mites theory does not hold water with me. Yes, over a season, mites do travel within an apiary, and thus its possible to transmit a virus or other pathogen. But to suggest that mites traveling between hives on a scale that it makes mite numbers the same or irreverent between hives is not possible.

I not only see it within my own apiaries, while requeening a particular yard, or changing over the genetics of a yard from one stock to another, but have also seen it in dozens of other beekeepers yards while inspecting for the state. I have yards that can maintain low and high mite levels, hives being every other one, based on one type of queen in odd numbered hives and another line in the even numbered hives. I have seen to many variations of mite count totals, to come to some conclusion that mites "even out" due to mite travels within an apiary.

This whole thing goes back to discrediting the study by J. Berry. That somehow, (Gasp!) there must be an explanation of how so many mites got into those smallcell hives. After all, it was supposed to be the shorter capping times that reduced mite levels. And NOBODY is going to believe that it takes three years to make an impact with that suggestion. So now its, "mites were traveling between hives". Sure! 

Its too easy, and I've seen mite count variations, and were talking substantial count differences in side by side strain testing, to even suggest that this is a plausible explanation.


----------



## Brandy (Dec 3, 2005)

Just thought I'd add my 2 cents. 2nd year on LC with zero, zip, nada treatment's. They are on SBB's and I've mentioned they do have mites. 20% loss last winter. No fogging, no oils, no powdered sugar. I manage them for honey production and breed from the best queens'. So, I can't say I just leave them alone.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>I got one for ya, drone trapping and such is consider treating then why not SC, it is a extra cost

Actually, it's not. If I want small cell I can buy PF120s from Mann Lake for less than a dollar a frame and get small cell for less than I can buy Pierco or even regular frames and wax foundation. And if I want natural cell and I do foundationless or starter strips it's even cheaper and almost as easy as the one piece frames as I don't have to wire it.

> and if it wasn't for mites you would be using the same size cell I am using now

Well, if it weren't for the mites I wouldn't have been looking for a solution, so probably I would be still using 5.4mm cell size.

> so to me if you look at it that way and my bee's survive without any kinda treatment including small cell then my bee's and others like me that don't use treatments like SC, drone trapping, etc are way ahead of the game....

If it works, perhaps. If not, then you're not ahead of the game.

> so why not call SC a treatment?

Because it's not.

> I know it sounds stupid but by changing the cell size you are manipulating a hive from the time before mites and I see it this way only because of the mites, no other reason you would have changed except for mites then why not call it a treatment for mites.....

Because it's not a treatment. It may be a "manipulation" or a "method", but it is not a treatment. Bees were building smaller cells before we came along and beekeepers were using smaller foundation before it was enlarged. I'm not contaminating my comb with chemicals, and I'm not setting back brood production by stealing drones. I'm not having to do any interventions, so it's not costing me work.


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

It took a month for a response and to drag this back to the top. Must be winter....


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

I did not participate in the poll, because I have the inconvenient 
little matter of data from the hives of interest, and data tends to
make speculation more difficult.

A single yard of 30 colonies was varroa-free for at least a decade.
This single yard was the only one.
It was very isolated, in the middle of a heavily-wooded national
forest. I never bothered to measure cell sizes, as I assume it
would have been very difficult for bees to draw small-cell comb
on normal foundation. I did regular mite drops, both natural and
strip driven. I followed the usual gold-standard procedures for
the tests. As the results were unusual, I did more testing in this
yard than others, trying to get any sort of mite level, no matter
how low.

So, we are left with some places being either free of varroa, or
inhospitable to varroa due to the microclimate.

Given than varroa takes about 2 years to kill an untreated colony,
I'm concerned that "for how long?" is left out of the discussion 
whenever the questions are asked by anyone with a specific
agenda. Encouraging complacency leaves one personally liable
to an extent beyond the limits of any insurance coverage I've
ever seen.

In light of the reports offered, I found this question very
entertaining:

>> so why not call SC a treatment?

> Because it's not.

A tautology is a very interesting and revealing answer to such a simple
and direct question. But he goes on to explain why he would ask such
a heretical question.

>> I know it sounds stupid but by changing the cell size you are 
>> manipulating a hive... only because of the mites, no other reason you 
>> would have changed except for mites then why not call it a treatment 
>> for mites.....

> Bees were building smaller cells before we came along and beekeepers
> were using smaller foundation before it was enlarged. 

So, small-cell bees are "natural", while large-cell bees are an
"unnatural invention of man", are they?

But none of the small-cell advocates have ever responded to the very
reasonable request that they explain how making and selling larger 
foundation in the US and Europe resulted in "large-cell" bees in 3rd
world nations where foundation has never been used at all due to 
high cost, and where bees have not been imported for a very long
time, due to the lack of financial incentives to do so.

When I visit any of the chain of Islands that stretch between Miami
and Venezuela, I am looking at bees that have been left to their
own devices in terms of cell size, and have not been "bred" by
anything other than normal open mating. No packages, no mailed-in
queens, no foundation, its all local. How could these bees, the bees 
of South America outside the range of the AHB infestation, and bees 
in other areas where beekeeping has never been done with foundation
be no different in cell size from my bees, raised on foundation?

How did *these* bees get "upsized"? 
Why, when you measure their comb, are they "large cell bees", when
one would expect them to be as "natural" as any bees one could find?

Until this question is answered in a simple and direct manner,
one is forced to conclude that important basic facts are being 
deliberately ignored.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Jim Fischer said:


> When I visit any of the chain of Islands that stretch between Miami
> and Venezuela, I am looking at bees that have been left to their
> own devices in terms of cell size, and have not been "bred" by
> anything other than normal open mating. No packages, no mailed-in
> ...


The basic fact that I see being ignored in your example sited above is that of range of cell size, which is a fact, on any comb that bees are allowed to build "naturally." To say they are "no different in cell size from my bees, raised on foundation" sets the alarm off at once. The two can't be compared. One is uniform, the other is not, which requires one to measure at different places within the hive and on the comb to determine storage cells from brood cells, etc.

- Barry


----------



## TwT (Aug 5, 2004)

Michael Bush said:


> >> so why not call SC a treatment?
> 
> Because it's not.
> 
> ...



Ok MB, I can agree with you on that, since we agree on this then SBB cant be considered a treatment either, I have seen bee's build hives that are exposed, they do it in nature every year, now wouldn't you agree to this? Now they are both (SBB, SC) advertised as a way to control mites by everyone that sales them (it not a treatment for mites but advertised as one) just trying to clarify a few none treatments people call treatments, I am sure there might be a few others if these aren't considered....


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>since we agree on this then SBB cant be considered a treatment either

I agree.

>So, small-cell bees are "natural", while large-cell bees are an
"unnatural invention of man", are they?

Show me a book from the 1800s or before when foundation was not being used or just starting to be used where the size of worker comb is listed as anything other than "five cells to the inch". Five cells to the inch is 5.08mm. A long ways from 5.4mm.

What I see is a large variety of cell sizes from 4.4mm to 5.2mm in the core of the brood nest. I've not found 5.4mm in the core of the brood nest.

Yes, they are.

>Until this question is answered in a simple and direct manner,
one is forced to conclude that important basic facts are being
deliberately ignored.

How many specifics are totally missing from the question but assumed to
be significant?:

The size of the cells found in those areas.
The method of measurement used to determine the size.
The specific area in the hive that was measured to determine that size (core of the brood nest, edge of the brood nest, honey storage etc).
The actual numbers of beekeepers not using and using foundation in those
areas.
The number of feral hives in proportion to domestic hives on foundation
in those areas.
The specific type of bee in the area.

How does one answer a very vague statement with, not only no supporting evidence, but not even a specific measurement being observed, in a simple and direct manner?

I am only sharing what I have observed. How am I supposed to justify what I have observed, with what you say, in vague terms, that you have observed? I didn't observe it and if I did it would not change what I have observed.


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> ...range of cell size...

Of course there is. 

I know that you know that, but I'm surprised
that you didn't think that I knew that you
knew, or that you thought anyone didn't know.

For the record, yes there is a range of cell sizes 
in comb built without benefit of foundation. 

But that does not answer the question I asked, the 
same question that I have been asking for years, 
the same question that ends up with people looking 
blankly down at their shoes, and leaving me more
than a little ambivalent.

The "_basic fact that I see being ignored in YOUR example_"
is that there is a range of sizes in comb built *WITH 
foundation* too, as the bees will always make some drone 
cells, and fudge cells a bit around the edges of the 
frames, and so on. There are transitional sizes all 
over the place.

One can ask consistent questions of both kinds of comb.
Where does the distribution of sizes center?
What is the mean worker cell size?
What is the maximum?
What is the minimum?
One could even count the number of each size.

> To say they are "no different in cell size from my bees, 
> raised on foundation" sets the alarm off at once. 

It is a false alarm. 
The mean worker size is NOT "small cell" at all, no 
matter how you slice it.

So, now that we have addressed your (clearly feigned) 
concerns about how to measure cells, how one figures 
a mean size for a range of cell sizes and so on, can you 
make a stab at answering the essential question - what 
"upsized" those bees?

> The two can't be compared. 

*Of course they can!* Mean, maximum, minimum.
You've got two ranges, they certain can be compared.
Yes, there certainly may be more cells that vary 
with no foundation, but we can still compare the 
EXTENT of the variation and find the mean, average, 
and median for each.

You have seen comb drawn from foundation, and comb drawn
without, haven't you? You know how to sort data into a
bell curve, don't you? These are basic things I did not
think had to be mentioned, given the attention they had
gotten in th past.

> which requires one to measure at different places within the 
> hive and on the comb to determine storage cells from brood cells, etc.

Yes, of course - that's why one looks at data in terms of the 
distribution of values, and where the peak of the distribution falls.

So, now that we have addressed the side issues of "how to measure
cells" the central question remains - why aren't bees in places that 
have never seen foundation "small cell" bees? How did they get 
"upsized"?

I think there's a simple answer.


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

Getting back to Michaels' orginal question and then viewing the poll I think there are 2 aspects to the varroa issue. First of all anyone who kept bees B-4 varroa know this was one of those watershed moments in beekeeping. Beekeeping before Varroa and beekeeping after varroa, as an industry, are 2 completely different worlds. The impact of Varroa is not just the loss of hives due to physical damage by the mites themselves (we lost 90+% of bees in 1996 to this) there is a much larger picture associated with the spread of other degenerative problems including virus's, impact of chemical controls and the overall weakening of the "organisim" that is a hive of bees in a group that do survive mites 

The 2nd question vector is varroa impact on a personal level which what I think many in the poll responded to. I think it is much easier to impact on mites on this level through non-evasive treatements, stock and isolation.

As a small commercial operator I've had good impact with FGMO & Thyme in years when I keep a strict schedule. This year was not one of those years so almost everyone got hit with apistan. Every year I let some go to winter without treatment and survive and use the survivors for some of my breeding stock in the spring. Although I don't have any scientific results the survivor stock deals better with varroa. I can't say I'm seeing less, but I am seeing hives that someone deal with them over those that don't.

I have made the decision not to use Cumophos on combs and will continue to make use of FGMO/Thymol and perhaps rotate Formic in for impact control with apistan.

The claims of no disease and no pests with no controls to me centers more around the isolation of a beekeeping operation combined with some good beekeeping practices and less on a disputed cell size, at least until I see something definitive. I don't doubt Michael's small cell size has impact any more than I doubt my fogging does. I won't (and he doesn't) ask anyone to convert, we only share what we see.

I guess the challange to me would not be for Michael and others to succeed where they are but to succed with their methods where any of us are and on sustainable commerical level. I believe if you move those bees next to a yard with AFB, Nosema, mites and other disease and pest vectors they will not be so bullet proof. I don't believe, nor do any bee inspectors I've discussed this with are of the opinion keeping bees in the mainstream without treatment is at all realistic or possible. Seeing hundreds, maybe thousands of hives and being experianced they really are the ones who have an overall view of what's going on in our hives as whole,

Minimumize what you use, use what you need, I guess that's my mantra.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>So, now that we have addressed your (clearly feigned)
concerns about how to measure cells, how one figures
a mean size for a range of cell sizes and so on, can you
make a stab at answering the essential question - what
"upsized" those bees?

This is the classic "have you stopped beating your girlfriend?" question. You have presented no measurements. You have presented no specific source for those measurements (you have implied it was you but only as a general observation not specific measurements). You have not accepted that the issues is the size of the core of the brood nest, and you have simply assumed we (as in small cell people) should:

1) Accept for a "fact" that the bees are "upsized" despite that total lack of definition of what size they are and what size is "upsized".
2) Speculate as to why this as yet unsubstantiated and unspecified "fact" is true. Assuming that someone (apparently you) in some vague area in the Caribbean did measure some (as yet unspecified) measurement closer to 5.4mm than 4.9mm, what use is it for us to speculate? If that is what was observed, I have no argument. Measuring is much more useful than speculating and I've been doing a lot of that for several years now. I'm always interested in what other people are finding for measurements and ask for them all the time. I don't see any reason to speculate on the "why" of something that I have not observed and that has not been actually defined. But I would love to know what you found (if it was you), so I'll ask here for the measurements again. Is there some reason they have yet to be provided with the question?


----------



## MichaelW (Jun 1, 2005)

Michael Bush said:


> This is the classic "have you stopped beating your girlfriend?" question.


eX-squeeze me?

Exactly how 'classic' is that question? I guess I need to brush up on my classics.

On another very minor point. Anything that you can use to compare management on two hives such as small cell versus large cell, screened bottoms vs. solid bottoms is a 'treatment' as far as science is concerned (if you ground your beekeeping in that at any rate). BUT, you must decide which is the 'treated' group and which is not. You could test solid bottoms as a treatment against a control of screened bottom boards if you decided screened bottoms are the norm and solid bottoms might theoretically have some advantage over screened bottoms.


----------



## BULLSEYE BILL (Oct 2, 2002)

>Anything that you can use to compare management on two hives such as small cell versus large cell, screened bottoms vs. solid bottoms is a 'treatment' as far as science is concerned 

You ARE kidding, right? If I have an upper entrance instead of a bottom entrance, or combined, it's a treatment? What am I treating with more ventilation or easier egress?

>(if you ground your beekeeping in that at any rate). 

 Ground your beekeeping in what?

> You could test solid bottoms as a treatment against a control of screened bottom boards if you decided screened bottoms are the norm and solid bottoms might theoretically have some advantage over screened bottoms.

What in the world does SBB's have to do with cell size?

I think you have been hanging out with goats too long.


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> This is the classic "have you stopped beating your girlfriend?" question.

I would never ask that sort of question. 
It would be a moot point, due to a lack of a girlfriend to ask about.

> You have presented no measurements. 

You have it backwards. I don't need to offer proof, as I am merely
asking a question about what your THEORY says about "small cell" 
in 3rd-world nations.

This question should be very easy to answer, given the many 
firmly-made statements about small cell, natural cell sizes, and 
the upsizing of bees by man.

So, those who claim that "small cell" is the "natural size" of bees have to 
first admit that the question, _has an answer_, and then, they would
answer the question one way or the other in terms of their theory.

THEN (and only then) will anyone bother to spend the time and money 
to collect samples, measure comb, and so on. First, someone has to pin
down the small-cell advocates on something or other, and find out if
anyone thinks that the bees in 3rd world nations SHOULD be smaller 
than current US "large cell" bees, if what is claimed by the small-cell
advocates is true in any way.

> You have not accepted that the issues is the size of the core of 
> the brood nest, 

I'm happy to agree to any specific subset of the brood nest being
"the cells to measure", but the actual approach will be to compare 
the distribution of cells sizes over the entire brood nest, the range 
of brood cell sizes, their median, and so on. Then we do some 
statistics on the range of sizes. (Don't sweat the statistics, the 
goal is to simply make different graphs.) Now, if you ALSO want
some specific subset of the brood nest to be looked at as a 
stand-alone set of cells, no problem, but then you are going to 
have to explain this _subset of the brood nest_ in terms of how it 
provides any advantage to the colony if it is not the overwhelming 
majority of (worker) brood cells.

> 1) Accept for a "fact" that the bees are "upsized" despite that total 
> lack of definition of what size they are and what size is "upsized".

I certainly won't define "natural" versus "upsized", as this is the 
obligation of the folks making or supporting the claims that bees 
were "upsized". (First you pick numbers, then we see if those 
numbers exist in reality. That's how we play the game of science - 
your prediction has to be something that can be shown to be "true" 
or "false", and THEN we go test it.)

> I don't see any reason to speculate on the "why" of something that I
> have not observed and that has not been actually defined. 

If you want to claim that man "upsized" bees, then it is your obligation
to "define" the extent to which bees were "upsized", and define what
their "natual" size was. It can't be too hard, as we known what size
is currently called "small cell" (something around 4.9mm) and what size
is claimed to be an unnaturally larger cell for a bee (around 5.2mm),
but the small-cell faction has to define these things, as no one is
going to take any of the small-cell faction seriously if they keep
dodging and weaving and making up new excuses every time someone
does some work on the subject with results that don't support the
theories put forth by the small-cell community.

> But I would love to know what you found (if it was you), 

Maybe I have measurements, maybe I don't. 
Maybe I have comb samples, maybe I don't.
I'll not speculate before I have a prediction to test.
That would be telling.

Regardless, define your terms FIRST, before you get any data.
In science, one is not allowed to peek at the data before explaining
one's theory. First you make a prediction, THEN, we go test that
prediction, not the other way around.

Given the statements you have made about small cell to date, it
should be easy for you to make a prediction about bees in places
where foundation has never, ever been used and AHB has not yet
confused matters for all concerned. 

I'll ask again - are these "3rd World Bees" still "natural sized", or
did the introduction of the larger foundation in the industrialized
world have some magical impact on 3rd World Bees via some form
of action-at-a-distance? 

Or is the whole issue of "man upsized bees" something that, upon
consideration of the many places where foundation has never been
used, you wish to now withdraw as part of the small-cell theory?

> Is there some reason they have yet to be provided with the question?

Yes, there is. I just explained why.

First you answer the question, based upon what you call "fact".
Then we go test that worldview, by seeing what we find.
But first, you agree up front that it is a valid question to answer,
and second, you make your best shot at answering it using your theory.

THEN we test the theory.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

MichaelW said:


> eX-squeeze me?
> 
> Exactly how 'classic' is that question? I guess I need to brush up on my classics.


http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=516579


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Jim Fischer said:


> why aren't bees in places that
> have never seen foundation "small cell" bees?
> 
> I think there's a simple answer.


Me too . . . they are "small cell" (natural size) bees.


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi Guys,

You know what sound my dogs make when they bark at the upsized bee versus natural cell debate. So, I'll keep em quiet ;>)

And that old dog that scaled and counted all those little different cell size squares only barks at other square counting dogs. So no noise there :>))))

But, I remember an article, in the ABJ ,that described some varroa resistant bees located somewhere offshore of South America. There stock was derived from Italians imported early in the island's history. Then, they were managed, in Lang hives without foundation, etc. much as Jim mentioned.

Recent reports from African also describe how fast a natural population can adapt to varroa. I'm sure lots of factors are involved. It would be interesting to sort them out.

There seems to by a synergy of factors that allow smaller, natural cell, wild type bees to quickly adapt, survive, and thrive. Some have even migrated and occupied vast areas in spite of man's attempt to stop them. 

Other's have reported a resurgence of feral bees in California, the southeastern US. And in upstate NY.

In contrast, most managed bees are headed in the opposite direction. And they require much management and treatment along that dismal way.

Regards
Dennis


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Jim Fischer said:


> Maybe I have measurements, maybe I don't.
> Maybe I have comb samples, maybe I don't.
> I'll not speculate before I have a prediction to test.
> That would be telling.


Yes, it's telling alright. . . . . . "I don't."

Those of us who have spent a lot of time measuring comb have been the first to go public with it with pictures and all. I still have samples of feral comb to prove it.


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> Me too . . . they are "small cell" (natural size) bees.

Great - but how is "small cell" defined *this *week? 

Mike said "_4.4mm to 5.2mm in the core of the brood nest._" 
Which is a very wide range, and seems to be a significant 
retreat from prior statements made by other small cell folks, 
like Dee Lusby. But it is a range, and we know how to handle 
a range of values.

The statements "_I've not found 5.4mm in the core of the brood nest._"
seems to be (gasp!) an actual upper limit, but given that large
cell foundation tends to run just under 5.4mm, I'm not sure that
it is a useful number.

Please recall that all we are addressing here is "what is natural",
given that we lack a time machine, and must look at present-day
bees. This has nothing to do with any claims about the effects
of using small-cell foundation. No room for bickering, this is merely
an attempt to measure some cells without having anyone throw a
tantrum about someone being biased.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

But Jim, you said:

"When I visit any of the chain of Islands that stretch between Miami
and Venezuela, I am looking at bees that have been left to their
own devices in terms of cell size, and have not been "bred" by
anything other than normal open mating. No packages, no mailed-in
queens, no foundation, its all local. How could these bees, the bees 
of South America outside the range of the AHB infestation, and bees 
in other areas where beekeeping has never been done with foundation
be no different in cell size from my bees, raised on foundation?"

No where did you say you actually measured anything! You based your comments on "looks." . . . "I am looking at bees".

When those of us with bees on SC comb look at our bees, they will look quite small in spring and late fall, but look just like any other bee on LC during the summer months. Looks is a very poor foundation to base your comments on.

- Barry


----------



## iddee (Jun 21, 2005)

After three pages of comments, why hasn't anyone asked why the ferals became practically non-existent during the nineties, if natural cell size is the answer to mites. I don't think anyone here will dispute the fact that the mites nearly wiped out the wild population of bees before they begin to develop a natural resistance to them. I also have managed hives from a hive that came through the nineties, "with normal supercedures and swarming" that are showing good signs of resistance to the mites, and yes, they are and have always been, on large cell foundation.

Personal thoughts are....Natural selection is working both on large and small cell, but not as a result of the cell size.


----------



## Dan Williamson (Apr 6, 2004)

iddee said:


> After three pages of comments, why hasn't anyone asked why the ferals became practically non-existent during the nineties, if natural cell size is the answer to mites.


I've seen that question asked numerous times on these small cell discussions in the past and no one ever seems to answer them.



iddee said:


> Personal thoughts are....Natural selection is working both on large and small cell, but not as a result of the cell size.


I tend to agree. I have NEVER had small cell hives (or natural sized cell as some call it) so I cannot speak from experience. HOWEVER, one would assume that if the size of the cell is so critical (as some claim) that the unmanaged population wouldn't have taken the hit from varroa that it did. Many who are small cell purists also tend to be the type that don't treat at all or minimally at best. Obviously, the unmanaged colonies receive no chemical intervention. These colonies without chemical treatments will ultimately weed out by selection the weak and the strong will survive. This will be the case in whatever size cell is used (or whatever size dominates the brood nest.)

Is it due to cell size or is it due to selection?


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Dan Williamson said:


> I've seen that question asked numerous times on these small cell discussions in the past and no one ever seems to answer them.


I'll go on record and say "I don't know why." I also don't know what that proves. It's another element that doesn't fit perfectly. I'm good with that. We should take all observations into account and "pick them apart" in a respectful sort of way and see how they fit into the whole.

- Barry


----------



## power napper (Apr 2, 2005)

Just want to inject one small thing, I wonder why Dadant has 4.9 and 5.1 in the pest control section of their catalog?


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> No where did you say you actually measured anything! 

And I'll not say one way or the other, until someone who wants
to represent the "small cell" enthusiasts is willing to make some
simple statements about what one SHOULD find if their theory
is correct.

As I explained with care, first you make a prediction, THEN we
go test the theory and the prediction it makes against reality.

> You based your comments on "looks." . . . "I am looking at bees".

Yeah, bummer isn't it? Its hard to tell what I meant by "looking", as
it could mean anything from watching them fly around, to looking
at them through a microscope, to looking at electrophoresis gels
of their DNA. I intend to keep you guessing. [edit by mod]

> When those of us with bees on SC comb look at our bees, they 
> will look quite small in spring and late fall, but look just like any 
> other bee on LC during the summer months. 

So in spring and fall, when there may not be enough decent protein 
to feed the bees, some might be malnourished and smaller? 
Heck, everyone sees that, don't they? That's exactly why the 
whole bee nutrition issue is rising to the top of the agenda so often.
But I don't think that this phenomena has anything to do with the
unique claims specific to small-cell beekeeping. If you are saying
that some bees are even smaller than "small cell bees" should be,
that's one thing, but if you are saying something else, you'd 
better explain in more detail.

> Looks is a very poor foundation to base your comments on.

I merely posed a question. I'll repeat myself yet again - FIRST
make a prediction, THEN we go test the theory by testing the 
prediction it makes against reality.

It is called "*science*". Very different from "comments", as one
refrains from making any declarative statements until one has 
data to do the talking.


----------



## Keith Benson (Feb 17, 2003)

Jim Fischer said:


> seems to be a significant
> retreat from prior statements made by other small cell folks,
> like Dee Lusby. But it is a range, and we know how to handle
> a range of values.


I believe that Dee would now say, 4.9 mm "top-tolerance". suggesting that the range is different than that mentioned above. 

I am happy to amend that if I am misrepresenting her in any way. I am certain that she or someone else will correct me if I am wrong. I don't have a dog in this fight, just repeating what I had recently read.

Keith


----------



## Keith Benson (Feb 17, 2003)

Barry said:


> I also don't know what that proves.


It *proves *nothing, but it does suggest that the protection afforded by small or natural cells are not necessarily the godsend some folks make it out to be, and that genetics (and *gasp* the evolution of resistance) is a more likely mechanism. Even the grand dam of small cell had her colony count decimated before rebuilding, rebuilding from her surviving colonies. Colonies with particular traits.



> It's another element that doesn't fit perfectly.


Yep, bees is complicated, mites is complicated and the bee mite interaction is complicated. I still wonder if a study that would satisfy the small cellers will ever bee done, can ever bee done. 

Keith


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

power napper said:


> Just want to inject one small thing, I wonder why Dadant has 4.9 and 5.1 in the pest control section of their catalog?


5.1 is used for the first step regression, and then 4.9 for the final step.

I was probably one of the first to use 5.1 due to a mistake
by Dadant producing 4.9 back in 2001 and unknowingly 
used it for regression, and only found out later it was not 
to specs. My experience is:

Bees that are on regular foundation; 5.3 or 5.4 , can make better sense
of the cell impression on the 5.1 and will draw it out very nicely accelerating
the regression process.

Whereas going directly to 4.9 , it appears large bees have trouble making sense
of the pattern and will occasionally create a mass of confusion when drawing it
out, sometimes peppered with drone, and various cell sizes. But bees stepped 
to 5.1 first, do a better job with drawing it out correctly. 

Ferals, being generally of smaller sizes, may be able to make the step 
right to 4.9 with better success.

I would like to see a 5.0 foundation made, as this is ‘center size’ for most remote 
ferals in our area. It is often said by Dee Lusby that you 'need a top tolerance of 4.9 for best control', but I have found that with accompanying varroa tolerance traits, such as
that I am finding in remote ferals, you need NOT go to 4.9 , it appears
5.0 is fine, and the ferals here bees prefer drawing that size and also do 
well on the 5.1 foundation with sufficient varroa suppression traits.

Best Wishes.

Joe Waggle ~ 
Feralbeeproject.com
http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/HistoricalHoneybeeArticles

“Keep plenty of cows and bees, as
the surest way of having milk and
honey. Confine your cows with a
good fence but let your bees go at
large.” -American Farmer, ‘Hints to 
Farmers‘ - 1831


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

Now that you've entirely changed the question, it looks more like:

"If bees are naturally smaller why didn't anyone notice? Also why are the bee scientist saying they are larger?"

Something like that?


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

Keith Benson said:


> It *proves *nothing, but it does suggest that the protection afforded by small or natural cells are not necessarily the godsend some folks make it out to be, Keith


Very well said!

I don’t like the suggestions out there that you can throw any 
old crappy bee on small cell and neglect the genetic component. 

I'm not in agreement those that state small cell as the protector of
all, and I do not agree small cell in itself provides a sufficient varroa 
suppression mechanism needed to 'out compete'. And I think its
a shame it has been promoted as such, because it is only a ‘part’
of the solution. 

If I may explain:
Yes, small cell may provide a sufficient suppression of varroa.
BUT they will loose out to bees also having a balanced
array of the 6 known varroa suppression mechanisms, 
not OVER WEIGHT on a singe such as small cell.

Joe


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

BWrangler said:


> Hi Guys,
> 
> Other's have reported a resurgence of feral bees in California, the southeastern US. And in upstate NY.
> 
> ...


I would like to report a resurgence 
of feral bees in South West 
Pennsylvania also. 

Joe


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

*brain hurt!*



BWrangler said:


> as bees are very simple creatures





Keith Benson said:


> Yep, bees is complicated


Doh!!!!! You guys are making my brain hurt.


----------



## Jack Grimshaw (Feb 10, 2001)

Is there any way we can delete from this thread any posts relating to the LC vs SC debate?

When I first saw this poll and responded,I made a few quick assumpsions: 
Varroa = The mites AND the viruses they vector
LC = regular,off the shelf,non-measured foundation
Treatments = Chemicals (Apistan,Check-mite,antibiotics,Thymol,FGMO,acids,powdered sugar,Sumac seedhead smoke,sheep dip,etc
Non-issue = What mites?
minor problem = Have mites.Make honey.Lose hives.Make nucs.Life goes on.
Main problem = I can't sleep at night,trying to think of a way to kill the B*&%$#@!
Huge problem = Chicken Little We won't have bees anymore!!

I honestly answered the poll(#2) before reading MB's descriptive 2nd post;which,I suspect,many others did.Now,I think I am closer to #3,but can not change my vote.

So, I think this poll is slightly skewed towards the "no problem" side.

But this doesn't change the fact that there are beeks out there who don't treat with chems but still have bees,still make some honey,still lose hives but are breeding from their survivors.

And I think the numbers are increasing.Last summer,at an EAS presentation(Jim Tew Comedy Hour) someone polled the room on chem use.1/4 of the room claimed to use no chems.We were all amazed as we looked around.We all thought we were alone,but it's become a movement.I feel an increasingly successful movement.

Disclaimer:
I don't make my living with bees.I could lose them all this winter and start over next spring .I wouldn't like it.
30-40% loss is acceptable now,knowing that my hives are clean.
I do not hesitate to burn or destroy bees and equipment.As a result,I have little to no disease.
My hives are isolated and yards small.Not many other beekeepers near by.
I breed from my survivors,but do bring in new genetic material every year.


LC vs SC Even Dee said cell size is only part of the answer!!

Jack


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

{1/4 of the room claimed to use no chems}

The word "claimed' is the key!


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Mike said "4.4mm to 5.2mm in the core of the brood nest." Which is a very wide range, and seems to be a significant
retreat from prior statements made by other small cell folks,
like Dee Lusby. 

http://www.bushfarms.com/beesnaturalcell.htm#whatarenaturalsizedcells

It's no retreat. I've had the numbers 4.6mm to 5.1mm posted on this page of my site since July of 2005. Since then I've seen as small as 4.4mm and as large as 5.2mm but most tend to be closer to 4.9mm. This is not a change. This is what I've been saying for years. Dee has mapped a lot of it based on people's measurements and says it runs larger as you move away from the equator.

Dee's bees do not have much variance in cell size. Even the ferals she does cut outs from have remarkably consistent cell size around 4.8mm to 4.9mm.

>...given that large cell foundation tends to run just under 5.4mm...

Typical large cell, is not LESS than 5.4mm. In the US most of the wax is exactly 5.4mm and some of it is 5.45mm. I have not found any smaller. Pierco on the other hand is smaller. Some of the European I've seen is 5.5mm

http://www.bushfarms.com/beesnaturalcell.htm#foundationtoday

>given that we lack a time machine, and must look at present-day
bees.

Actually there are many historical measurements, but I'm certainly in favor of and have encouraged measuring natural comb every chance anyone gets.

>why hasn't anyone asked why the ferals became practically non-existent during the nineties, if natural cell size is the answer to mites.

It's been asked and answered many times.

http://www.bushfarms.com/beesnaturalcell.htm#feralbees

>in the past and no one ever seems to answer them.

Try a search. I've answered every time I've seen the question.

>I believe that Dee would now say, 4.9 mm "top-tolerance". suggesting that the range is different than that mentioned above. 

In the core of the brood nest, in Southern Arizona.

>I would like to see a 5.0 foundation made, as this is ‘center size’ for most remote
ferals in our area. 

And the size that Dee says is normal for your latitude. Dee has always said the 5.0mm was sufficient to deal with the Varroa, but she had other issues that didn't clear up until she hit 4.9mm.

--------------------------------
So is this gist of the question?

"If bees are naturally smaller why didn't anyone notice? Also why are the bee scientist saying they are larger?"
--------------------------------


----------



## MichaelW (Jun 1, 2005)

Quotes are from various posters. You know who you are.

>Those of us who have spent a lot of time measuring comb have been the first to go public >with it with pictures and all. I still have samples of feral comb to prove it.

OK, lets see it then. I've read your website and posts on here, but I'm not seeing the full data. I hear the summaries of what you see, but how many frames are we talking about? How may colonies? What is the full range of cell size and how many measurements of each? It should be easy to put into a table or spreadsheet if not already in that.

>Is there any way we can delete from this thread any posts relating to the LC vs SC debate?

Nope, you've stepped into the LC-SC debate. Here you can't simply have a discussion without emotional intersections, it must instead be 'kicked up' a notch. Its not like a simple question is asked like, "does Checkmite kill mites and are there any side effects?". Instead you get into this whole dynamic that is highly attached to emotional connections. The lack of emotion in science is a nice break from such things. You simply ask a question and try to answer it with an unbiased approach.

Which brings up the conversation about treatments. Nope I'm not kidding Bill, sunlight vs. no sunlight could be considered a treatment. Which one you want to consider the treated group is up to you, but to do the statistics, you have to assign 'treated' to one of the groups. Simple really. If your context is something other then science, then no, sunlight may not be considered a treatment.

>Dennis's comments

I won't paste your comments Dennis, but once again there is a lighted beacon on the small cell isle of the chapel.

>Yes, small cell may provide a sufficient suppression of varroa.
>BUT they will loose out to bees also having a balanced
>array of the 6 known varroa suppression mechanisms,
>not OVER WEIGHT on a singe such as small cell.

May I ask what the 6 steps are? I don't have to attend any meetings where I stand up and admit to something, do I? On a more serious note, if small cell is one of those '6 steps' shouldn't you be able to isolate small cell from the 6 steps and have some measurable effect due to the cell size? If not, lets hypothetically say we contrived a very complicated experiment with 6 treatments and measured an interaction effect that was significant. Some of those effects by themselves where not significant however. It would be a reasonable thing to isolate the steps (treatments) from the 6 step process that where significant, and see if using those, or one of those, by themselves would be enough to be effective. That way a 6 step process might be simplified down to 2 or 3 steps and we could all move along allot easier then.


----------



## WVbeekeeper (Jun 4, 2007)

>I would like to see a 5.0 foundation made, as this is ‘center size’ for most remote ferals in our area.

Kelly's foundation looks to be about 5.05mm and is what I have been using when
not letting them go natural off some starter strips. I have not treated this year 
(no sugar dusting, no chemicals or miticides, no drone brood removal). It has 
been near 60 degrees here today so I decided to quickly check out each colony.
All colonies are very alive, have ample stores, and each have a nice cluster 
though I imagine the cluster is somewhat expanded due to the warmer weather.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

WVbeekeeper said:


> Kelly's foundation looks to be about 5.05mm and is what I have been using when
> not letting them go natural off some starter strips. .



Thanks!
I'll check it out.

But by chance, have you or anyone
else here verified this
measuring 10 cells across? 
'center cell wall to center cell wall'?

Best Wishes,
Joe


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

Joel said:


> {1/4 of the room claimed to use no chems}
> 
> The word "claimed' is the key!


Agree!
As well as those claiming to use only
approved treatments are as well making 
a "claim". 

There could have been a 7th question
to weed out all these false 'claimers'

“I have answered all questions truthfully” 

Joe


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Joel said:


> {1/4 of the room claimed to use no chems}
> The word "claimed' is the key!





naturebee said:


> Agree!
> As well as those claiming to use only
> approved treatments are as well making
> a "claim".


I find this suspicion disheartening. It appears that anyone who hasn't had the same experience or disagrees with you causes you to question their integrity. I read many of Michael Bush's writings and have found that his and my observations are at odds with one another. Yet, not for one moment, do I believe that he is lying.

Those of you who doubt without any evidence only place yourselves under a cloud.


----------



## WVbeekeeper (Jun 4, 2007)

>But by chance, have you or anyone
>else here verified this
>measuring 10 cells across?
>'center cell wall to center cell wall'?

I measured yesterday before I posted. I measured ten across. I had measured it 
before but did so again to make sure before I gave an erroneous statement. I 
measured the foundation and not what my bees have drawn from it. No cell walls
yet on the foundation.


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

{I find this suspicion disheartening. It appears that anyone who hasn't had the same experience or disagrees with you causes you to question their integrity.}

For the record, Joe clearly has supported this concept in his posts.

Dan_ Excuse me if I'm very offended to see you make a statment like this, it really is an unfounded cut on my integrity, especially when you make an unsupported illusion I am Implying anyone is a liar, especially someone I respect as much as MB. I am making a general statement about a claim by a representative 25% of beekeepers at a specific meeting. Read the press anywhere, peoples bees are dying, higher winter losses, PMS, AFB DWV, Nosema, CCD, Trachaels, Varroa - I have to live and speak in the world of what's really going on in our industry, not at the unsubstaniated claims at a beekeeper meeting. I think those who are having this success are the very small minority who have put in a great deal of dedication to this discipline, nothing near 25%. I don't have any concept more than 1 or 2%of beekeepers are succeeding at this at this time.

Your mis-interpretation of my statement is a stretch, I have faith that there are a few who have had this success. MB is at the top of the list, I would include Wrangler and Joe as well. They are less than 1/10% of 1% of this post. Where are the 25% in this group? I've spent considerable time looking at and imploying their techniques as I am able in a commercial operation.  I think a few have developled an overall "geshtalt" management technique, stock and a little luck which combined with possible isolation of location in a smaller operation is resulting in this type of success. I don't believe it is small cell or wintergreen oil or feral stock, I believe it is a combination which comes together with top shelf beekeeping practices. I am well aware all of those I have mentioned are well studied and well versed in a an exceptionally wide variety of methodolgy and work to distill this down to their success. This works much better in an operation where time, personal education of techniques and attention intensity are the general method of operation.

I fully don't believe 25% of any group off beekeepers are MB, Joe or Wrangler or has the experiance, dedication and technique to have this success and if you do then believe that claim, please, do as you ask us and post those results which you base your belief on. 

I have consistently imployed many of their methodolgies and have sacrificed over a 100 hives dedicated to no treatements over the past 5 years. I have ended up with some exceptional stock and many, many valuable albeit costly lessons. Some of those success and failures are posted here. I've given and will continue to pay my pound of flesh for better beekeeping ideals!

My evidence, Many, many beekeepers I know, this post, the press, Several Bee inspectors, personal experiance. 

I challenge you to find a post, in 2600 + where I said what MB, Joe and others are doing is not possible!

Despite your observation I look up and don't see this "Cloud".


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Joel said:


> {I find this suspicion disheartening. It appears that anyone who hasn't had the same experience or disagrees with you causes you to question their integrity.}
> 
> I fully don't believe 25% of any group off beekeepers are MB, Joe or Wrangler or has the experiance, dedication and technique to have this success and if you do then believe that claim, please, do as you ask us and post those results which you base your belief on.
> 
> ...


I believe that you have made my point for me. That 25% have had a different experience than you, so you think they are being untruthful.

I wasn't suggesting that you didn't believe MB. I know better than that. I was pointing out that although my experiences were quite different from his I didn't think he was untruthful. You see, just because someone gets different results than I doesn't have anything to do with their veracity.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

beemandan said:


> I find this suspicion disheartening. It appears that anyone who hasn't had the same experience or disagrees with you causes you to question their integrity.
> 
> 
> > If you are referring to my post.
> ...


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

naturebee said:


> I merely suggest that the word “claimed”
> as stated by Joel can be used both ways.


I clearly misunderstood your post then. What 'both' ways are you referring to?


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

Joel said:


> Dan_ Excuse me if I'm very offended to see you make a statment like this, it really is an unfounded cut on my integrity, especially when you make an unsupported illusion I am Implying anyone is a liar, especially someone I respect as much as MB. I am making a general statement about a claim by a representative 25% of beekeepers at a specific meeting. ".


Why do you slant what people say in
such a manner? 

I made NO such comment concerning your integrity,
or call anyone a liar!!!

Same as you have:
“I am making a general statement about a claim”
that a claim is ALWAYS subject to a persons 
willingness to believe them.

I did not intend for you to interpret the freakish
manner that you have,,,
NOR did I intend it to be interpret that way.

It was a:
“a general statement about a claim”


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

naturebee said:


> Why do you slant what people say in
> such a manner?
> 
> I made NO such comment concerning your integrity,
> ...


That really clears it up for me.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

beemandan said:


> I clearly misunderstood your post then. What 'both' ways are you referring to?



By Joel saying:

"The word "claimed' is the key!"

Is implying that people “claimed” to keep bees
without treatments must somehow be lying.

I am simply pointing out that this can also be applied as a “general statement” 
to those claiming they are keeping bees successfully with approved treatments. 

“I am making a general statement about a claim.”
A claim is ALWAYS subject to the other persons 
willingness to believe.

Why would you and Joel take offence to a “general statement”
and you expect others not to when statments like that are
made in kind? 

If this is offensive to you guys, then was well you must have 
realized this and ment it as offensive to us in calling us liars.

Is whats good for the goose, good for the gander? 

You guys could use a little sensitivity training.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Joe, You may want to go back and review the posts. Joel is on your side.


----------



## odfrank (May 13, 2002)

*I claim to be keeping bees without treatments*

And I am not lying. Of course, about half have already died and are stacked on top of the other ones. And those clusters as big as a silver dollar with a good queen in the middle ....aren't they a disheartening sight? 
One good thing about all those dead hives... sure makes it easy to sort out bad combs, scrape those dirty bottom boards and keep everything painted up to date.
How do you guys melt combs in the winter when the solar melter is on vacation?


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

beemandan said:


> Joe, You may want to go back and review the posts. Joel is on your side.


Too late now,
the arguments started. LOL


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

odfrank said:


> And I am not lying. Of course, about half have already died and are stacked on top of the other ones. And those clusters as big as a silver dollar with a good queen in the middle ....aren't they a disheartening sight?
> One good thing about all those dead hives... sure makes it easy to sort out bad combs, scrape those dirty bottom boards and keep everything painted up to date.
> How do you guys melt combs in the winter when the solar melter is on vacation?


I too, have talked to a number of beeks who 'claim' to keep bees without treatments. Many will quickly acknowledge that their losses are high but they are committed and believe that it is worth the price.
Do you plan to treat next season? 50% loss is pretty high.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

naturebee said:


> You guys could use a little sensitivity training.


You're probably right. No one has ever suggested that I was sensitive.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

naturebee said:


> Too late now,
> the arguments started. LOL


A good beekeeper's brawl is slways a grand sight to see.


----------



## odfrank (May 13, 2002)

I have not treated for three or four years, since I had fifty percent loss anyway with Apistan. I rebuild each spring with bait hives that often produce a late crop and divides made with purchased queens. Another benefit of dead hives - lots of good bait combs for spring. Works for a hobbiest.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

beemandan said:


> I too, have talked to a number of beeks who 'claim' to keep bees without treatments. Many will quickly acknowledge that their losses are high but they are committed and believe that it is worth the price.
> Do you plan to treat next season? 50% loss is pretty high.


Yes, 50% is high, but no where near the 90 to 100% losses I was 
experiencing in the late 90’s

Losses will be high in the beginning, because you are turning responsibility
over to the bees for taking care of themselves, and some lines just 
aren’t fit for it. 

After 5 years or so with no treatments and intense selection,
my losses may vary around 10% a season, and thats acceptable to
me. But I am on the stricter end as I do not feed and choose 
not to support bees which cannot support themselves.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

beemandan said:


> A good beekeeper's brawl is slways a grand sight to see.



Some would not call me a "Good beekeeper".


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

"believe that you have made my point for me. That 25% have had a different experience than you, so you think they are being untruthful.

Dan, ( I include this so Joe doesn't get further confused  )

I thought I clearly stated this is not my point. It's not based on MY experiance. This is the evidence I'm offering. I've had conversations with several bee inspectors about this concept in depth. All look (or have looked at several thousand hives a year, been in the bis for a couple of decades, run their own operations ). Without exception they have been of the opinion keeping bees today without treatments, in our part of the globe, is not realistic. I read the Journals religiously, every new piece of science I can find, and yes count my own experiance (50 -70%+) losses in untreated hives wintered in the north annually). I read and converse with a large number of beekeeprs here, on Bee-l and occaisionally other posts. I have many friends who keep bees from here to SC. I'm making the statement based on a wide array of good information I've searched out is overwhelmingly against the likelyhood that 25% of any representative beekeepers anywhere in the US are able to keep bees (successfully which may be my mis-interpretation) without the use of treatments. 

That does not discount it is possible , I don't believe the 25% claim. If that means I'm saying someone is untruthful well that just couldn't be true in any group of beekeepers could it.

I'm asking for the evidence you have to purport your belief these beekeepers are doing what they say. (Other than your goodness and belief in good human nature which I have always respected)? Are we debating feelings or facts?

I have no problem with the debate side of this, I think in light of my history here, for dan to say that I would question someones integrity because they had a different experiance than me is out of line and out of character for him. I consider my experiance and proficiency in beekeeping much lower than many I post with here and many I interact with personally.


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

"As well as those claiming to use only
approved treatments are as well making 
a "claim".

Agreed Joe, in this case I'll just come out and say it, alot of these guys are just plain not telling the truth, at least to people they don't know well. Any I've known personally have been truthful in sharing what they use (or in some case using an approved treatment contrary to law) , I will say that. It's less so with "outsiders"

Dan, do you think we should believe the beeks Joe speaks of as well?


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Joel said:


> "believe that you have made my point for me. That 25% have had a different experience than you, so you think they are being untruthful.
> 
> Dan, ( I include this so Joe doesn't get further confused


Good idea Joel.




Joel said:


> That does not discount it is possible , I don't believe the 25% claim. If that means I'm saying someone is untruthful well that just couldn't be true in any group of beekeepers could it.
> 
> I'm asking for the evidence you have to purport your belief these beekeepers are doing what they say. (Other than your goodness and belief in good human nature which I have always respected)? Are we debating feelings or facts?


The reality is that neither you nor I have any facts regarding this particular group of beekeepers. You said it yourself ‘That does not discount it is possible’. So, since we don’t have any facts we must be debating feelings.
I do indeed, have a fundamental trust in human nature. I believe that the great majority of people will tell the truth, especially if there isn’t any good reason for them to be untruthful. Do you see any good reason that those 25% would lie?

I understand the challenges facing beekeepers who don't use chemicals. I understand the opinions of inspectors, commercial beekeepers and all the rest. I also know beekeepers that 'are' chemical and treatment free. It isn't a claim....it is a fact. I've seen it with my own two (actually four) eyes. It doesn't require small cell. As I suspect many successful small cell beekeepers are successful in large part because of their skills and the genetics they've collected, so too are those using traditional cell.

So, really, there isn't anything to debate. You and I will probably always disagree on the inherent honesty of those around us.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

WVbeekeeper said:


> >
> I measured yesterday before I posted. I measured ten across. I had measured it
> before but did so again to make sure before I gave an erroneous statement. I
> measured the foundation and not what my bees have drawn from it. No cell walls
> yet on the foundation.



Measure from foundation would be best.

I'll have to check out Kellys foundation!

Thanks
Joe


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Joel said:


> "As well as those claiming to use only
> approved treatments are as well making
> a "claim".
> 
> Agreed Joe, in this case I'll just come out and say it, alot of these guys are just plain not telling the truth, at least to people they don't know well.


This is an interesting point, Joel. Who would ask these people in a public forum if they were using unapproved compounds? It'd be a pretty foolish question. They would likely perceive the honest answer as a threat to their livelihood. Wouldn’t you agree?



Joel said:


> Any I've known personally have been truthful in sharing what they use (or in some case using an approved treatment contrary to law) , I will say that. It's less so with "outsiders".


Ok, so when they’re under no threat they will answer honestly.



Joel said:


> Dan, do you think we should believe the beeks Joe speaks of as well?


I reckon that if it comes down to answering a foolishly asked question in a public forum that could easily result in an expensive fine, they’d probably ignore the question. Do you really believe that we are comparing two similar situations?

So, what threat was there to the 25% who said they didn’t treat? What was their motive for lying?


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

*Jim’s cell size measurements question.*

I'll try addressing, as best I can, what I think are Jim's implicit and explicit issues on cell size measurements in separate posts.

Also the issue of differences in observations seems applicable to the current discussion on this thread and to Jim’s question so I have posted this topic as well, which might be the best place to start:

Differences in Observations.

Followed by posts under these topics:

Historic Cell Size measurements.
Modern Cell Size measurements.


It seems like they are more general topics so I posted them in the Bee Forum


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

MB-well made points I can't disagree with. However your logic leads to the same premises as mine. People asked questions are sometimes untruthful for various motivations. I think there are a certain number of people who will raise a hand to have the appearance of taking the high road, some people may have different concepts of what treatements are (as has been argued here) a very few people are inherently not honest.

All the evidence I have considered in reaching my conclusion, which I've openly offered, say it's unlikely 25% of beekeepers are proficient enough or able due to other circumstances, to keep bees without treatments. Frankly some of strongest information clearly states it's neither realistic or practical.

Despite that I will still continue to try every non-treatment approach I can apply in my operation to work towards the goal I believe a very few have achieved. I will continue to respect Dan's opinion. I will also live and work in the reality of what a difficult industry this has become to keep bees alive in at any level and accept that my experiance with human natures has put me in close contact with 1000's of people every year in my day job and my Bee job and my lessons about human nature are pretty valid as well.

The fact is neither Dan or I know, so I guess it is a mute argument


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Joel said:


> very few people are inherently not honest.


I''d have to disagree with you on that. "Inherently" we're all dishonest. It takes a lot of training for us all to be honest. It doesn't come naturally. As it relates to this topic, there are a lot of grey areas with the question. Understanding the dynamics at work with this discussion is enlightening.

Regards,
Barry


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Barry said:


> "Inherently" we're all dishonest. It takes a lot of training for us all to be honest.


Now I'm truly bummed!!!!!
You see, I believe that it is exactly the opposite. Small children are usually so honest that it frequently gets them in trouble. So, they learn when to lie to avoid problems.


----------



## Bizzybee (Jan 29, 2006)

There you go running in the invisible mode again beeman! geese...... 

Think I'll have to agree with you. Children are taught to be dishonest by their parents and society, punishing their honesty. Tell me it isn't true by your own statement Barry, that it isn't training but courage that's required to be honest. Saying what others want to hear to win their approval of ones self. Or risk being chastised for your honesty should your belief or opinion differ. 

Two of the most important defining characters which a person is judged by their peers is the strength of honesty and admittance when they are wrong. And I would say the lack of those qualities casts a dark shadow over the rest of their character.

But I believe I choose to follow beeman in following the belief that most people are truthful, and by giving them that chance up front encourages them to do so. Versus having them believe that I don't trust them, encouraging them to conform to my own ideals.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Well Biz, I'm glad you had your secret decoder eyeglasses on. I needed someone to come to the rescue. I've been outnumbered here now for a couple of days. I thought it'd calmed down then Barry has to jump in. I gotta tell ya it aint a pretty sight....especially right here at Christmas.
Y'all have a great Christmas.....even those of ya that don't think so highly of your fellow man.


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

Beemandan - You're never outnumbered when you are applying the logic of positive thinking and faith in human nature. I may disagree about the percentage but I respect the thought process that brought you to your conclusions. (However erroneous they may be  )


----------



## Bizzybee (Jan 29, 2006)

Peace, good tidings and joy? Kinda takes on a whole new meaning when you've been told in so many words you're believed to be a liar huh. 

Guess we may be "wrong" beeman, but you know what they say. Ignorance is bliss!! 

Hope you have a Wonderful Christmas as well!!!


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

beemandan said:


> Small children are usually so honest that it frequently gets them in trouble. So, they learn when to lie to avoid problems.


I don't think learning enters into the picture at all. Who do you know that teaches these kids to lie? No one taught me to lie. I managed it quite well on my own. I do remember many a times growing up where I was "disciplined" (for those who shudder at the thought of being spanked with a belt . . . and I still love my dad!) for lying. In fact we have such a bent towards lying that we have to swear an oath before a judge that we won't lie when we're in their courtroom. Been there, done that.

Small children also wet the bed and do a lot of other things that don't represent their true nature till they get a bit older.

pssst . . . . it's called the sin nature.

That's what I believe anyway.

- Barry


----------



## Robert Brenchley (Apr 23, 2000)

Kids mostly lie because they're scared, or because they've seen others, often their parents, doing it. They soon learn. You can't ultimately prove it either way though, since by the time they're old enough to lie, they've had time to learn a fair bit. Some people lie for no real reason, and thay're real hard to fathom. Fortunately there aren't many of them.

I haven't seen anything to suggest that the people who say they don't treat, or at least the ones I've talked to, have been in any way dishonest. It's not always clear why their bees don't die out, though I think hygienic behaviour has at least as much to do with it as cell size. All I'm saying on the latter is that from what I've seen, bees appear to be more hygienic on smaller comb. At the moment I've got a right mix of cell sizes, I do treat, and I've been surprised how few mites have fallen out after my recent treatment with oxalic.


----------



## tecumseh (Apr 26, 2005)

barry writes"
In fact we have such a bent towards lying that we have to swear an oath before a judge that we won't lie when we're in their courtroom. Been there, done that.

tecumseh ask a simple question:
and you believe because someone does put their hand on the bible and swears that what they are about to say is the whole truth and nothing but the truth that what come out of their mouth is 100% the truth, no fudging, not crossed finger or crossed toes.... correct? 

tecumseh drifts somewhat back to the threads topic (not really but I will give it my best shot)...

one consideration so far overlooked in large cell vs small cell question is the direct selection (over some considerable time) for larger queens. I don't think I have seen this discussed here (and most definitely point me in the proper direction if I am wrong). since small cell would seem (quessing here) to imply smaller queens then this would seem to imply lower production rates (lower egg laying potential).

speculating again... since european bees were spread over much of the world by man (and thereby some man made selection was incorporated in the process) this might also explain why honey bees could be somewhat larger when left to themselves. the statistical rule of 'reversion to the mean' however would suggest that they would (should) fall back towards some mean tendency. I suspect a lot of the problem is people have finally begun to realize that all those old number that they memorized in school were actually only central tendencies and the a lot of whooping and hollaring is taking place because they have only now realized that the world is a place of considerable variation (plus central tendency).


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

tecumseh said:


> barry writes"
> In fact we have such a bent towards lying that we have to swear an oath before a judge that we won't lie when we're in their courtroom. Been there, done that.
> 
> tecumseh ask a simple question:
> and you believe because someone does put their hand on the bible and swears that what they are about to say is the whole truth and nothing but the truth that what come out of their mouth is 100% the truth, no fudging, not crossed finger or crossed toes.... correct?


No! Which says even more about mans penchant for altering the truth.

- Barry


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

I think the initial attempt in this thread was worthwhile, but this thread seems to have gone downhill in a hurry. A few problems I see in this thread:

First, the beekeepers who respond to this poll choose to respond to this poll, and choose how they respond to this poll. Whether or not you believe 'em is up to you. Frankly, I believe that those who respond that they have bees on "large cell" and do not treat probably have bees on "large cell" and likely do not treat. Why even bother responding, otherwise?

The next problem still comes about in defining "treatments." As others have pointed out, in scientific studies, any grouping constitutes a "treatment"; i.e., a "treatment" does not have to "treat" for anything, just represent a different form of a variable. If I compare Carniolans to Italians in a scientific study, "Carniolans" represent a "treatment," and "Italians" represent a "treatment."

But even on a practical scale, where do "treatments" begin and end? Synthetic chemical compounds? Naturally-occurring chemical compounds? Food grade products?Management styles? Manipulations? Mechanical methods? These become difficult to define. In my opinion, using chemicals of any sort (including powdered sugar and oxalic acid and coumaphos and fluvalinate and mineral oil and so forth) is a "treatment," both scientifically and practically. _Why_ are you doing what you're doing? (For instance, if you're sprinkling powdered sugar on your bees simply because the appearance of "flocked" bees makes you giggle, your "treatment" may be inadvertent if it's a "treatment" at all. If you use screened bottom boards to improve ventilation, you're not seeking to "treat" your bees for mites by using the bottom boards.)

So, beekeepers who reduce the size of the cells available in their bees' combs in efforts to control mite populations are "treating," in my opinion.

The questions about cell size in "feral" bees and bees that have never been domesticated are valid, as far as I'm concerned. I see no reason to disparage those questions, either way. 

However, from my understanding of insect physiology, _if_ smaller cell sizes actually reduce the developmental period of bees significantly, then those bees will also likely be significantly different physically than bees with longer developmental periods. In this case, if SC bees spend less time in their cells (thereby reducing the time for mite reproduction), then the size of the cell is playing a role in limiting the development (i.e., the immature bees run out of room, so must "move on" to the next stage earlier than than their larger counterparts). If that's true, than SC bees as adults should be significantly smaller even as adults than their LC counterparts. Follow so far? So, an easy test should be to scoop up a random assemblage of bees from a hive and measure them. LC bees should average larger than SC bees. And, historic measurements can be compared because specimens of honey bees that were collected more than 150 years ago still exist in some insect collections.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Kieck said:


> So, an easy test should be to scoop up a random assemblage of bees from a hive and measure them. LC bees should average larger than SC bees. And, historic measurements can be compared because specimens of honey bees that were collected more than 150 years ago still exist in some insect collections.


Actually, the UGA/Berry study did measure bee weights. The small cell bees were 'lighter'.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

Well, then, SC bees should be smaller physically than LC bees if they are "lighter," right?

So, physical appearance may be used to differentiate true "SC" bees from "LC" bees, right? The SC bees should be smaller than the LC bees.

And, historic differences should be distinguishable. Very old specimens of honey bees in collections ("pre-commercial cell," if you will) should be smaller than modern LC bees. Right?


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Kieck said:


> I think the initial attempt in this thread was worthwhile, but this thread seems to have gone downhill in a hurry. A few problems I see in this thread:
> 
> First, the beekeepers who respond to this poll choose to respond to this poll, and choose how they respond to this poll. Whether or not you believe 'em is up to you. Frankly, I believe that those who respond that they have bees on "large cell" and do not treat probably have bees on "large cell" and likely do not treat. Why even bother responding, otherwise?


If this is in response to my post #88,
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showpost.php?p=281173&postcount=88
please keep in mind that I was responding to a statement that was made about people in general and thus my remarks were general in nature also. Not about this thread per se.

- Barry


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Kieck said:


> Well, then, SC bees should be smaller physically than LC bees if they are "lighter," right?


Yes, at emergence. You would have to compare LC and SC bees at the same early stage to get accurate measurements. At various times of the year, LC and SC bees will look the same. I don't know if it is simply that the queen of a SC hive lays in larger cells at certain times of the year or if the SC bees themselves get bigger certain times of the year.

- Barry


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

> If this is in response to my post #88,. . . -Barry


No. It was my gut response to the posts about "claims" and accuracy of such claims. While I agree with much of what was written about "claims being just claims," I doubt a beekeeper would be so deliberately misleading about this particular poll. As far as I can tell, who responded what in the poll isn't even revealed (unless the participant chooses to reveal by posting additional information).



> Yes, at emergence. -Barry


No. Any time during the adult span of a bee's life. See, unlike mammals, insects' growth is constrained by their chitinous exoskeleton. In order to grow, they must molt their exoskeleton. They can expand and contract minorly (the membranes between sclerites allow some expansion and contraction), but the sclerites do not change in size. So, if you measured a sclerotized portion of a bee's anatomy -- say, the head capsule, or the thoracic nota, or the abdominal sclerites -- the measurement will remain consistent throughout the adult stage.



> I don't know if it is simply that the queen of a SC hive lays in larger cells at certain times of the year or if the SC bees themselves get bigger certain times of the year. -Barry


But wouldn't the queen laying in larger cells defeat any advantage in _Varroa_ control caused by smaller cell sizes?


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Kieck said:


> [I don't know if it is simply that the queen of a SC hive lays in larger cells at certain times of the year or if the SC bees themselves get bigger certain times of the year. -Barry]
> 
> But wouldn't the queen laying in larger cells defeat any advantage in _Varroa_ control caused by smaller cell sizes?


If it is fact that a bee does not change in size at all during it's life, then the size difference must come from the queen laying in different cell sizes. I know both Dennis and I have talked at length about observing our SC bees at different times of the year and notice them beeing the smallest early spring and early winter. Once the main flow is on, we could not tell the SC from the LC bees.

As long as the queen uses the SC at the appropriate times of year, varroa will be kept in check. That is my theory.

- Barry


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

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


----------



## NeilV (Nov 18, 2006)

Could the bees bee smaller early and late in the year because during those times the queen is laying in the core of the brood nest, as opposed to in slightly cells that alternate between honey storage and brood?


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

The Poll indicates about half the respondents keep bees on large cell with no treatments, I think many did not read the fine print at the top (me included)?


----------



## BULLSEYE BILL (Oct 2, 2002)

Barry said:


> Yes, at emergence. You would have to compare LC and SC bees at the same early stage to get accurate measurements. At various times of the year, LC and SC bees will look the same. I don't know if it is simply that the queen of a SC hive lays in larger cells at certain times of the year or if the SC bees themselves get bigger certain times of the year.
> 
> - Barry


I keep coming back to nutrition and the available fresh food at those times of the year.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

ndvan said:


> Could the bees bee smaller early and late in the year because during those times the queen is laying in the core of the brood nest, as opposed to in slightly cells that alternate between honey storage and brood?


I think that is what I/we are saying.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Joel said:


> The Poll indicates about half the respondents keep bees on large cell with no treatments, I think many did not read the fine print at the top (me included)?


That, or just a whole lot of lyin' goin' on. How do you reckon it is that so many lc folks have a tendency to be untruthful yet we can explicitly trust the sc crowd to be shootin' straight?


----------



## BULLSEYE BILL (Oct 2, 2002)

*What the pole tells me*

Is if the 46 respondents are all using large cell and are not treating at all, 34 of them are not having any serious problems with mites.

I think by observations I have made with my bees and the testimonials written on this forum, that bees in general, especially those off treatment, are beginning to get a foothold in being able to deal with mites. Perhaps resistance is not futile.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Kieck said:


> No. Any time during the adult span of a bee's life. See, unlike mammals, insects' growth is constrained by their chitinous exoskeleton. In order to grow, they must molt their exoskeleton. They can expand and contract minorly (the membranes between sclerites allow some expansion and contraction), but the sclerites do not change in size. So, if you measured a sclerotized portion of a bee's anatomy -- say, the head capsule, or the thoracic nota, or the abdominal sclerites -- the measurement will remain consistent throughout the adult stage.


Kieck -

What is your response to this info MB sited in regards to what you said?

- Barry

-----------
Apidologie 37 (2006) 665-672 
DOI: 10.1051/apido:2006041

The influence of small-cell brood combs on the morphometry of honeybees (Apis mellifera)

John B. McMullan and Mark J.F. Brown

School of Natural Sciences, Department of Zoology, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin 2, Ireland 

(Received 19 July 2005 - Revised 23 January 2006 - Accepted 31 January 2006 - published online 17 October 2006)

Abstract - Until the late 1800s honeybees in Britain and Ireland were raised in brood cells of circa 5.0 mm width. By the 1920s this had increased to circa 5.5 mm. We undertook this study to find out if present-day honeybees could revert to the cell-size of the 1800s and to evaluate resulting changes in honeybee morphometry. Seven measurements were made; head width, radial cell length, trachea diameter, cubital index, discoidal shift, bee mass and abdominal markings. The study showed that the colonies of Apis mellifera mellifera bees had no apparent difficulty in drawing out the wax and raising brood in the reduced brood cells. Bees reared in these cells were significantly smaller, but this reduction was not in proportion (<20%) to the change in the brood-cell size in contrast to the strongly proportional relationship in other bee strains. Also the ratio of thorax width to cell width (`fill factor') was much larger in the Apis mellifera mellifera strain.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Barry said:


> The study showed that the colonies of Apis mellifera mellifera bees had no apparent difficulty in drawing out the wax and raising brood in the reduced brood cells. Bees reared in these cells were significantly smaller, but this reduction was not in proportion (<20%) to the change in the brood-cell size in contrast to the strongly proportional relationship in other bee strains.



Keep in mind that very few, if any, US beekeepers are using Apis mellifera mellifera. These are, if I remember correctly, what are referred to as German black bees. A naturally smaller bee than most. Actually, in my opinion, one of the few that might produce 4.9mm cells as their natural cell size (the other being AHB).


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

> What is your response to this info MB sited in regards to what you said? -Barry


I think it backs up what I suggested very nicely. Don't you?

The authors of the study found that bees raised in smaller cells were significantly smaller than bees raised in larger cells.

The difference was less than 20%, but I can tell bees apart that differ by 20% in size while I'm in the field, without other bees for comparison. If you had a bee that was 4/5 the size of a second bee, couldn't you tell a difference between them?

The proportion would be the same as detecting a difference in height between a man standing 6'6" and a man standing 5'3".

So we get back to Jim Fischer's comments about bees in unmanaged situations. Wild honey bees in Africa, for instance, should be much smaller than our "commercial-sized" bees here. Same with bees raised in SC here in the U. S.

And, along those same lines, the bees you see coming from "SC hives" that are the same size as their "LC" counterparts must have been raised in larger cells, either in those "SC" hives, or in other hives before drifting it.

So, then, what advantage would smaller cell sizes have against mites?


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Kieck said:


> And, along those same lines, the bees you see coming from "SC hives" that are the same size as their "LC" counterparts must have been raised in larger cells, either in those "SC" hives, or in other hives before drifting it.
> 
> So, then, what advantage would smaller cell sizes have against mites?


I gave you the reason here:

http://www.beesource.com/forums/showpost.php?p=284264&postcount=104

"As long as the queen uses the SC at the appropriate times of year, varroa will be kept in check."


----------



## MichaelW (Jun 1, 2005)

Also, the Apidilogie article says nothing about bees growing in size as adults. If you are seeing larger bees in your hives later in the year, its likely due to Bullseye's Bill's observation.


> I keep coming back to nutrition and the available fresh food at those times of the year.


You also need to actually read that Apidlogie article. Just saying %20 size difference is skewing what they found a little bit. There are specific morphological measurements they took and some of those have more difference than others. You can summarize that there is a %20 difference, but it doesn't necessarily mean you could tell the difference just by looking at them with your eyes.

I think the article is interesting and makes common sense. The size of the stick for stick nesting bees can effect the size of the bee. But, note in this paper they state that the size difference in the honey bees is not to the degree as expected when comparing to other species of bees raised in different 'cell' sizes.

In case your curious,
The same researchers found no effect of cell size on Tracheal mites.
Neither study says anything about Varroa.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

> "As long as the queen uses the SC at the appropriate times of year, varroa will be kept in check." -Barry


Yeah, I read that, but I didn't put much stock in it. See, the way I see it, your statement presumes that the queens can reason well enough to foresee that _Varroa_ will be a problem, plan accordingly to avoid such a problem, and their reasoning and planning holds together.

Could be. I don't know. I have no way of testing such a theory. I doubt anyone has much chance of testing such a theory.

But why wouldn't queens on "large cell" be just as intellegent? Why wouldn't the queens on LC figure out that they need some smaller cells at those opportune times of year and either 1) "have" the colony rework some of the cells to make smaller cells, or 2) simply not lay any eggs at those times if small cells are not available?



> You also need to actually read that Apidlogie article. -MichaelW


I don't have access to the full text of the link at this time. I'm working on getting the full text.



> Just saying %20 size difference is skewing what they found a little bit. -MichaelW


Maybe a little bit. I would expect, though, that if the difference in size found in the study was, hypothetically, 9.9%, the authors would write about a difference, "<10%." So, the difference must be close to 20%, otherwise the authors probably would have chosen a different value for the abstract.



> There are specific morphological measurements they took and some of those have more difference than others. -MichaelW


Which is where "morphometrics" enter the picture. What this means, though, is that different parts of the anatomy differ in proportion to one another. So, from this statement, this suggests that the smaller bees are not just scaled-down versions of their large-cell counterparts, but differ in proportion. In other words, their wings might be comparatively longer in proportion to their thoraci, or their heads might be broader and not as tall proportionately.



> You can summarize that there is a %20 difference, but it doesn't necessarily mean you could tell the difference just by looking at them with your eyes. -MichaelW


I summarized that the difference in size must be close to 20%. Then I extrapolated (I've measured other insects for similar comparisons, so I have some experience with this sort of thing) and determined that since a 15% difference in size is easily noted (by me) without even having the two side-by-side, I could easily tell a difference in honey bees if the sizes were almost 20% different.



> I think the article is interesting and makes common sense. -MichaelW


From what I've read (the abstract), I agree that this does make common sense. What doesn't make sense to me is where the larger bees would come from in a hive with SC comb. (Not natural comb, small cell comb.)


----------



## MichaelW (Jun 1, 2005)

If memory serves, there was a list of like 10 different morphology measurements. Some had differences greater than %20 and some had less. It averaged out to about %20. 

My point was, if say for example 'bee A' has a 20% longer hind tibia then 'bee B', could you really look at the two bees in your hand and say, "hey, bee A is bigger than bee B." Thats an over simplification, but you'll know what I mean, when you read it. I'm not saying you definitely couldn't tell a difference with the naked eye, but it looks like to me it would be extremely subtle.



> What doesn't make sense to me is where the larger bees would come from in a hive with SC comb. (Not natural comb, small cell comb.)


I think that goes back to the "nutrition/avaliable feed" issue between the seasons. I don't think it has anything to do with cell size.


----------



## MichaelW (Jun 1, 2005)

I just read it again, which emphasizes the need to read articles very carefully! The summary does not say there was a %20 response. No where in the article do they say something of a %20 response or greater in their measurements, which is what I thought I remembered. The biggest response I noticed was up to %10 difference in one factor. Much less difference in other factors. Re-read the introduction. It says what it says, but its easy to think it says something else.


On a related note, it also says there was a difference of about %10 in bee weight, with n= 26. That says what it says. It dosen't say they measured 1000 bees and the difference was %10, it says they measured 26 bees. Thats an important thing to consider when people use scientific article snippits and links to support their 'theories'. Its hard to separate small parts of studies and get the full picture. Its the same when articles reference snippits of other articles. You have to go and read the referenced article to get a better picture of what they are saying. Of course those articles reference other articles too......


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

> My point was, if say for example 'bee A' has a 20% longer hind tibia then 'bee B', could you really look at the two bees in your hand and say, "hey, bee A is bigger than bee B." Thats an over simplification, but you'll know what I mean, when you read it. I'm not saying you definitely couldn't tell a difference with the naked eye, but it looks like to me it would be extremely subtle. -MichaelW


First, let me say that insects tend to be close to proportional, so a bee with a hind tibia that measures about 20 percent longer will also likely have an abdomen that is significantly longer. And a head that's significantly larger, and wings that are significantly large, and so on. So, the bees with hind tibiae (or whatever part) that are 20 percent larger and likely noticeably larger.

If the bees are not proportionate or close to it, I think the differences might be even more obvious. Think of a bee that has legs that are 20 percent shorter, but the rest of the bee is the same size; could you tell a difference between that and a "normal" bee (think "wiener bee")?

Twenty percent (even on average) is a pretty large difference. I believe I've read that the size difference between queens and workers is close to 10 percent.

I'll try to get my hands on the full text.


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

"That, or just a whole lot of lyin' goin' on. How do you reckon it is that so many lc folks have a tendency to be untruthful yet we can explicitly trust the sc crowd to be shootin' straight?"

I only observe the fact that in the orginal poll (I did) on who was keeping bees without treatements, we ran about 25% (the same percentage as in your group survey) and in this poll more than 50% of the respondents indicated they kept bees without treatments. The response of your group and the poll I did coming out at that 25% range was a confirmation to me that I might be misinformed about the number of beeks keeping bees without treatements. The jump to 50% in the present poll presents a conflicting set of facts. When I re-read the orginal post I saw I had responded as someone keeping bees without treatements. I just imagined there could be other people here as stupid or as tired as me when I responded. I was just wondering if something, not lying, but anything had affected the poll. Of course you know that as your repeated posts about your perception of my trust issues are really the point here and not really adding much to the fact finding aspect. Perhaps it did not occur to you that their are a slew of other issues which could affect the outcome of any poll that don't involve any level of untruthfulness by anyone. 

I'm interested in facts, this one especially since I'd love to (and expect everyone) would like to keep bees successfully without treatements. I have no deep dark agenda here, nowhere in my mind am I trying point out any negative human characteristics about any group of people, just looking for facts on who is doing it and how they are doing it. Perhaps as those techniques are posted and I start adopting them we can do a whole set of posts on stealing, which will add as much as the posts on lying, liars and who's lying. Maybe we could be more tolerant of people having opinions, based on a life of personal experiance that is often affected and sometimes changed by what we learn here, once we get the root of the facts. Perhaps we could admit that a poll can be off without anyone not telling the truth. Maybe some people actually do lie. I don't care or judge, I just want to ferret out the facts.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Joel said:


> Perhaps it did not occur to you that their are a slew of other issues which could affect the outcome of any poll that don't involve any level of untruthfulness by anyone.


Actually, that is exactly what I think. It wasn't me who suggested, except tongue in cheek, that anyone was really lying. If you remember, I'm the fellow who genuinely believes that people are truthful. 

When I poke at those who believe otherwise....that's all it is. And, frankly you aren't even the real target of those pokes.


----------

