# Study: Small Cell does not reduce Varroa mite infestation; it can increase it.



## Dan the bee guy

Sometimes people get really good at setting up something to make the results you want.


----------



## Mr_Clean

Dan the bee guy said:


> Sometimes people get really good at setting up something to make the results you want.


What flaw do you see in the study? The author describes the process in detail. The conclusions are similar to a Florida study that there is no meaningful benefit from small cells for varroa mites.

Quote from the article, "The trouble with experiments is that they have a knack for demolishing good ideas. Aristotle was full of good ideas. In fact, his ideas about the natural world were so reasonable that they held unquestioned authority for over a millenium until the so-called enlightenment of the 17th and 18th centuries engendered investigative methods that mitigate against bias and presupposition. From this point on, arm-chair science was doomed, and many a brilliant idea has since been ship-wrecked by the unforgiving objectivity of the scientific method."


----------



## Riverderwent

If I am understanding the article correctly, their large cell bees had significantly lower numbers of mites per adult bee. Why?


----------



## Dan the bee guy

The most glaring flaw is it was done with 10 nucs. Then they never tell you what kind of bees they use. Sometimes people have a agenda. I have bees on both kinds of foundation and so far I haven't seen a differance they all need to be treated so they can winter.


----------



## AR Beekeeper

If you don't like that study how about this one? "Small cell-comb foundation does not impede Varroa mite population growth in honey bee colonies." Apidologie 41 (2010) 40-44., or "Brood-cell size has no influence on the population dynamics of Varroa Destructor Mites in the native western honey bee, Apis mellifera mellifera." Apidologie 41 (2010) 522-530.


----------



## Dan the bee guy

AR Beekeeper said:


> If you don't like that study how about this one? "Small cell-comb foundation does not impede Varroa mite population growth in honey bee colonies." Apidologie 41 (2010) 40-44., or "Brood-cell size has no influence on the population dynamics of Varroa Destructor Mites in the native western honey bee, Apis mellifera mellifera." Apidologie 41 (2010) 522-530.


Never said that it does impede mite growth and large cell doesn't ether. I think some have a agenda to keep the money flowing.


----------



## msl

Dan the bee guy said:


> The most glaring flaw is it was done with 10 nucs.


 the University of Georgia study and its replicates were done with 10f deeps


> Ten of the hives each contained 10 frames of drawn small-cell comb, and the other 10 contained drawn conventional-cell comb


They mention a NZ study that was done with nucs

Now don't forget to look beyond the mites..
The small cell colonys had more bees and more brood


----------



## Brad Bee

Dan the bee guy said:


> Sometimes people get really good at setting up something to make the results you want.


Sometimes people get good at dismissing evidence if it doesn't agree with what they want it to.


----------



## Richard Cryberg

Dan the bee guy said:


> The most glaring flaw is it was done with 10 nucs. Then they never tell you what kind of bees they use. Sometimes people have a agenda. I have bees on both kinds of foundation and so far I haven't seen a differance they all need to be treated so they can winter.


I think Dan is good at reading into a study what he wants to read into it. Jennifer says " where 
each was used to stock one of 20 
single-story deep Langstroth hives. "

So Dan please explain why you are making up facts.


----------



## billabell

opcorn:


----------



## Riverderwent

Brad Bee said:


> Sometimes people get good at dismissing evidence if it doesn't agree with what they want it to.


It is interesting that this study showed that cell size had a significant effect on the rate of mite infestation.


----------



## Dmlehman

Brad Bee said:


> Sometimes people get good at dismissing evidence if it doesn't agree with what they want it to.


Some would call that an "agenda". Ironic


----------



## msl

Richard Cryberg said:


> So Dan please explain why you are making up facts.


unfair, there is a reference to a NZ study using nucs, not being to read and understand a publication does not =fabrication


----------



## Mr_Clean

Dan the bee guy said:


> Never said that it does impede mite growth and large cell doesn't ether. I think some have a agenda to keep the money flowing.


When I first got into beekeeping, we had a number of speakers present at our local bee club praising the benefits of foundationless to get small cell bees as a remedy for varroa and being treatment free. My issue is the research does not support the small cell / natural cell size theory as a way to reduce varroa mites.


----------



## Riverderwent

Mr_Clean said:


> When I first got into beekeeping, we had a number of speakers present at our local bee club praising the benefits of foundationless to get small cell bees as a remedy for varroa and being treatment free. My issue is the research does not support the small cell / natural cell size theory as a way to reduce varroa mites.


Does foundationless get small cell bees, and is small cell (4.9) really natural?


----------



## 1102009

My former mentor, Stephan Braun (www.resistantBees.com) now reduces the cell size of his hives again to under 4.8mm after years of succes with 4.85-4.9mm.( over 15 years )
Why?
Because maybe the mites adapt to smaller cell size?
Some people claim the mite`s time of being phoretic is getting shorter. This, because the mites learned to hide and the bees learned to fight them with biting.

The kind of beekeeping mellifera.eV does is on natural cells for many years. The bees build 4.8-5.1 in broodnest area. The bees should be resistant if cell size alone is the main factor. Nobody tested tf with them so far. They are treated prophylactically. The correlations between all this ( food, swarming, cell size, ......) are never tested scientifically long time if the hives are managed by beekeepers.. Kefuss and Seeley tested with conditions in a natural isolated environment.

The study mentioned above could be out of date already.
There are some practical beekeepers which have success with "natural" cell size, build by the bees. Most of them use other managements additionally. The bees, I claim, will adapt to new situations. 
Generations, mite`s or bee`s, change fast. Environments change all the time.

There is no standstill in this. What works today may not work tomorrow. And the other way around.


----------



## JWChesnut

Mr_Clean said:


> When I first got into beekeeping, we had a number of speakers present at our local bee club praising the benefits of foundationless to get small cell bees as a remedy for varroa and being treatment free. My issue is the research does not support the small cell / natural cell size theory as a way to reduce varroa mites.


This is a data point in the delusion of human crowds. People *want* magical solutions to vexing problems. If a circus barker tells them their problems are over if they buy a magic elixir of refined snake, they are pre-sold to the con and will line up to purchase the nostrum.


----------



## Mr_Clean

JWChesnut said:


> This is a data point in the delusion of human crowds. People *want* magical solutions to vexing problems. If a circus barker tells them their problems are over if they buy a magic elixir of refined snake, they are pre-sold to the con and will line up to purchase the nostrum.


My point is my local bee club (comprised primarily of backyard beekeepers) only brought in speakers that focused on treatment free, natural cell beekeeping. We did not have speakers that spoke about the other side; that scientific studies did not support the assertions that small cell reduces varroa mites. Small/natural cell beekeeping was good theory, but no actual scientific evidence to support the theory when the scientific method is used to evaluate the theory. My point is that a bee keeping club should bring in speakers with both views, so that members can make an informed decision.

The debate on the small cell/treatment free beekeeping is similar to the debate on vaccinations in humans. For vaccinations, some people believe the vaccines cause autism. The reactions of parents has ranged from no vaccines, to spreading out the vaccines dosages, to following the traditional vaccine suggestions. My point is beekeepers should be given full information to make informed decisions.


----------



## Mr_Clean

Riverderwent said:


> Does foundationless get small cell bees, and is small cell (4.9) really natural?


If the bees are allowed to build comb on a starter strip (without foundation), over several generations of bees, the cell size will gravitate towards 4.9 mm. Around 100 years ago, beekeepers realized that they could increase the size of the bees by providing foundation with cell size imprinted on it; the bees would copy the cell size. They played with different sizes to increase honey yield. They optimized on the current foundation size. It produces a bee about 10% larger than in nature, with a longer tongue to gather nectar from certain additional flowers that small cell bees cannot.


----------



## JWChesnut

My wife contracted Polio pre-vaccine. She has continuing medical problems from this childhood illness. When "naturalists" get on a soap box with their crack-pot anti-vaccine anti-science, it is all I can do not to commit physical assault.


----------



## Mr_Clean

JWChesnut said:


> My wife contracted Polio pre-vaccine. She has continuing medical problems from this childhood illness. When "naturalists" get on a soap box with their crack-pot anti-vaccine anti-science, it is all I can do not to commit physical assault.


My sympathies with your wife's polio contraction. 

I found this Penn & Teller video on vaccination good at explaining the issue. 



 The lack of Measles vaccination has led to several measle outbreaks. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/02/02/us/measles-facts.html?_r=0


----------



## JWChesnut

Mr_Clean said:


> If the bees are allowed to build comb on a starter strip (without foundation), over several generations of bees, the cell size will gravitate towards 4.9 mm. .


You know this from what data. I have measured hundreds of combs from wild bees and from "foundationless" hives. 5.1-5.2 are common in broodnests where the cells have thickened over time. 5.4 comb in wild hives is very common. 

The "belief" that 4.9 is the natural size on northern latitude bees is a cultivated canard.


----------



## msl

Mr_Clean said:


> If the bees are allowed to build comb on a starter strip (without foundation), over several generations of bees, the cell size will gravitate towards 4.9 mm.


Your getting that information from that from the same speakers selling the virtues of small cell


Richard Cryberg said:


> Here is a link to a paper published in a scientific journal that exams the Lusby claims on what are "natural" cell sizes and clearly shows that the historical data she cites clear show that natural cell sizes observed for the last 200 years have all shown cell sizes in the range of about 5.2 to 5.4 mm:http://www.idabees.org/uploads/6/7/3/6/6736824/saucy-naturalsmallsize-jar_53_3_01.pdf


----------



## Mr_Clean

msl said:


> Your getting that information from that from the same speakers selling the virtues of small cell


Yes, I think you are correct. If I gave erroneous information, I apologize. I am in the process of switching from foundation-less back to "regular" size foundation. I am no longer in the small cell "group." One of my neighbors is a commercial beekeeper with about 5,000 hives. I learned a lot from him. I am going to copy what he does; except for the commercial scale part.


----------



## msl

> If I gave erroneous information


It all depends on who's "research" you beleave, I was just pointing out the source of your data and that there are other views.


----------



## Dan the bee guy

Richard Cryberg said:


> I think Dan is good at reading into a study what he wants to read into it. Jennifer says " where
> each was  used to stock one of 20
> single-story deep Langstroth hives. "
> 
> So Dan please explain why you are making up facts.


Never made up any facts just reporting on what I see you have one guy running around telling everyone that small cell or naturall comb is the way to go then others getting grant money to set up study's then they get paid to write, they both are following the money for their agenda. For me the only thing that matters if it works for me and the only thing that has is killing as many mites that you can so the hive can thrive make more bees and produce honey any thing else is just drivel.


----------



## Dan the bee guy

Maybe they should set up the studies with drone comb in them to see if it matters. Will small cell 4.9 make the mites go to drone comb like they do in apis cerana? That's the question.


----------



## Faith Apiaries

Dan the bee guy said:


> Maybe they should set up the studies with drone comb in them to see if it matters.


Already been done. The efficacy of "drone trapping" has nothing to do with the small cell idea.

http://scientificbeekeeping.com/fighting-varroa-biotechnical-tactics-ii/

"Bottom line:

Drone brood trapping works great, and can be done very quickly and cheaply. It doesn’t decrease honey production, and keeps the bees from building volunteer drone cells elsewhere. It may keep mites below economic injury levels alone, but will likely require supplemental treatments.

Points to remember:

1. A full comb removed monthly will generally keep mite levels below threshold.

2. Two full combs would be even better.

3. Two combs, alternately removed every other week, would likely be best.

4. Do not forget to remove the combs at 4 weeks, or you’ll be breeding mites!"


----------



## msl

Dan the bee guy said:


> Will small cell 4.9 make the mites go to drone comb like they do in apis cerana? That's the question.


AC worker brood dies when bitten by a mite, keeping up slestive pressure for drone brood prefrance


----------



## BadBeeKeeper

Mr_Clean said:


> One of my neighbors is a commercial beekeeper with about 5,000 hives. I learned a lot from him. I am going to copy what he does; except for the commercial scale part.


That's what I do, too. I know a commercial keeper with thousands of hives who makes his living from bees. When I want accurate information/knowledge/advice, I go see him (in fact, he gives classes every year, which I take, every year, and I always learn something). He is on top of what works and what doesn't, he has to be because his bees feed him and his family. He will sacrifice hives to find out if something works and is economically beneficial, or not.

On topic:

If smaller cells provide more brood area per frame, with corresponding increases in number of bees hatching out (compared to larger cells), then it would seem to make sense that there would be a corresponding increase in mites.


----------



## Dan the bee guy

Faith Apiaries said:


> Already been done. The efficacy of "drone trapping" has nothing to do with the small cell idea.
> 
> http://scientificbeekeeping.com/fighting-varroa-biotechnical-tactics-ii/
> 
> "Bottom line:
> 
> Drone brood trapping works great, and can be done very quickly and cheaply. It doesn’t decrease honey production, and keeps the bees from building volunteer drone cells elsewhere. It may keep mites below economic injury levels alone, but will likely require supplemental treatments.
> 
> Points to remember:
> 
> 1. A full comb removed monthly will generally keep mite levels below threshold.
> 
> 2. Two full combs would be even better.
> 
> 3. Two combs, alternately removed every other week, would likely be best.
> 
> 4. Do not forget to remove the combs at 4 weeks, or you’ll be breeding mites!"


Have allready read that what I want to know is does small cell work better the same or not at all if you have drone comb in there. And if you keep removing drone comb are we selecting for mites that prefer worker brood.


----------



## Richard Cryberg

Mr_Clean said:


> If the bees are allowed to build comb on a starter strip (without foundation), over several generations of bees, the cell size will gravitate towards 4.9 mm. Around 100 years ago, beekeepers realized that they could increase the size of the bees by providing foundation with cell size imprinted on it; the bees would copy the cell size. They played with different sizes to increase honey yield. They optimized on the current foundation size. It produces a bee about 10% larger than in nature, with a longer tongue to gather nectar from certain additional flowers that small cell bees cannot.


It always amazes me the myths that develop in all hobbies. I guess some charismatic Guru comes long and people just fall in line following the pied piper into the sea.

Now, for what actually happened. The first crude foundation was made in 1866. Back then honey was sold as comb honey. To make an attractive product with white cappings you wanted the bees to draw the comb rapidly and accurately from edge to edge. Foundation was a great help in making an attractive product. Also, those old timers realized that most drones raised were wasted resources and with foundation you could minimize drones.

In 1875 A. I. Root started to bring out foundation rollers as did some others. This foundation had flat bottom cells and required the bees to do some remodeling. During the 1880s the angles at the bottoms of the cells were optimized in part by making plaster casts of comb and measuring angles in sectioned pieces of the casts. This early foundation was manufactured to five cells per inch which amounts to just under 5.1mm. While this foundation worked he observed that bees given the choice of laying eggs in such foundation, even after they had the correct angles on the cell bottoms, versus laying in comb they had built themselves preferred the natural comb. So Root set out to measure the cell sizes of large numbers of natural combs in the brood area and concluded that the right size based on 100% bee built comb was 19 1/3 cells per four inches. This is equivalent to a 5.25mm cell width. This, by the way is perfectly in line with the various older European measurements which Lusby butchered when she turned them into cell width measurements.

H. H. Root, the son of A. I. confirmed his fathers measurements by making even more measurements. So, the company retooled their foundation rolls to produce such foundation sometime in the 1880s and they found such foundation was accepted fully as well as natural comb and better than the too small cells earlier produced. This became the accepted standard for cell size for the next 65 years.

During the 1890s after Root had started producing foundation with the proper cell size others started experiments with larger cells, clear up to as much as almost 6.0 mm. Such large cells did produce bees that were a small amount larger than those reared in natural cell sized comb (5.25 mm), but the change in bee size was pretty minor. The bees did not like such large cells and if they had any choice would not use them to rear brood. There did not seem any advantage to larger bees that could be demonstrated in production hives. The result is after about 1930 the whole idea was discarded as not being of practical use.

The above is all documented in the "ABC and XYZ of Bee Culture," copyright 1972, mostly starting on page 134 and going on for several pages of details. Plus there are a few details in this same book in other sections of the book.

Lately of course the large cells providing benefits idea has been replaced with the equally ludicrous idea that unnatural sized small cells would provide benefit. As with large cells no one has shown any benefit for small cells and none should be expected unless you count the economic benefit to those who supply equipment from the extra sales they make.

Regardless, I am sure the mythology of what is obviously the natural size cells which bees prefer will continue unabated for some considerable time until a new Guru comes along and revives the larger unnatural cell size as being beneficial once again for some ****amamie reason. In the meantime we will be told over and over that natural cell sizes are 4.8 mm no matter how stupid this idea is shown to be. I have seen such cell sizes called natural three or four times just this week on Bee Source. Bloody incredible!!!

Dick


----------



## Riverderwent

In the study referenced in the first post in this thread, the ending number of mites per 100 adult bees was significantly lower in the conventional cell (5.3mm) colonies than in the small cell (4.9mm) colonies. Based on the study, cell size matters.


----------



## nchvac

Mr_Clean said:


> If the bees are allowed to build comb on a starter strip (without foundation), over several generations of bees, the cell size will gravitate towards 4.9 mm. Around 100 years ago, beekeepers realized that they could increase the size of the bees by providing foundation with cell size imprinted on it; the bees would copy the cell size. They played with different sizes to increase honey yield. They optimized on the current foundation size. It produces a bee about 10% larger than in nature, with a longer tongue to gather nectar from certain additional flowers that small cell bees cannot.


And some argue that the small cell bees have access to smaller, more medicinal flowers that the larger bees can not access.


----------



## Faith Apiaries

nchvac said:


> And some argue that the small cell bees have access to smaller, more medicinal flowers that the larger bees can not access.


I'd be interested to see whatever science there is to suggest that theory.

Some argue that the moon landing never happened.


----------



## nchvac

Faith Apiaries said:


> I'd be interested to see whatever science there is to suggest that theory.
> 
> Some argue that the moon landing never happened.


Some argue that it did


----------



## Michael Palmer

nchvac said:


> And some argue that the small cell bees have access to smaller, more medicinal flowers that the larger bees can not access.


Some? Dee Lusby does. In one "discussion" I had with her...A beekeeper in NYC wanted to know whether to feed sucrose or HFCS. She said to only feed honey. Hadn't I read what Rodale said about sugar and the human liver. OMG, here we go. Go to health food store, buy honey, and feed it to your bees. I called her to task on that one, concerned about AFB. She said that bees don't get AFB from eating honey, as the bees chew up the spores. I called her out on that one, too. Her reply..."Well, if he had small cell comb, and small cell bees, it wouldn't matter anyway as small cell bees work on those small flowered medicinal plants". Since the beekeeper was in New York City, I asked where his bees might find those medicinal plants with flowers so small that not just any honey bee might forage on them. Even them Yuuuge, large cell bees. 

Her answer..."Window boxes!" 

Oh honestly. When will this rubbish end.


----------



## Barry

Riverderwent said:


> In the study referenced in the first post in this thread, the ending number of mites per 100 adult bees was significantly lower in the conventional cell (5.3mm) colonies than in the small cell (4.9mm) colonies. Based on the study, cell size matters.



Looks like no one is paying attention to this fact. Too bad.


----------



## Barry

Richard Cryberg said:


> The above is all documented in the "ABC and XYZ of Bee Culture," copyright 1972, mostly starting on page 134 and going on for several pages of details. Plus there are a few details in this same book in other sections of the book.


Who is the author of this chapter?



> This, by the way is perfectly in line with the various older European measurements which Lusby butchered when she turned them into cell width measurements.


Can you please give reference to these European measurements? It looks to me like most of these are European.

http://beesource.com/point-of-view/dee-lusby/historical-data-on-the-influence-of-cell-size/


----------



## Brad Bee

Michael Palmer said:


> Oh honestly. When will this rubbish end.


The day after screened bottom boards stop being produced.

People believe what they want to believe and dismiss evidence that doesn't agree with their opinions. Lunacy is what I call it. That and puffing their chest out to make themselves look important. There are those whose opinion should be viewed as fact. Yours would be one of them IMO, and there are those who's opinion should be viewed as them spouting off half baked ideas, intended to make themselves look important. There are about 50 of them for every one of your type. We've got no shortage of the later on beesource. So many in fact that when I recommend new beekeepers that I personally know to read beesource, I give them a disclaimer about the chest thumpers.


----------



## Riverderwent

Barry said:


> Looks like no one is paying attention to this fact. Too bad.


You did. (I'm sure others are. Smart folks are often quiet. It's more the irony that interests me.)


----------



## Richard Cryberg

Barry said:


> Who is the author of this chapter?
> 
> 
> 
> Can you please give reference to these European measurements? It looks to me like most of these are European.
> 
> http://beesource.com/point-of-view/dee-lusby/historical-data-on-the-influence-of-cell-size/


"ABC and XYZ" has one chapter for each letter of the alphabet. The original was written by A.I. Subsequent editions were edited by E. R, Root LL. D., H. H. Root and J. A. Root. All were dead by lthe 1972 version which was edited by various unidentified consulting editors. All original scientific references are archived at both the Univ of Wisc at Madison and Cornell.

The only current paper that deals with historical cell size measurments and does the math so you get the correct answers is:

https://www.researchgate.net/public..._fatal_error_or_distortion_of_historical_data

This paper exams exactly the same data Lusby used to claim small cells were natural and completely debunks her ideas on historical cell size measurements.

It is worth noting that the paper that triggered this thread about small cell size bees actually having larger mite counts than bees on natural cell size comb is not the first scientific publication to show this. It is a puzzle to me why cell size would have any impact of the % mite counts. I see no obvious reason unnatural small cells should either result in more or less mites than normal natural cell size bees. But, the experiment replicates so it must be true. I am sure the Gurus will tell us shortly why both studies are wrong. Also why the above referenced study is wrong on converting historical data to modern measurements. And how Root totally blew the observations he made on what cell sizes bees actually prefer.


----------



## Riverderwent

Barry said:


> Looks like no one is paying attention to this fact. Too bad.


Things can get interesting and complicated when they are multifactoral or, more properly, multi-consequential. I don't know if this study looked at the long term effect of cell size on the length of the bees' capped pupation period, which some have credibly suggested may affect reproductive success of varroa in the cell.


----------



## Michael Bush

I pointed out, several years ago, that if Dee Lusby's psuedodrone theory is true, then you would expect the mite population in a small cell hive to have an entirely different curve than on large cell. The mites would be most successful in a small cell hive in early spring because they would be reproducing almost entirely in drone cells. Later as drone cells decrease they would be less successful causing the population in summer to drop and by fall to be quite low. That would fit what I see on my trays on the hives with screened bottoms as far as less and less mites as fall approaches rather than what I saw with large cell where the number skyrocketed in the fall.

http://www.bushfarms.com/beessctheories.htm#Small Cell Studies


----------



## lharder

Mr_Clean said:


> University of Georgia article, "Small Cell Foundation And Varroa Mites" found mite infestation of small cell hives at 46.6%, which was much higher than the 5.2mm cell with infestation of 27.7%.
> 
> http://caes2.caes.uga.edu/bees/personnel/documents/Berry1109.pdf


I was looking at those numbers, read the paper and realized they referred to the proportion of mites that was in the brood vs adult bees. 

Did I read correctly that the mites counts never did rise all that much in the study and that no treatment was done, staying within local thresholds?

Could it be that these bees had other mechanisms in place for controlling mites? I also noticed that it was 5.2 vs 4.9 comparison (please correct me if I'm wrong), but wouldn't a more appropriate comparison be 5.4 vs 4.9?

I am totally agnostic about the affect of small or natural cell. I have mostly natural comb in my TF hives, and really am so far clueless as to why some hives are successful and others are not. I have some suspicions that basic mechanisms for mite control are in place for many colonies and success has more to do with adaptation with local viral environments, but am willing to be persuaded otherwise with time and more information as I go down this path. 

I think it is safe that bees have multiple mechanisms for mite/virus resistance and if small cell is useful, it may only be useful for some bees with the right genetics. If this is the case, then a more subtle experiment is needed where small cell bees with the supposed genetics, are placed on large cell foundation to see if they do worse. Or perhaps a better study would be to take typical bees, put them on small vs regular cell, leave them TF and see the trajectories of the respective apiaries with regard to survival, genetics, mite control and virus resistance. Is there divergence in mite/virus strategies over time between the 2 groups?

I also wonder a bit about the disruptions we subject bees too and we expect them to roll with it within a single season. It may result in subtle but statistically significant differences between groups. The question is whether these differences are a result of what we are trying to measure, or a result of some disruption. 

So I remain skeptical but open minded on the concepts being debated, but also the experiments (and this is not a slag on the good efforts of scientists) that try to parse these out. Good ecology is difficult. Long term work is much better as short term work can be mostly noise.


----------



## Riverderwent

lharder said:


> Good ecology is difficult.


"It's not easy being green." Kermit


----------



## ToeOfDog

"All lies and jest
Still, a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest"
Paul Simon

Setting all of the bruised egos aside, you can find a study/theory to support any opinion. The bottom line is what happens in the backyard.

Twelve years large cell, 5th year TF small cell, there are a few mites out there but they are limited, no loss of a production hive in over 3 years. That is what really counts


----------



## Outdoor N8

I read a bit of the "small cell" theory and enjoyed it, to the point that my next cut-out (yes these were natural comb bees) was put on small cell wax foundation.

It took them a couple weeks before they drew it out- I think they didn't like it.
Now when I do mite rolls, they are 'always' right in the middle for counts.

Bottom line to me- I still have to treat for mites on small cell. But do I dare use these combs in any other hive? cant' pull brood for nucs, etc.

fwiw- I do not plan on ever going down the small cell path again-


----------



## 1102009

Outdoor N8 said:


> I read a bit of the "small cell" theory and enjoyed it, to the point that my next cut-out (yes these were natural comb bees) was put on small cell wax foundation.
> 
> It took them a couple weeks before they drew it out- I think they didn't like it.
> Now when I do mite rolls, they are 'always' right in the middle for counts.
> 
> Bottom line to me- I still have to treat for mites on small cell. But do I dare use these combs in any other hive? cant' pull brood for nucs, etc.
> 
> fwiw- I do not plan on ever going down the small cell path again-


Did you measure the cell size in your natural comb?

How long did u use sc? Did you regress step by step?

When did u introduce sc? What time of year? What place in the hive?

What did u use? Plastic, Wax?

Why are u not able to use this in another hive? Do you have different systems?


----------

