# An opposing view???



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

I would put the bees on natural cell regardless. It's what they naturally do, so why not? What is the advantage of artificially enlarged bees?

Back before Dee Lusby regressed she had a major outbreak of AFB. She dealt with this the with small cell also with no treatments. She said the secondary diseases didn't go away until she got to 4.9mm. Perhaps some of it is that the genetically weak died out in the process, but it still seems to me that natural sized cells are useful for things beyond Varroa mites and Tracheal mites.

I also notice we haven't heard anymore about the fungus treatment lately, so that must have some complications to work out yet. Maybe they will work them out by fall. Maybe never. I don't plan to hold my breath. I don't think it's good planning to plan for something that isn't here yet and may or may not be here ever when you have a solution that DOES work and IS here (and has been ever since there were bees).


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

So why not? Well, why should I?, Thats a better question. I now have bees with no treatments for three years. I have not had an AFB outbreak, and can not certainly believe that small cell handles AFB. I would ask what Lusby was doing as a professional beekeeper to have a "major" outbreak of a desease that has been around for many years, and thus any beekeeper who knows anything should be able to keep it from reaching "major" levels. You can beleive all that Lusby says, I'll think differently.

Cost and time would be two reasons against smallcell. And if my bees are handling mites and many others are also, than I am certainly not going to do it so I can claim "natural" beekeeping. Preventative swarm management, culling drone comb, replacing comb, feeding, and a host of other item are no more natural. But they do happen.

Using words like "seems" is not really proving a point one way or the other. I think, feel, seem, have a hunch, is crap along with all the other wishy washy claims. And if I have to dissagree with Lusby's other wild claims concerning Africanized honey bees, than everything else should be taken with a grain of salt. Thats my opinion.

I'll say again, there are many beekeepers who have genetic lines handling mites with no chemicals. And there are certainly many options on the market for mite management without smallcell regression that is costly, time consuming and not proven beyond a few claims by those who should be questioned. 

I will state for the record....smallcell will see its share of mite problems in the future. Period. And for most smallcell, it involved new wax comb for regression. I won't bore you with the details of what happens with AFB when you change all your comb over. (But the secret is in the comb, not smaller bees.)

Perhaps in the future, referencing more than the claims by Lusby would be better. I would be interested in studies, and other research if it exists. There has certainly been alot of claims over the years in regards to smallcell. And for every claim that has been made, a claim of bees on this un-naturally enlarged cells, can be claimed just the same.

But the suggestion by you MB, that because you have not heard anything "lately",in regards to the spore research, you automatically suggest that "there MUST be some complications..." only shows the tunnel vision. I once asked you in regards to breeding efforts and even mentioned a few examples, (I believe I referenced the Webb's from Georgia that had been highlighted in one of the mags for one), and you flatly denied ever hearing or reading anything about successes in survivor breeding programs and the many beekeepers who are now many years without chems. Its funny how bad news or information supporting your views are everywhere, but other news is limited.

Taking out the "natural" comment, I see many other ways of keeping bees that are proven beyond commenting and referencing Lusby. Next time your in the area, stop in at my place. I'll show you.

Could you imagine corn as it was 200 years ago. Or the capacity of chickens, or the output of any crops it was in the "natural" time. But for some beekeepers who want to go back to "natural" bees, for no more advantage than is already out there, I find it worthless.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

I am with you 100% BjornBee. 

Micheal, dont get me wrong, if small cell regressing bees works for you then great. The more power to you. And I say that from knowing, well assuming (which seems I do alot), that you mange your bees on the small cell without relying on the exagerted claims made to it. Which will allow you to keep an open mind and keep your bees healthier. Unlike another individual I spoke to, where he might run into a problem down the line with his bees. 

Anyway, there is no one way to keep bees, and every method and inovative idea makes our indurtry stronger.

I am in the idea that it will be genetic selection which saves the day. Infact, where I beekeep here, there are area selected queens that are performing leap and bounds in performance, varroa toleracne, and wintering. I didnt believe the claims till I had seen it in my own bees after bying the queens. Infact I bought them blindly, not knowing thier superiourity, and went back to him to confrount him on what he was doing. It was a russian line crossed with an area selected stock. Hygenic behaviour, gentleness, explosive population, huge honey crop, but my yet to determine wintering ability. But what I am told, they winter well, keeping in mind that "most" of these bees are kept outdoors. Apperently it is a group of beekeepers in this project, and many rairly treat for varroa, in the last three years. They monitor intensively, pratically speaking. I knew they were working on this project few years back, but never really thought they would get this far so quickly. Guess where I am getting my queens next year,..
I totally belive queen suppliers with their mite tolerance claims, after experienceing these queens.

What I am trying to say, is I think selected stock will be the answer to our pest problems. And I feel this will make us as beekeepers stronger as managers. For the genetic selection will keep improving into a bee we can really make money on. Up till now I dont really think there was much an emphasis on breeding,..?

There might be a time, even shortly down the road when there will be minimal treatment in our hives at all.


----------



## dcross (Jan 20, 2003)

<<this fall I heard?>>

That's a much more optimistic timeline than I've heard. Care to elaborate? Thanks!


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>I would ask what Lusby was doing as a professional beekeeper to have a "major" outbreak of a desease that has been around for many years, and thus any beekeeper who knows anything should be able to keep it from reaching "major" levels.

It was back when the tracheal mites and some of the viruses first hit. I think their assumption was it was from the stress of all of that. Since AFB is often a stress related disease and since small cell seems to relieve the stress of Varroa and the stress of tracheal mites, at least, then it would make sense that a lot of secondary stress related things would go away too.

>Cost and time would be two reasons against smallcell. And if my bees are handling mites and many others are also, than I am certainly not going to do it so I can claim "natural" beekeeping.

What if the cause of all of our recent problems is cell size? Wouldn't it be worth it, at least, to stop feeding in the foundation that is the root of our problems?

>Using words like "seems" is not really proving a point one way or the other.

I use the word "seems" because, beyond my personal observations on capping and postcapping times and the dramatic drop in Varroa populations, I can't say a lot else for sure yet. I'm still only a short timer on small cell. But since I have proven, to MY satisfaction anyway, that 4.9mm is much closer to natural cell size and that unnatural cell size was the cause of the Varroa problems, then it seems to me that any other cell size is putting the bees at an unnecessary disadvantage that may cause a variety of our other problems. Dee, on the other hand, has had bees on small cell for much longer than anyone I know of and not treating at all for longer than anyone I have heard of. It would be foolish of me to discount what she says without a reason. I don't believe things just because she says so, but I also respect what she has accomplished.

>smallcell regression that is costly, time consuming and not proven beyond a few claims by those who should be questioned.

I'm satisfied that it works. I certainly wasn't until I observed it for myself. I don't see that it's time consuming to merely use small cell foundation instead of large foundation. The cost of foundation is higher. But there are other options such as no foundation which will save time and money and still give you natural cell size.

>I will state for the record....smallcell will see its share of mite problems in the future. Period.

Interesting how you know this. Is this what you think? Feel? Have a hunch about? Is it based on some scientific knowledge you'd care to share with us?

> And for most smallcell, it involved new wax comb for regression. I won't bore you with the details of what happens with AFB when you change all your comb over. (But the secret is in the comb, not smaller bees.)

So if changing out your comb would be advantageous anyway, then where is waste of money and effort in regressing?

>But the suggestion by you MB, that because you have not heard anything "lately",in regards to the spore research, you automatically suggest that "there MUST be some complications..." only shows the tunnel vision.

Jim Fischer has posted that there have been some difficulties in reproducing the research. I don't personally know anything about it beyond that. But I have been given a reason to believe there are complications beyond mere assumptions and tunnel vision.

I have reason to believe he has some inside info since he says:
I know of multiple field trials that took place
this summer. I know for certain that at least
two of them, one which I ran and paid for myself
with my own money, and one other run in Florida 
by Dr. Kanga

http://www.beesource.com/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=002754#000002

And he says:

Metarhizium is very impressive. I like it so much, I am 
spending lots of money to "productize" it. But don't hold
your breath, as there is a big difference between a promising
research project, and a viable commercial product. I have
no idea what gremlins might pop up.
http://www.beesource.com/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=001407#000003

And on this subject Jim Fischer most recently said:
Not good. The kill rate of the original study
done at Weslaco could not be reproduced by
one of the original researchers in Florida last
summer, or in my own field trial last summer in
the Carolinas.

"So, back to the drawing board, it appears.
While the kill rate was "good" it was nowhere
near what it was said to be in the published
papers. There are a number of reasons why this
might be, so perhaps with some effort, the fungus
could turn out to be everything hoped for.
http://www.beesource.com/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=002405#000000

But regardless, we KNOW it is not yet available. Anything not available now is "pie in the sky". Maybe it will be available someday. Maybe it won't be. To build a plan on something that isn't available is, IMO a foolish thing to do.


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

My only rebuttal would concern the AFB and comb comments. Yes it is advantagious to change out your comb. Thats was not the point. The point is the "CLAIM" that the smallcell took care of the AFB. I am making the assumption that it was the changing of the comb, not the fact it was the regressed bees. Changing comb from time to time has been proven to be effective for AFB management. Claiming and attributing this to smallcell is where the crap comes from. 

Yes, my comment on mites and smallcell are my opinion and conclusions. About scientific as many of the smallcell claims. As example, see above paragraph.


Even if the spore is not on the market, do not get caught up on one aspect of the post. I have given several reasons why I think smallcell is a waste, not needed, and all the advantages and "claims" can be made for regular bees on regular comb. These are just my opinions, but as Ian has mentioned, there are success stories out there. My plan has nothing to do with building upon waiting for this to be on the market. As I already said, I have for a long time favored and suggested genetics and bee breeding. And have said it would be "a great thing", if the spore was approved. Nothing more. Your now suggesting that this is somehow a "plan". My plan as mentioned more than numerous times is breeding and genetics. Something that many are having success with.

Foundation as the root of the problem? Interesting angle. And the answer is no. The mites were a man-made introduced problem. Foundation is not the reason for the problem. Mites were introduced to bees who could not handle them. Both feral and domesticated bees were effected. A better bee, whether on smallcell or regular comb, is the answer. Funny how my bees, and those mentioned by Ian are attributed to genetics and breeding, while the bees on smallcell have attributed thier success to size of foundation. Both could claim genetics, but not both for foundation. Hmm.


----------



## Beemaninsa (Jun 9, 2004)

For what its worth, I spoke to Dr. Eishen from the ARS bee lab in Weslaco last month. I understood that as of last December, the field test regarding the spores failed. Issues of effectiveness and production cost are still in question. The reason the test failed may have been that a different variation of the spore was provided for the field test than was used in origional testing. Field test will need to be redone. His best guess was that IF the redone field test pass and IF production cost are within limits and IF the product sails thru registration THEN we might see it next year.
From my view, the fungus still sounds promising, but I am not going to hold my breath waiting for it.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

Yikes, there's alot of if there.


----------



## Bob Russell (Sep 9, 2003)

Bjorn,Ian and all
On becoming a field bee I feel it is time to venture out and spread the word.This site membership is increasing at a rapid rate by the day.Many new members will be looking for ideas and methods with varroa.Varroa has been around the world for many years now,with many different paths being followed for a solution.Those of us that have been involved with livestock farming,growing etc for decades know the pifalls of chemical use.Simply there is nothing new in beekeeping and what we are looking for is all in the current genes of the honey bee "for the selection" to have resistant high producing bees.Just a little more difficult with bees over other live stock and plants.See the published "laws" of heredity by Gregor Mendal in the 1860's.Late in 2004 those of us around the world that are selecting and breeding for resistant bees were offered to take up the work of beekeeper Alois Wallner who runs 700 commercial hives in Randegg Austria,Published 1994 in German under the title "VARROARESISTENT".This work started in 1987 when very little was known about varroa and during his five years research examined some 17000 damaged varroa mites.Interesting is the fact he still runs 700 hive as of current day using the same selection criterior.He say's all beginning is dificult.I found during thorough research into his work the answers to shelved findings in my own project now entering year 6 in New Zealand.My research on his findings was hard on the heels of two years research into Dr.Rodriguez's work with FGMO and organising his New Zealand visit with our industry.I find it hard to believe that many findings are passed over in either pushing ones own barrow or trying to re-create the wheel.It needs a concerted effort and commitment from all beekeepers world wide with genetic selection and breeding.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Changing comb from time to time has been proven to be effective for AFB management. Claiming and attributing this to smallcell is where the crap comes from

I got that the first time. As I understood the Lusby's did three regressions before the AFB dissapeared. Maybe it's the clean comb. But it took three changes of comb and that would seem to be something else involved.

>Your now suggesting that this is somehow a "plan". My plan as mentioned more than numerous times is breeding and genetics. Something that many are having success with.

What you said before:

>I am thinking that if this product hits the market (this fall I heard?) and is cost effective, than many items such as FGMO, and the advice to have beekeepers go through the regression to small cell, will become moot and a waste.

IMO that sounds like the "plan" for a beginner that you are suggesting is to wait for the fungus.

If I were starting out, I would want it to be on small cell to start with for a whole lot of reasons. One of them is Varroa. If you don't start on small cell and you decide later that you want to, you have to do two regressions as we've already said.

I'm happy to just be able to keep bees without worrying about mites. For a while I didn't think it was going to happen again. Why would I recommend any method that wouldn't take a beginner to the same place?


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

MB,
And I'm doing the same. Reccomending what works for me.

You do go the extra step to mention resistance you had years and years ago. That may not be true today. Along with a host of other comments. I'll take the question that was asked by beegirl in the post recently named something like "when and how to treat". Did you outline the proper use of chemicals as she asked. Did you mention the different options she has? Did you do anything other than what you always do, and thats promote smallcell. All the while dismissing other viable options that work for many. Very casual in your wording, but hardly any usefull information about options she asked for. As it always is. If you want to see my plan, including everything from buying queens, mite testing, treatment option, selective breeding, chemical uses, etc, than go read my post as to beegirls question. Than tell me if you still think my plan sound likes I'm reccomending waiting for a fungus. But thank you for assuming my plan. I guess if you can make statements about smallcell like Lusby, why stop there?

If you look at my reply, I not only answered her question, but objectively tried to give her information about all aspects of chemicals,(even ones I do not like) options, and what I would also reccomend. I even mention FGMO, and smallcell as options that others are effectively using. Wow, imagine that. Someone giving tips, and suggestions while keeping personal interest out of it.

Thats why I carried it over to this thread. To discuss it more broadly. And while you think starting out on smallcell is good to begin with, I would not reccomend it for a beginner. Getting smallcell bees, comb, or other material is very hard to do. (Of course not if you buy it from MB.) Regression, messed up comb, dead hives, treatments needed along the way until your there, and other pitfalls, none of which you mention, is to be encountered. I don't hear about those many things, but boy you had a nasty case of resistance years ago that you continually bring up in an effort to bash chemicals. 

I also am just reccomending what is working for me. And if bringing out the negative aspects of smallcell is any different than what you do, so what. You take every opportunity to promote smallcell, even though alot is based on hearsay, and hardly from proven. I am merely also commenting on what is working for me, and that many are experiencing success with bees that are not regressed to smallcell. Something I'll repeat many times, is not worth MY time and money. I aleady have the success you have. And it did not take more than what I have already mentioned.

I would not reccomend smallcell to a first year beginner. And I think thats good advice.

I won't even try to understand how it took Lusby three regressions and new comb I assume, to see AFB go away. Three changes of comb? Just confirms what I already think of many of the things she says.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Along with a host of other comments. I'll take the question that was asked by beegirl in the post recently named something like "when and how to treat". Did you outline the proper use of chemicals as she asked.

I have done a full discussion like that in the past. It seems to me it degenerated into 10 pages of Jim Fischer making a lot of assumptions about what he thought I said. But frankly I have found small cell simpler and more effective than all of that. All the books go into great detail and mostly try to convince you that your bees will die without all of those chemicals. That information is freely available. I just presented my view as you did also.

>Did you mention the different options she has? Did you do anything other than what you always do, and thats promote smallcell.

Now that I found something that works, it's hard to spend a lot of effort on things that are temporary stopgap measures.

>All the while dismissing other viable options that work for many.

And currently are failing for many also.

>But thank you for assuming my plan.

As you said above:

>I am thinking that if this product hits the market (this fall I heard?) and is cost effective, than many items such as FGMO, and the advice to have beekeepers go through the regression to small cell, will become moot and a waste.

What I am missing? It sounds like you're saying any of those alternatives are a waste and beginners shouldn't do them because of a product you assume is going to be out this fall. As I said, I think that's a bad plan.

>And while you think starting out on smallcell is good to begin with, I would not reccomend it for a beginner.

Why? All they have to do is buy 4.9mm instead of 5.4mm. What is so difficult about that? They can do more if they like but that is a good start that will already make the bee healthier, cut down on the reproduction of the mites and cost them nothing but the difference in price between 5.4mm wax and 4.9mm wax.

>Getting smallcell bees, comb, or other material is very hard to do.

Small cell foundation is available from two suppliers. Small cell bees are available from Buckeye and a couple of people on here. But I don't see that as a big problem. From my experience, any bees will do better with the small cell foundation or natural combs.

>(Of course not if you buy it from MB.) 

What is it you think I have for sale? I've sold a few queens and that's all. If I could figure out how to overwinter nucs, I'd love to sell some. If I'm lucky I may have four of them for sale if ALL the rest survive. I'm certainly not making money by recommending anything.

>Regression, messed up comb, dead hives, treatments needed along the way until your there, and other pitfalls, none of which you mention, is to be encountered.

I haven't seen a lot of messed up comb except on the plastic. I haven't lost a hive to Varroa because of regression. I've lost a few to the Varroa when the Apistan didn't work. From my observation you will have less mites with small cell foundation from the start. Even if they draw it 5.1mm and you never change up. You will have to treat with something all the time if you don't regress at all and you will have to treat much less often even if you only partially regress, and not at all if you fully regress. Where is the down side? I don't see one.

>I don't hear about those many things, but boy you had a nasty case of resistance years ago that you continually bring up in an effort to bash chemicals. 

It is the generally held consensus by the beekeeping community here in Nebraska and by the "bee scientists" here in Nebraska that the mites in this area are no longer responding to Apistan. My personal experience merely confirms this. I get the same impression from California and many other places. Yes, I've always hated chemicals in my hive. I always thought they were a bad idea and I only used them out of desperation in the first place. A beehive is a food container. I don't think pesticides belong in a food container, not to mention I don't think it's good for the bees.

>I also am just reccomending what is working for me.

And I think you should.

>And if bringing out the negative aspects of smallcell is any different than what you do, so what.

You seem to have a clear idea of whether or not it is worth doing something you've never done. I still don't see any negative aspects.

>You take every opportunity to promote smallcell, even though alot is based on hearsay, and hardly from proven.

I am as much a skeptic as anyone. I had to see it for myself. Seeing it for myself is not what I call hearsay. On the other hand you seem to complain a lot about my quoting Dee Lusby as if that is hearsay. I quote a lot of people. When I think their idea has merit, whether I believe it or not, I try to give credit to the source. If I don't know if from personally experience I won't state it as a fact. I don't give credit as "proof" of the idea; my intent is to give credit to the source.

>I am merely also commenting on what is working for me

And you should.

> and that many are experiencing success with bees that are not regressed to smallcell. 

Good.

>I won't even try to understand how it took Lusby three regressions and new comb I assume, to see AFB go away. Three changes of comb?

As I understand the first regression was from the 5.4mm to 5.1mm. The next was to 5.0. The last was to 4.9mm. She was the pioneer finding out how far back to the original size she needed to go to resolve the problem. She was not trying to see how small she could go and how fast, but how small she needed to go.


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

If you were not going to answer her question because it was a waste of your time, than say so. You had time in the same post to once again bash chemicals, promote smallcell, and all the while ignore the question that a new beekeeper has. I am glad she has other people and avenues to seek information on beekeeping than your rather slanted personal view, and now say anything less than what you wnat to preach is "wasting time".

Next time, why not save all your time, and let someone else jump in and answer the question, concerning methods you do not favor but are still used, and give information that is being sought. I am glad to answer questions on a host of issues, whether I use them or not.

Again, you assume incorrectly. I have never said I did not have smallcell. I also do not openly make comments on FGMO, but have and used it. Unlike you, I let others make contributions in some area, and if it is a waste of MY time, I just do not get involved. Maybe you should consider it. A new beekeeper has asked questions and you say its wasting your time. Some help...


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>If you were not going to answer her question because it was a waste of your time, than say so. 

That was not my intention at all. I spent my time on what I thought would be helpful.

>You had time in the same post to once again bash chemicals

By stating that they no longer work here? That is the generally held consesus of the experts.

> promote smallcell

That is a bad thing?

> and all the while ignore the question that a new beekeeper has.

I believe I answered it. You believe I did not.

>I am glad she has other people and avenues to seek information on beekeeping than your rather slanted personal view

That's why we have a forum. So you can give her your slanted personal view too.










> and now say anything less than what you wnat to preach is "wasting time".

No matter what I tell a beginner I always seem to end up in one of "these" discussions. That seems to take much more time.

>Next time, why not save all your time, and let someone else jump in and answer the question

I don't know where you get the idea I don't want to answer her question. I did. You did. Several other people did.

> concerning methods you do not favor but are still used, and give information that is being sought. I am glad to answer questions on a host of issues, whether I use them or not.

And I have, in the past, and will, in the future continue to do the same. Some days I have more time to elaborate, some days I do not. I can always count on someone to fill in the rest, as you already have.

>Again, you assume incorrectly. I have never said I did not have smallcell.

You have never stated anything about small cell from a personal experience point of view. Perhaps you'd care to share your experiences?

>I also do not openly make comments on FGMO, but have and used it. 

Why not share your experiences?

>Unlike you, I let others make contributions in some area, and if it is a waste of MY time, I just do not get involved.

What have I done to prevent others making contributions? I have always tried to encourage it.

>Maybe you should consider it. A new beekeeper has asked questions and you say its wasting your time. Some help... 

I do NOT think answering a question for a beginner is a waste of my time and I fail to see where I ever said that. Spending hours having discussions like this is very tiring and since that was the end result of the last time I tried to present what I thought were all the points of view, I left that to you.


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

I have never stated that FGMO did not work. I have in fact, if you look at past posts, have said very positive comments concerning FGMO as well as other oils being used in the hives. My bone to pick is with the nature of the messanger, not the message. As a second issue is the comments that are made one year and then change to the next. This has been discussed in detail and many highlghted comments were brought forth in showing this trend. I have always thought Dr. R may be a good scientist, but a lousy salesman. And I mean that with no ill-will towards anyone. You can't be good at everything.







I do not think FGMO is practical from a commercial view, and have always said that finding other non-labor or timely ways of mite management is what I am after.

As to smallcell, I do not see it becoming mainstream. I think some comments and observations from Lusby are incorrect, exaggerated, tailored to her operation and enviroment (which others could not duplicate) and take much of what she says very lightly. Could she have personal agendas? Could be. Yes, I have smallcell, and alot of foundation that I intended to use. I see no reason to go through with any further smallcell regression when I have side by side hives not regressed but were bred with non-chemical bees, that are doing just as well. For me, it would achieve absolutely nothing more than what I have already accomplished. Finding bees through genetic selection that can survive. Thats what is important to me, not saying "I keep natural bees". I do not like chemicals but I'm not an not organic nut either.

To comment on several other points I'm working on, the smallcell foundation thats left, will be used in feral swarm collection to determine true feral genetics. This is being coordinated through the state and Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. I needed to find an area that had no beekeepers. State parks and forests are ideal, but the paperwork/approval process is much.
It will be more along the lines of breeding and genetic isolation, but not smallcell confirmation. I already believe that smallcell bees can and do handle mites, but more due to genetic selection, beekeeper ability, and other reasons other than just smallcell comb. Smallcell in itself is not the only factor. I am more than anything, interested in finding out if there are any true feral bees with "black German" traits still left, and could any "true" feral line be perpetuated. 

I am also setting up a nuc yard to further test bee lines. I know mite resistant bees are already out there, besides my own, but testing for items such as Honey, cold-climate abilities, and spring build-up are what I'm now looking into. Its beyond dealing with only mites. I have NWC, SMR, grey caucasians, italians from both coasts, and russians coming in april to further select and test with side by side setup. I have always said to start with good stock, but I always travel to georgia for bees and know 99% of beekeepers want good prices. Thats the shame of it. 

I have a growing business with HIGH expectations. I am not where I want to be yet, and sometimes business people do not say whats going on behind closed doors until they have the details worked out. I am in no way wanting the guy down the street to compete with me or take money from my family. I will sell bees in the coming years, and will openly give information sheets, and have ANY beekeeper visit my operation. But I am not where i want to be yet, so sometimes business secrets are left unsaid. That may not be what people want to hear, but thats reality. I'm just not afraid to say it. My bees, famly and business come first, just maybe not in that order.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>I have never stated that FGMO did not work.

I did not say you said it didn't work.

>I am more than anything, interested in finding out if there are any true feral bees with "black German" traits still left, and could any "true" feral line be perpetuated. 

As am I.


----------



## Robert Brenchley (Apr 23, 2000)

Research into fungus treatments is going on on both sides of the Atlantic, but it's going to take a couple of years from what I'm hearing. However effective it is, it will cost, and it will involve the artificial maintenance of strains which aren't really viable in an environment containing varroa. what we really need is bees which won't need treatment, and that will surely involve genetics, breeding, and perhaps cell size. If cell size makes a difference, and from what I've seen it does, than it's worth the effort.


----------



## dcross (Jan 20, 2003)

Bjorn said:

<<this fall I heard?>>

So I asked:

<<That's a much more optimistic timeline than I've heard. Care to elaborate? Thanks!>>

Two days went by and Bjorn typed maaaaaaaany paragraphs without any response (that I could find) to my question.

As I was reading through his posts, I found this:

<<If you were not going to answer her question because it was a waste of your time, than say so.>>

So now, I'll kindly ask again. Bjorn, why do you think the fungus might be on the market this year? If you have already responded to this, and I missed it, or if the question is just a waste of your time, feel free to say so.


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

Holy crap! My original post said "I heard this fall?" I did not have quote or I would of said so. The question mark itself leaves a little doubt, does it not? I "thought" I read in another post or on another post that listed a website, I am trying to remember, bu I am not sure. I do remember something either said, or read, but not sure where, some comment about this fall. It could of been a passing comment, could of been from a website, or could of been a post from beesource. I do not "bookmark" alot. Sorry.

Nice try on the "wasting time" comment.









I actually thought with everyone else updated and contributing to the original question, I did not realize you were sitting by with baited breathe, waiting for my response with such eager anticipation. I'll try to do better next time.

The fact that I am trying to seek an update as mentioned in the opening paragraph leads you to believe i am seeking this information from anyone else who may happen to know. If I new myself, I would of gladly used this detailed information in my case for the discussion that followed.

Without reading into this too much....Do you understand now?


----------



## dcross (Jan 20, 2003)

<<Do you understand now?>>

Yes, you and I are pretty much hearing the same rumors, but I haven't been able to find anything more. I was just looking for some clarification of what you had/had not heard. Thanks for your response!


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

Your Welcome.


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi Guys,

I'm going to toss my two cents in on cell size:>)

I have regressed bees and stabilized them on small cell comb. I have also taken some of those small cell bees and re-established them in top bar hives and on clean, large cell comb.

As far as the mites go, my all small cell hives have functioned without any need for mite treatment since 2000. The clean, large cell hives all quickly developed PMS by the end of the first season. One tbh with a natural, undisturbed broodnest hasn't required treatment. One tbh with a disturbed broodnest developed PMS by the end of the first season.

I do disagree with the Lusby's on the mechanism for why small cell works. You can read about my observations at:

http://bwrangler.litarium.com/implications/

As my conclusions differ from the Lusby's, so do some of the management techniques. But cell size plays a vital role in colony health and function.
And colonies without the right kind of cells in the right location quickly development PMS. And colonies with the right cell size distribution are mite tolerant regardless of the type of bee on the comb.

Regards
Dennis
Thinking it's not either or with any beekeepers observations.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

<<Perhaps in the future, referencing more than the claims by Lusby would be better. I would be interested in studies, and other research if it exists. There has certainly been alot of claims over the years in regards to smallcell.>>

Unlike BjornBee, I do have years of experience with SC beekeeping. This has been an interest of mine that got me out of the armchair and into the hands-on category years ago. I spent a lot of time and resources trying to get to the bottom of the SC controversy. I started with massive dialog with the Lusby's by email and phone conversations. I also took all of Dee's writings on SC and made them available on the Web. An email discussion list was started for the sole purpose of small cell beekeeping. This lasted 3 years. In early 2001, I drove out to Tucson and spent some time with the Lusby's, visiting their apiaries and learning their methods for foundation making, etc ( http://www.beesource.com/pov/lusby/trip/index.htm ). I've spent the last 4 years working with SC exclusively in my hives and have shared many insights on various lists and with others who have worked with SC such as Dennis Murrell.

I have backed off blowing the horn for SC primarily because I got tired of it. I did all the testing I needed to do to know it has great positive results on my bees in my location. All the discussion on this got hashed out on BioBee over the last three years ( http://www.bee-l.com/biobeel.htm ). The information is out there and if someone is serious about a non-chemical approach to beekeeping, they will pursue it. I will not make near as many claims about it as some do. The party line tends to get replayed over and over to the point that it becomes fact for everyone in every location. I can't join in on that parade as I have had a different experience and come to different conclusions. Nonetheless, it's silly to get stuck on these side issues for the sake of the whole.

<<Perhaps in the future, referencing more than the claims by Lusby would be better.>>

I couldn't agree more. It's been 4 years now since SC came on the scene and a bunch of beekeepers took it up. We should be hearing more from them as they are spread across the country and around the world. We already know the Lusby's situation 10 times over. No one needs to be convinced that it works for them. I think it tends to water down the argument at this point to always refer back to them. No disrespect intended here. Let's move on. It's time to broaden the focus. Here in the Chicago area, "it's" working fine for me. As with Dennis, it's a custom form of SC, not a carbon copy of the Lusby chronicles.

Regards,
Barry


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

Barry, nicely said.

Demerl51, some questions.
I have heard the statement that the cell size inhibits the mites from reproducing in smallcell as compared to regular comb. That they have a hard time based on limited room. I personally do not buy into this statement. I feel the capping times are more the point, but for the intellectual exchange of information (ie. argument), lets assume I am wrong and what I have read many times, is correct. That mites have a hard time breeding in the smallcell due to room restrictions.

Now also assuming that taking smallcell bees and placing them back onto regular comb, would not the same factor come into play with regards to overly exaggerating the room they have to breed. The multiplication factor in the amount of mites being able to breed based on this statement of room restriction, and reversing the same process to making room abundance, must be staggering. I bet it would be along the same lines as me taking standard bees and forcing them onto nothing but drone comb. I wonder if doing so would compound many issues for the bees. (I'll keep it simple and not talk ratio of work effort, heat efficiency, brood to area ratios, etc.) I wonder if anyone has ever placed bees on all drone comb, and what was the outcome? (Could it happen without all drone being raised?) I have never done it myself but I'm guessing it would not be pretty. If the bees can handle a mite load that is razor thin right now, than I guessing this may very well put them over the line into the kill zone. But thats just me. I also will say the genetics have probably improved by breeding and natural selection over the past several years. How many years has it been since you saw this happen? 

As for capping times. It would be real easy for bees that have genetics that are surviving mite loads based on shorter capping times, to have a real problem by increasing the swing back to the mites side of survival(advantage). Talk about a shock for the bees. Compounding mite loads on that level, would be a caused that could easily kill a hive. I look at it as about the same as a hive handling mites, and one day they rob out a nieghbor and bring large amounts of mites at one time into the hive. Healthy looking hive one week, and mite load damage the next week. Along the same lines. Bees handling one set of conditions, and now condition much harder being thrown thier way. When we improve conditions, do we not want to see positive results? But when we weaken conditions, why expect something other than negative results? 

I will also assume that you used old comb in the reintroduction of the bees back to the standard foundation. I'm thinking along the lines that swarming, whether natural or artificial, is great mite suppression. And most colonies I have seen do not have any problems making it through the first year when new foundation is used. Correct me if I'm wrong in thinking that old comb was used. If it was new standard foundation and they had PMS within the year, I would look at contributing factors in genetics or just plan technical problems of bees being artificially put onto something they could not handle, for whatever reason. If old comb was used, was foundation used also to remove any possible concern of comb contamination in the results you now mention? Something that could be used in "control" analysis?

I find it interesting that this happened. (deadout smallcell bees back on standard comb) I also think it happened as you say. Instead of somehow using this "observation" as I see it, to prove one side of the debate (not that there should be) of smallcell, I am merely trying to fully understand the mechanisms behind the scenes. I hate when observations are used to make a statement if there is other underlying factors that go into it. (Kind of like the AFB problem that was solved and now attributed to smallcell. I think there are other factors, that make the statement "smallcell bees "by existance" alone can handle AFB", incorrect.) I think there is way too much casual observations, that are used for personal agendas. (Not speaking about you...yet.)









Thank you


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

>>Nice try on the "wasting time" comment. [Smile] 

I really hate those kind of jabs.

>>"I heard this fall?" 

I also heard this fall, but who really knows. It all in the hands of industry, and all depends on whether or not it will be feasable. Looking forward to see how this actually works out.


----------



## loggermike (Jul 23, 2000)

[ April 04, 2006, 08:27 AM: Message edited by: loggermike ]


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> experiments with the fungus were too 
> successful,they couldnt keep it from jumping 
> to the control colonies in the field test and 
> ruining the experiment by killing all the mites.

I wish it worked that well.

There were two different field trials last
summer. One was Kanga's (ex-USDA guy who worked
on the original papers published by USDA) done
in Florida, and the other was mine (I've got more
money than sense sometimes...), done in the
Blue Ridge Mountains of NC and VA in isolated
areas in the middle of national forest tracts
to avoid reinfestation.

Both field trials had "disappointing" results.
I've not seen Kanga's data, but the reports I
got matched my findings.

Kanga ran back to Weslaco to compare the exact
fungus used in Florida with the exact fungus
used in the original Weslaco (TX) USDA lab
experiments. He has yet to say if he has
found any reason for such different results
from those he published in the original papers.

If it were anywhere near as effective as it
was claimed in the original paper, I'd be
making the stuff by the metric ton by now,
and selling it to every beekeeping association
on the planet in my usual non-profit manner.

As it is, I'm not sure that the massive expense
of EPA registration would be justified by the
effectiveness of the fungus. Why bring out
yet another product, when it is no more effective
than existing products?


----------



## loggermike (Jul 23, 2000)

Thanks for setting the record straight.(although I dont understand the money-sense comment ,having never had much of either-at least according to my wife-but thats another story..)


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi Bjorn and Everyone,

I stopped treating my bees in 1999. Shortly after that I discarded all my frames that had been exposed to treatments. The large cell size comb was drawn after that time.

From my experience, focusing on how cell size changes mite behavior is the wrong focus. It's not what the mites do, but what the bees do when on small cell. They can easily detect and remove mite infested pupa. And that really interepts mite reproduction.:>)

This activity continues throughout the active brood rearing season, but is enhanced in the spring and late summer. Mid-summer mite fall, in an infested small cell hive will resemble that from a large cell hive. The fallen mites will be mostly mature females with little or no damage.

But that changes, in a small cell hive. When the bees are actively cleansing, over 90% of the mites will be damaged by the bees, irrespective of the breed. And most of the fallen mites will be immatures and males.

Once bees are stabilized on small cell comb, they can easily tolerate mite infestation/immigration again, regardless of race.

Running bees on clean comb is a great way to get back the overwintering and spring buildup characteristics that were typical before pesticides were placed in the hives. And there's very little difference between my large cell and small cell hives in that respect. But I haven't found any kind of bee that can survive the mites and thrive beyond the second year without treatment. I've had some make it through the third season but not thrive.

As a note, I'm surrounded by about 5000 migratory hives and one or the other commercial beekeepers hives are always in some state of collapse with varroa. I suspect a beekeeper in a more isolate location might gain some additional time, but probably not very much.

PMS quickly abates in the large cell hives when they are treated with OA, so there's no cell size adaption problems there. And if anyone has read my musings you know I don't put much faith in the 'artifical bee size' debate. :>)

When sharing my observations, there are always a few who insist on 'proof'. This is not a new phenomenia and has been run into the ground at Bee-L and on other lists. I have never been out to prove a thing, but only share my observations. It anyone finds them interesting, they can prove what they want for themselves.:>)

And it's not very hard to conduct an experiment. Just read a research article in a bee mag and follow their example. Anyone who can consistently count, measure or observe can do the same thing. Running bee experiments isn't very expensive, although it can be very time consuming.

For those whose faith is in science, it won't be enough to just use the scientific method, because who makes the observations is as important as how they were made. It is sometimes even more important :>)))

I now wonder if those who constantly insist on more proof aren't just too lazy to go see for themselves. After all, it's alot easier to sit back and request more info than it is to go generate it.(Not speaking about you...yet, either. :>)) But those who's curiosity is stirred and make the effort for themselves will certianly have more fun. And they might find better ways to test out these kinds of ideas for themselves.

And I sometimes wonder why those who constantly insist on proof keep bees at all, with all it's uncertainty, variables and hard work. It certainly easier and cheaper to just buy the stuff off the grocery shelf.

I know that when some beekeepers share their observations and experiences, they have way to much personal attachment to their own speculations. For this kind of beekeeper, keeping bees has become much more important than it should be. It then takes on the characteristic of a religion.

Some Rambling Thoughts

Regards
Dennis


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

demerl51,
I have no problems with anything you said. I am always interested in the comment about putting small cell back on regular comb. In regression to begin with, there are several steps involved, with perhaps several years of the process occurring until full regression is achieved. I have asked some, such as MB as to the use of mite controls such as FGMO and OA, etc. It always seems to be something along the lines that until they are fully regressed, and have been steped down on several smaller size comb, that some mite control may be needed.

If this process takes a certain period of time, along with certain steps to ensure success, I find it ironic that the same process in the other direction is assumed to occurr overnight. Was the same step process back to the larger cell size managed in the same manner, and with the same consideration? Or were the bees you mention just a one step shot, from small cell back to larger cells with no further involvement? It may result in the same ending, but one just seems more proven, and thereby the validity of the claim more true.

I have always wondered about those who just say "I put smallcell back on regular comb, and they eventually died." Even in regression to smallcell, there is more to the story to ensure success. And I would expect taking smallcell bees and putting them on regular comb may require more. But I am not sure. I would hope anyone making claims at least used basic practical approaches. Yes, we can not be all scientist with "proven" data. But those making claims, regardless of the data should have at least some reasonable truth and eye for the truth.

Again, and because of past comments, please let me state for the record...I have no problems with smallcell. I only want facts and help. I may not keep smallcell bees, or at least go any further with it myself, but perhaps one small bit of information in one management program can shed light and help into another program. Understanding what may happen in smallcell (I feel) goes a long way in dealing with mites regardless of the management taken. Assuming these observations are true and not tainted by ego, agenda, or other motive. Which is something you must gaurd against when your outside the "proven methods", and even then it is sometimes is needed.

Thank you.


----------



## Stanghellini (Jan 16, 2005)

This thread seems to be about small cell and the fungus, Metarhizium - and my comments are just about the fungus.

I would like to see the fungus work out - it would be a welcomed addition to the arsenal against varroa. Unfortunately, one of the only things consistent about biocontrol is that it is inconsistent. What works in Location X does not mean it will work in Location Y. This is true for every mechanism to combat varroa, just as it is true for virtually all biocontrol programs across agriculture. As such, even a commericial product of Metarhizium will not be the silver bullet seemingly demanded by many people.

One potentially huge problem I see with the fungus, and this may help explain why subsequent tests have been disappointing, is that pathogens tend to lose their virulence if not regularly passed through the host organism. This is well known among plant pathogens and scientists working on these know that if raised on artificial media too long, the pathogenicity of the bacteria or fungus can be lost. Natural mutation is the cause.

Unfortunately for us, there are no alternative rearing media for varroa, so reisolation of virulent fungus from infected mites from live bee colonies would likely be needed periodically to sustain the product's utility.

As such, any large-scale fermentations to produce pounds and pounds of fungal spores can be subject to a gradual weakening of the strain's ability to infect varroa, survive within a hive, etc. etc.

I guess we'll see what happens in the coming years.


----------



## BubbaBob (Jan 18, 2005)

Development and approval of the treatment is DONE. Getting it to market is not going to be in time for spring, but it WILL be available for fall.

This is from Univ of GA Entomology Dept. Call Dr. Keith Delaplane for more info.

BubbaBob


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi Bjorn,

Read my musing page at:

http://bwrangler.litarium.com/implications/ 

You will find my observations concerning the whole small cell bee/large cell bee thing. From my observations there just isn't such a cat.

And check out http://bwrangler.litarium.com/a-i-root-and-cell-size/ 

Foundation hasn't been built outside the natural range for worker brood. Cross check A.I's table on the second page with the cell size measurements on the first! Tell me what you think.

Regards
Dennis
Knowing placing bees on different size comb doesn't change their genetics which controls comb drawing.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

I would have to say my son, who isn't even a beekeeper, noticed the difference in the size of my bees and the ones at beekeeping exhibit at the state fair last year. The bee inspector, last spring, before I even pointed out that they were small cell, noticed that they were significantly smaller than most bees. So I would have say my observations are not consistent with Dennis's observations.


----------

