# Small Cells Debunked by World Renowned Bee Researcher



## peterloringborst

> EVALUATION OF SMALL-CELL COMBS FOR CONTROL OF VARROA MITES IN NEW YORK HONEY BEES
> PROJECT DIRECTOR: SEELEY, T. D
> 
> IMPACT: 2008-10-01 TO 2009-09-30 The work supported by the grant has now shown conclusively that providing honey bee colonies with frames of small-cell (4.9 mm) combs does not depress the reproduction of Varroa mites relative to giving colonies frames of standard-cell (5.4 mm) combs. These results match those of parallel investigations on this topic that were conducted independently in Georgia and Florida.
> 
> It seems clear, therefore, that despite much interest by and discussion among beekeepers in using small-cell combs to control the mites without chemical, this approach is ineffective.
> 
> http://www.reeis.usda.gov/web/crisprojectpages/211868.html


----------



## Barry

"It seems clear, therefore, that despite much interest by and discussion among beekeepers in using small-cell combs to control the mites without chemical, this approach is ineffective."

And all those beekeepers using small cell without chemicals are doing this, opcorn:


----------



## Allen Dick

> And all those beekeepers using small cell without chemicals are doing this

So are many others without using small cells.

What this study and others do not appear to examine, if I read it correctly, is what hppens when the same bees are kept on small cells for a period of time longer than a year.


----------



## bigbearomaha

perhaps ineffective for those involved in that study, but I certainly would not discount the first hand experiences of many of those reporting success in their efforts on forums such as this either.

I am curious as to why some people seem to be so threatened by alternative and 'naturalist' methods in the first place.

Big Bear


----------



## mythomane

Well, there are many "armchair" beeks out there who think that reading studies and scientific journals somehow prove something. Many of the so-called scientists that publish findings such as this are funded or paid off. Just who would benefit by the results of this study? Publish or perish as they say -- never mind what the facts are.


----------



## dpbntn

Three things - holes - jump out upon reading the findings of this study. 1. The large cell and small cell colonies were placed in the same apiary, thus not accounting for drift between the colonies. 2. Survival of the colonies was not addressed, only mite counts. 3. The study will not be complete until 9/2010, so these are preliminary findings. 

I have small cell bees - Italians and ferals - that are treatment free and always have been, and I don't have mite problems. Thats all that really matters! But then, I'm not in the academic or chemical biz, just honey.

David Benton
Tucson Honey Co.


----------



## Bens-Bees

Only one thing is clear... there will never be a consensus amongst beekeepers, on pretty much anything. 

If you ask three beekeepers why the sky is blue, one will tell you it's because of the wavelengths of light and chemical makeup of the atmosphere, another will tell you that it's because God likes the color blue, and the third will tell you that the sky isn't blue. :lpf:


----------



## peterloringborst

mythomane said:


> Well, there are many "armchair" beeks out there who think that reading studies and scientific journals somehow prove something.


Sure, and there are probably just as many who think that _never reading a word _proves something as well. Though what that would prove, I have no idea.



> Many of the so-called scientists that publish findings such as this are funded or paid off.


Are you suggesting that Tom Seeley is a so-called scientist? Do you even know who he is? 



> Just who would benefit by the results of this study? Publish or perish as they say -- never mind what the facts are.


As a matter of fact, I will tell you who would benefit. Beekeepers all over the world would benefit, if it were shown that using small cell foundation would allow them to eliminate chemical treatments. But beyond that, Tom would benefit. I know Tom and he dislikes medicating his bees as much or more than anyone. 

So I am telling you: he took on this project for at least two reasons. One, to find out (the goal of any real scientist). Two, to find a method that would enable him to get away from using chems. Now neither he nor I is saying that what you or anyone else is doing doesn't work. What he is saying is that under close observation, simply using small cell foundation in NY State _will not control mites. _

Maybe that isn't what you wanted to hear. I feel quite certain that Tom went into this with an open mind. Most of the comments I have heard here have not been open minded by any stretch of the imagination. Whatever doesn't fit with your pre-sets you reject. That's called bias. Scientists rigorously avoid bias. Some folks seem to thrive on it.


----------



## peterloringborst

bigbearomaha said:


> I am curious as to why some people seem to be so threatened by alternative and 'naturalist' methods in the first place.


I am curious as to why you think anybody feels threatened. Where are these people who feel threatened? Who are they?


----------



## Michael Bush

Wow! I was just starting to really enjoy that fact that for almost a decade I haven't had to worry about Varroa at all... I guess I need to go back to large cell foundation and Varroa treaments and Varroa counts and losing all my hives every two years to Varroa... I'm sure glad someone enlightened me...


----------



## WLC

You don't do varroa counts? Not even a sugar shake?

Do you have varroa present in your hives?


----------



## peterloringborst

Michael Bush said:


> Wow! I was just starting to really enjoy that fact that for almost a decade I haven't had to worry about Varroa at all...


The question is not about whether Michael Bush worries about varroa or not. The question is about whether simply switching to small cells will reduce varroa infestation in colonies. This one question has been asked, and answered by several research projects carried out independently. Simply switching to small cells does not appear to reduce varroa mite loads in these studies. As to whether the studies should be carried out for more than a year, if the varroa load builds up normally in these colonies, the colonies would be dead. In our area at least, if you don't treat, most hives crash in fall, or fail to overwinter. 

As an example, I personally know two beekeepers who keep around 100 hives in the same general area. One quit treating his hives for varroa, and the other used formic acid in August. Their losses were just about the opposite. The one who treated had 20% winter loss, which by the way he was very pleased with. The other had about 20% survival. By the way, the first one told me he used to be very disappointed by a 10% loss. Now, a 20% loss is a cause to celebrate. Do you suppose simply switching to small cells would cure their problems? Remember, this is the _one thing_ that is being tested in these studies.


----------



## Allen Dick

It seems many people have a great deal of their ego, credibility and reputation tied up with the small cell concept and that questioning their beliefs is to them more about their own integrity than it is about bees or varroa. This makes the detached discussion necessary for science very difficult.

It would seem that if small cell has a clear effect, that it should be easy to demonstrate. However it seems that none of the advocates have scientific credentials and that many apparently do not consider the scientific method to be the appropriate means of resolving issues of this sort.

Several respected scientific researchers have tried picking up this hot potato and their efforts and the disrespect accorded to them goes to show why few are interested in pressing further.

When Jennifer Berry initiated her work, she surprised a few people by indicating that her early observations seemed to indicate that there might be an effect. She disappointed another group of people later by concluding that she was unable to demonstrate it. 

Now Tom Seeley has given it a shot, and his test has apparently observed and eliminated another potential demonstration of a potential aspect of the reported phenomenon. There still remain other ways to try to demonstrate it which meet the requirements of scientific observation.

The biggest problem with the small cell theory is that it is multi-step and requires observation over a period of time during which losses and manipulations occur. Controls are not possible. 

Science is best at examining one aspect at a time -- dissecting problems and maintaining controls for comparison, thus the attempts examine each aspect separately. 

Since the claim is made that the whole procedure is necessary to obtain the result, the project becomes very murky, since at some point in a protracted study, the controls can no longer track the test bees.

Each study is an attempt to try to identify an effect associated with some controllable aspect of small cell. 

It will take a series of such observations to zero in on the effect, if it exists and if it can be isolated.

The question remains, though: If dissecting kills the effect, how can we observe it scientifically?


----------



## bigbearomaha

as mr allen dick just stated Peter, there are folks who seem compelled to argue and counter methods because somehow it personally offends them and they must convert the world to their way of thinking.

There have been enough people who have posted in this forum alone that small cell has been helpful to reducing varroa in their own bee yards.

it really doesn't matter what you or any other 'scientist' or beek for that matter thinks or publishes beyond that.

they have proof of their methods right in front of them and don't need what some guy thousands of miles away has observed to tell them otherwise.

so I would say that you come across as one of those people due to you almost vehement posts railing against methods you don't have to use and no one is forcing you to use, yet you seem compelled to try to change others ideas about them.

ultimately, I don't really care what you post anymore, I usually ignore it anyway.

My curiosity is only in why people like yourself seem to think you need to change other peoples minds when they are capable of thinking for themselves ( thank you Micheal and StevenG and the many others in this forum for demonstrating that particular fact very well).

Big Bear


----------



## peterloringborst

bigbearomaha said:


> My curiosity is only in why people like yourself seem to think you need to change other peoples minds when they are capable of thinking for themselves


This is a perfectly legitimate question. Why do I even post here? It isn't to make money and it isn't to make friends, although I have made one or two. 

I am one hundred per cent in favor of people thinking _for_ themselves. But people do not nor can not think _by_ themselves. As my friend Allen Dick is fond of saying, if everybody is agreeing then no one is thinking. 

Actual thinking is a group process. There are no individual thoughts, thinking is mostly processing the thoughts of others, and occasionally having _an original idea. _


----------



## devdog108

The problem is that you put a bunch of women and men in the same place and ask them the same question and then you get a bunch of different answers, throw in some science and watch it go. There are Many people on here who have tried small cell and seen great results. There are people who have tried it and lost colonies because they wouldn't take to it. The problem is not with the theory, its with the people. I swear i get aggrevated on here not because people are expressing their opinions, because we all have them, but more to the fact that people cannot except any reality other than their own. 
I was asked recently when i stated i had seen my first mites if I was going to treat, to which I said no, not even a sugar shake. Know what their reply was....well, get ready to lose everything...I mean really, are you(nooone being pointed out here) that big of an idiot to think that I dont worry about them?

Science for al intents and purposes, has many flaws. We were all told that the HB was not native to the US....well guess what, those people were wrong. Some even said that Varroa wouldn't be able to handle them Chems, and guess what they did.......

The point being is that a lot of you have experience well beyond my years, but you know what, my bees don't read the books that you have written, read and helped co-write and suggest to others. They don't stop working, they handle shb without me being invoolved and if they cannot handle the Varroa, then they aren't going to make it as they will not get my help.

People need to get over themselves and their "years" of knowledge, degrees, schooling, prac application and learn to freakin listen already. It's not about how smart you are. Pass on the knowledge without knowing it all. I know i could use all i can get...but when you are a know it all, your done in my book. I pose questions all the time that i cannot get defenative answers on.....its called the WORLD already......


----------



## mythomane

peterloringborst said:


> Remember, this is the _one thing_ that is being tested in these studies.


The problem is that there are many variables. Studies such as this are useless in the face of so many influencing factors. And as far as bias, Loringborst, everybody on this forum knows where you stand as far as pesticides are concerned.


----------



## Allen Dick

> There are no individual thoughts, thinking is mostly processing the thoughts of others, and occasionally having _an original idea._

And I suspect that those original ideas are -- often as not -- generated by misunderstanding the ideas of others! 

In other words, we're talking mutation. It seems some people mutate ideas more than others.


----------



## devdog108

I had andther thought real quick. I had a box design in mind that i wanted to try based on Langs design with some of mine thrown in.....95% people here on BS gave me reasons it wouldn't work......what does that say.


----------



## peterloringborst

Allen Dick said:


> It seems some people mutate ideas more than others.


Sort of like the game of telephone? Where somebody whispers something and it goes around the table a couple of times, and comes out completely different. Usually nothing like the original idea.

Or is it more like photocopying photocopies? You do that enough times, and all you end up with is a fuzzy illustration of what appears to be cat litter.


----------



## peterloringborst

mythomane said:


> And as far as bias, Loringborst, everybody on this forum knows where you stand as far as pesticides are concerned.


They do? Then I guess they all have read my articles in the ABJ entitled "Keeping Bees Without Chemicals". 

Copies available on request. 

peterloringborst (at) gmail (dot) com


----------



## devdog108

Would love to read them as I am not going to treat. Email request sent......


----------



## peterloringborst

devdog108 said:


> Would love to read them as I am not going to treat. Email request sent......


Those and a lot of other interesting stuff (not be me) is available to download (anonymously) at

Upstate New York Beekeeping


----------



## Barry

Allen Dick said:


> The biggest problem with the small cell theory is that it is multi-step and requires observation over a period of time during which losses and manipulations occur. Controls are not possible.
> 
> Science is best at examining one aspect at a time -- dissecting problems and maintaining controls for comparison, thus the attempts examine each aspect separately.
> 
> [snip]
> 
> The question remains, though: If dissecting kills the effect, how can we observe it scientifically?


It is no secret that those (myself included) who have converted from LC to SC incurred a significant loss initially. By year two and three, numbers stabilized. I know some say the conversion is only a blip now with plastic SC, but I have not experience that route myself.

So when we get scientific conclusions after a year that say it has no effect on mites, it's quite easy to be skeptical. There is still just too big of a chasm between firsthand experience and how the researchers go about proving/disproving. Beekeepers are interested/focused on the hive mind as opposed to narrowing out one aspect.


----------



## peterloringborst

Barry said:


> Beekeepers are interested/focused on the hive mind as opposed to narrowing out one aspect.


In this we are in complete agreement. It is a multi-faceting, experimenting attitude that we need to maintain. To the extent that one fails to do that, one fails in all else.


> The willow which bends to the tempest, often escapes better than the oak which resists it; and so in great calamities, it sometimes happens that light and frivolous spirits recover their elasticity and presence of mind sooner than those of a loftier character


----------



## BWrangler

Hi Guys,

It seems that keeping bees on small cell comb can be viewed as a treatment or as a process.

Those with treatment mindset are most often disappointed.

I started out as a very skeptical treatment guy. Wanted to scientifically test small cell out. Saw the great difference between my bees on large cell comb and those on small cell comb. Then switched everything to small cell.

Mutated(maybe mutilated by some accounts) a few ideas of my own. And I am a natural beekeeper now. Yep, I've read what PLB writes about natural beekeeping. There is a world of difference between not treating and keeping bees naturally.

So, far what I've seen from the science guys replicates my initial small cell experience. In fact, I had more mites in my untreated small cell colonies and most of them didn't make it. But things changed after that.

It's way premature to announce an airplane can't ever fly when it's just been started for the first time and is setting on the ramp idling. There's more to the flight process than that.

And there's more to keeping small cell bees than counting mites the first season. It's a process, not a treatment.


----------



## Allen Dick

There are more reasons for many of us not to use 5.4mm cells than just varroa, and that point gets trampled in the battle over cell size's effectiveness -- or not -- for varroa and what size is "perfect".

While 5.35, 5.4 and larger cells my be just fine for extracting or may actually even be a little small for some of the larger bees that apparently can be found some places in Europe, combs with a smaller number of cells in a given area -- higher density -- may have a number of positive effects, some of which are fairly obvious and some of which may not be. 

Where foundation is indicated, and for the European bees I encounter, I tend to favour the 5.1 or 5.2mm that Root originally concluded was an average of what he saw around him in natural comb at the time. The closest as I have come in practice to employing that size, however, is the 5.25 Pierco standard frame (All Pierco cells are not the same -- the mediums depth are apparently larger! Of course mediums are intended normally for honey). I did try some 4.9 that Dee gave me a little, but not with much enthusiasm. I have seen her bees do well on 4.9, but I do not think the bees we have around here are closely related to what she has.

In our tests of various foundations and drawn comb for package bees, we noticed that the Pierco 5.25 cells did appreciably better than the standard 5.4 plastic foundations we used in comparison. Our test was only run once and needs to be replicated, but we were satisfied that it was useful.

It would be interesting to do comparisons over a year between similar packages hived on a range of foundation sizes, with each set of colonies having a different size cell, and one set having no foundation. 

I could see a total of 25 hives used initially, with the sizes being 5.4, 5.25, whatever can be found in this range, 4.9, and nothing. Five hives could be used in each treatment and all the usual beekeeping parameters measured, including behaviour, swarming, production, temper, disease, etc. Double that number of hives would be better.

So, I'm thinking the subject line here may be a bit premature and has turned out to be provocative. Nothing was debunked as far as I can see. What did occur, though, was that one more researcher was unable to confirm an effect claimed for smaller cells by some, under the conditions of the experiment. After all proving a negative is difficult.

Lets get past the fighting over this person's pet idea and that person's pet idea and find out what the bees' ideas are.


----------



## little55

I only have three years of beekeeping experience BUT I have many years of trouble shooting skills in the electrical and electronics industry. I think we need to be shooting ideas of why these methods work or don't work not shooting down each others methods. There is evidently some basis to small cell and its results but it may not necessarily be what some people think is the cause and effect and the opposite for those arguing against it. I have a theory but it may not be correct but here goes. I say that during the process of regression and the population drops maybe that is a selection process that is selecting the genes to control mites or whatever ails them. that could be the reason for the different results in studies, different genetics. So shoot away!


----------



## peterloringborst

little55 said:


> I think we need to be shooting ideas of why these methods work or don't work not shooting down each others methods.


I thought I made it crystal clear that Tom Seeley's motivation for testing small cell was to find something that_ would work_. And it didn't. How complicated is that?


----------



## little55

Yeah but just because it did not work for him does not mean that it does not work in certain environments and certain situations. So because he said that it didn't work I guess we all need to throw up our hands and move on to something else. I say we need to build from others successes not from ones failures. I know what you are saying he wanted something that works across the board like chemical did.


----------



## Allen Dick

> I know what you are saying he wanted something that works across the board like chemical did.


Out of fairness to Peter, I don't think he said any such thing. Lets' keep this discussion level and honest. It could be constructive. 

The whole question of cell size is very interesting if dialogue does not degenerate to oversimplification and argument, which, sadly, it almost always does.


----------



## Tom G. Laury

*Question of cell size*

Some people think that cell size gets smaller and smaller with successive generations of bees. If this is so, aren't there an awful lot of "small cell" bees around? Is this "natural regression"?


----------



## HoneyBull

*Re: Question of cell size*

I'm a brand new Beekeeper, a hobbyist if you will. I got into this hobby to enjoy my bees, I don't have a ton of experience or a ton of information or a ton of scientific knowledge and information for that matter. and I really don't want the last thing. I have decided to try small cell and natural cell size because I saw many people on here have tried it, and especially due to Michael Bush's expereinces. I happen to live in a similar climate and area than Michael Bush so maybe because of this it will work for me. I don't want to spend hours hunting down chemicals and trying this treatment and that treatment. If I have to spend half my hobby time becoming a Bee physician, its just not worth it for me to even bee in beekeeping, if my few hives die every year God forbid. I can afford to replace them. If they don't if this small cell stuff, and natural bee keeping works. Then I can just sit back and enjoy my bees like I want to. I don't even know why someone would want to get into the hobby if they are going to spend all their time worrying about this treatment and that treatment. Its just too much **** work. JMO


----------



## mythomane

Ok. I went ahead and read your three part article on Keeping Bees Without Chemicals. The link is here, along with some other bee info from the upstate beekeepers association:
http://groups.google.com/group/upstate-new-york-beekeeping/files

This seems to me a cursory referendum on chemical-free beekeeping in the vein of a high school research paper, using varied sources, but little from your own real experience. Part 1 deals with "bee management" which you seem to believe involves splitting your bees as much as possible to make up for loss. Part 2 concentrates on "bee breeding" which advocates the open mating of nucs split from your colonies in order to build a more hardy bee. Ok. Part 3 is an very short overview of IPM, with the second half being wholly devoted to a refutation of small cell beekeeping as a "false premise." I did not learn anything, and frankly such a basic overview is hardly indicate of your views. The greater majority of your posts on this forum and elsewhere seem to me either obfuscatingly meaningless, denouncing to small cell beekeepers/organic management, or solidly backing the pesticide companies and their products.


----------



## greengecko

peterloringborst said:


> Those and a lot of other interesting stuff (not be me) is available to download (anonymously) at
> 
> Upstate New York Beekeeping


Interesting reading, thanks for sharing.


----------



## Tom G. Laury

Honey Bull, Alfred E. Nuemann couldn't have said it any better:

What, me worry?


----------



## Jack Grimshaw

I would like to see an experiment where someone who is successfully keeping bees on small cell with no treatments places a few hives on "lg"cell without treatment.If small cell is the answer to our problems then those hives should crash.


----------



## Barry

I believe Dennis M. did this already.


----------



## Reno310

I have read many accounts of chemical free success and failures with the small cell beeks. I have also read about success and failure of chemical free beeks that are still on large cell. You don't hear much from the large cell group because they usually don't identify their success is due to cell size. After all, their cell size didn't change. They are usually talking about genetics when they are successful. Some call it live and let die, some actively seek new queens through purchase or selective breeding, or depend on "feral swarms", searching for the bee that will survive without chemicals. If you have kept bees for awhile, one thing we all can agree, your hive will be different tomorrow than it is today. So the journey from point A (the day you decide you are going chemical free) to point B (the day you look around and decide, hey, I am chemical free) is a continuum. This is true whether you are small cell or large cell. The similarity in accounts for successful beeks goes like this: “I had a tough first year but it got better as I went along.” Similarly, those that fail, say "I lost all of them the first year and tried again the next. I lost them too." Now, a beek might beat his head into a wall once or twice, but they are not going to keep doing it forever. (well, some of you might, you know who you are.) So the failure folks run back to where they came and say: “Small cell doesn’t work” or “the bee genetics are just not ready to be chemically free”. The successful guys/gals (ladies, I didn’t mean to exclude you all :lookout They look back and say: “Small cell works” or “I raised the first super bee, my genetic work really paid off.” These folks didn't counted anything or kept any real records to document what all happened in that time(except maybe what was important in their eyes) but they all are convinced what worked. “Small cell works”, or “ I bred my genetics and I knew I could”. So it occurs to me, all of you successful folks, are you sure? Can it be that both groups are both right? How about, can it be you are both wrong? How about, can it be that you are all just lucky? Or maybe you are all on the same path. Perhaps we are all just in a period of time that more and more of the bees out there are more tolerant/resistant of varroa/treachal? You all are talking about a massive change in the coexistence of a host and it’s parasites. Three years, or ten, really? To the honey bee and the mite, ten years is a blink of an eye. I would like to see some of those successful folks, if you think small cell is the answer, put a hive or two back on large cell and see what happens. Those that have chemical free bees on large cell, put some on small cell. Rather than start with unknown bees or chemically dependent colonies, start the test from the other side. Chemically free survivor bees. Could be interesting.


----------



## greengecko

"In beekeeping, as in most endeavors, there are many ways to accomplish the same task and many interpretations of the same facts or data, just as many roads lead to the same destination, although it is equally true that different individuals following the same road can arrive at different destinations." - Queen Must Die and Other Affairs of Bees and Men


----------



## Omie

Sorry, believe it or not my cat stepped on my keyboard and sent this post prematurely before I had finished it, so I had to return to edit it. 

There should also be included in such a comparison test some colonies that are allowed to determine their own cell size- in other words bees that have been raised on foundationless Lang frames for several generations (all other factors being as equal as possible, thus not using top bar hives).
It occurs to me that in both large cell and small cell comparisons, the size of the cell is rather 'set' to be uniform- while in nature the bees make various sized cells according to their situation and needs as they see fit.
So with that in mind, wouldn't a more well rounded study include large cell, small cell, and natural 'free choice' sized cells?


----------



## beemandan

bigbearomaha said:


> I am curious as to why some people seem to be so threatened by alternative and 'naturalist' methods in the first place.


Because they don’t agree…they feel ‘threatened????


mythomane said:


> Many of the so-called scientists that publish findings such as this are funded or paid off.


You obviously don’t know the people involved and you make such a suggestion?


Barry said:


> It is no secret that those (myself included) who have converted from LC to SC incurred a significant loss initially.


Actually Barry, in my opinion, that’s a well kept secret. Whenever I see someone telling a new beekeeper to go to small cell….I rarely (if ever ) see any disclaimer about losses.


----------



## Michael Bush

>You don't do varroa counts? Not even a sugar shake?

I used to, but when they got hard to find I quit.

>Do you have varroa present in your hives? 

I saw three or four Varroa last year. Yes. There are Varroa.

As far as the discussion of losses, I think the losses were from the stress of doing shakedowns, not from small cell. When not doing shakedowns I had no severe losses. As far as treating and not treating, I lost the same number of hives to Varroa when I treated with Apistan as when I did not treat. I saw no difference. As far as small cell and not treating and large cell and not treating I went from losing them all to Varroa to losing none to Varroa. I have not seen a significant Varroa infestation since regressing. Everyone, of course, is entitled to their opinions and their experiences. But that is mine.

http://www.bushfarms.com/beessctheories.htm


----------



## Reno310

greengecko said:


> "In beekeeping, as in most endeavors, there are many ways to accomplish the same task and many interpretations of the same facts or data, just as many roads lead to the same destination, although it is equally true that different individuals following the same road can arrive at different destinations." - Queen Must Die and Other Affairs of Bees and Men


Exactly.


----------



## peterloringborst

> How about, can it be you are both wrong? How about, can it be that you are all just lucky? Or maybe you are all on the same path. Perhaps we are all just in a period of time that more and more of the bees out there are more tolerant/resistant of varroa/treachal? You all are talking about a massive change in the coexistence of a host and it’s parasites. Three years, or ten, really? To the honey bee and the mite, ten years is a blink of an eye.


This is very close to what I have been saying all along. Without records, and without follow a method, and without repeatability, these people -- despite their successes -- simply don't know why they are succeeding. I know people who do not treat and they have their explanations. Most simply don't hold water. 

The idea that evolution will produce a bee that survives nicely in a beekeeper's yard is nuts. Evolution, over millions of years, has produced survivor bees, that's for sure. A lot of them are meaner than hornets (Apis dorsata). A lot of them are pitiful honey producers (Apis cerana). A lot of them simply take off to the woods, when bothered by pests. This is called absconding and they do this when molested by birds, insects, or -- people. 

So you see that none of these evolved behaviors resulted in a bee that is well suited to beekeeping. That is why we have the varroa problem in the first place, because the people living in the range of Apis cerana, the original host of varroa, these people imported European bees (Apis melllifera) to try to make a decent amount of honey, which Asian bees _don't do._

This is what motivated the importation of African bees into the Americas, another experiment gone wrong. These bees do_ much better_ in the tropics because they are mean like dorsata, which makes them pest resistant. They also abscond, which makes them a bit of trouble to keep in hives. But -- they also build up rapidly and swarm themselves silly, which means the empty hives fill back up by themselves.

But back to the thread -- what is different about what these people are doing that allows them to succeed where others have failed? Do you think the rest of us don't wonder? That we don't want to know? Of course we do! The point is, the basic suggestions, when tried by other people in other areas, haven't worked. 

Now I don't know how many of you have heard of Tom Seeley (well you have now). He has been working with honey bees since the 1970s. Back then, he cut down and dissected dozens of natural colonies and so he knows more than anybody about natural colonies, what kinds of combs they have, what size they are, etc. Most people that do cut outs just throw everything in a bucket. He counted cells, measured them, compared them, analyzed the numbers, everything.

And on top of all the other work he does (head of the Neurobiology Dept of Cornell, author of the Wisdom of the Hive, teaching, numerous research projects) he also tackled the issue of non-treatment for varroa. At least three paths have been tried. 1) stop treating, do nothing; 2) Import feral bees from the woods; 3) Put bees on small cells.

Stop treating is an easy study to do. Around here, they simply die. I know plenty of people that do this, they generally lose 80 percent per year. The ones that survive are often among the 80 percent that die the following year, so no -- one does not breed from the survivors. One keeps buying more bees (expensive, at $90 per nuc). 

Seeley imported feral bees, raised queens, the bees got varroa and the varroa built up just the same as with the regular Buckfast bees. So, they were not genetically distinct. Maybe the wild bees had a different type of varroa? Studying subsets of varroa is going on, but is expensive and has yielded little. 

Finally, he tried putting them on small cells. That did not retard the buildup of varroa. Why would it? Varroa can reproduce in small cells as well as large cells, this has been shown time and again. 

So one has to look again at why these folks and their bees are doing OK. Several months ago I started a discussion on this, and I was proposing that isolation was the key difference. It is pretty obvious that if you live in Queens the likelihood of getting swine flu, hepatitis, various infectious diseases, are a lot greater than if you live in a cabin in the Adirondacks and don't see anybody for months. 

Beekeepers that move their bees around expose them to various combinations of pathogens, and all tend to have sick bees. They move these bees into your area, you are going to get these problems. This is true, I have seen it working as a bee inspector. Bees in isolated areas are much less likely to have small hive beetles, foulbrood, new pests, etc. So, I think isolation is a key factor. And so does Tom and he is planning on a study on that.

But our friend WLC has come up with a new, improved theory. He suggests that survivor bees are surviving because they have incorporated viral DNA into their genomes. The phenomenon of natural genetic engineering is pretty new and whenever we talk about it, which we did quite a bit in another thread, we get comments like: You guys are giving me a headache, or I'm sick of your obfuscatory meaninglessness. 

Be that as it may, my chief goal in all of my writing has been to take what I have learned by poring over the scientific work, and talking to experts, and trying things on my own, -- and turn it into something most people can understand, think about and use. We are going to lick this together or not at all. Because frankly, the technique of holing up in some mountain hollow with wild bees in log hives, won't work for everybody. 

So if my writing comes off as a high school term paper, I am sorry. That's what most people want to read. If it comes off as obfuscatory, I am sorry, but I know a few ten letter words. Ridiculous, comes to mind, but I try to keep my real opinions to myself.

But back to WLC and the invasive viral vector. I think he is on to something, though I am not sure what. He thinks it bodes poorly, if survivor bees are some kind of naturally genetically modified freaks carrying a ticking dna time bomb in their chromosomes. Many people are beginning to realize that this may be one of the chief ways that evolution does its business, by incorporating the dna of other species, either to obtain resistance to pests, or -- get this -- to obtain desirable characteristics from other organisms that already have them. 

The transfer of genetic material in this way may be quite common. So, genetic engineering may not be the evil genie we let out of the bottle, but the stock and trade of nature. Many people are beginning to think that prior to sexual reproduction (can I say that on BeeSource?) this was the principal mode of dna transference. Over time it became formalize into gamete reproduction, permanent dna storage of genetic sequence, etc. Sexual reproduction evolved as the principal means of transferring dna, and -- get this -- to obtain desirable characteristics from other organisms (read: mate) that already have them. 

To be continued.


----------



## Barry

beemandan said:


> Actually Barry, in my opinion, that’s a well kept secret. Whenever I see someone telling a new beekeeper to go to small cell….I rarely (if ever ) see any disclaimer about losses.


As MB pointed out, I did shake downs which account for a significant loss. It doesn't seem that any are doing it this way anymore. But that was the "standard" way when all this started.


----------



## BWrangler

Hi Guys,


Barry said:


> I believe Dennis M. did this already.


Yep, been there. Done that. I un-regressed them  Basically all the large cell bees quickly got PMS. The small cell bees kept trucking. The details are here:

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

And I've written a little about my small cell downside experience here:

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

Regardless of small cell's downside, it's important to remember that, at the time, not treating bees was considered an anathema. All the top researchers were promoting it and looking for new and better mite pesticides. Regulators were demanding it. And beekeepers generally considered anyone not treating as a source of pests and a threat to beekeeping. 

Commercial beekeepers were spraying, fuming and soaking there hives with every combination of barnyard chemicals they could get their hands on.

Even the alternative crowd was 'treating' with softer chems like essential oils, mineral oils and organic acids.

Other than the very opinionated people and the ensuing vitriolic atmosphere, small cell's downside was nothing like the dead hives, contaminated equipment and pesticide exposure endured by the large cell crowd at the time.


----------



## Reno310

peterloringborst said:


> This is very close to what I have been saying all along. Without records, and without follow a method, and without repeatability, these people -- despite their successes -- simply don't know why they are succeeding. I know people who do not treat and they have their explanations. Most simply don't hold water.


I agree with everything you have said. But because we haven't found why, we can only treat everything as a data point. Good or Bad. 



> The idea that evolution will produce a bee that survives nicely in a beekeeper's yard is nuts. Evolution, over millions of years, has produced survivor bees, that's for sure.


My point here was that a "natural" change should take more than 3 years and small cell or man's envolvement. 



> So you see that none of these evolved behaviors resulted in a bee that is well suited to beekeeping.


Not that I know for sure why or how these other bees adapted, but
each evolved response in all species includes a level of chance and suppression as well as opportunity and least resistance. Their path does not necessarily set in stone this outcome. Still, it takes a long time. Look how long we have been mixing the races and still there is race purity. 



> But back to the thread -- what is different about what these people are doing that allows them to succeed where others have failed? Do you think the rest of us don't wonder? That we don't want to know? Of course we do! The point is, the basic suggestions, when tried by other people in other areas, haven't worked.


More accurately, I think you have to say it doesn't work everywhere it has been tried, and if it was the answer, it would work everywhere.



> So one has to look again at why these folks and their bees are doing OK.


Yes, and hopefully the small cell folks will agree.



> Several months ago I started a discussion on this, and I was proposing that isolation was the key difference.


This seems logical to me and I have read many success accounts that included an isolated area. (isolated from other bees/mites).



> So, I think isolation is a key factor. And so does Tom and he is planning on a study on that.


A good study, I look forward to those findings



> But our friend WLC has come up with a new, improved theory.


That is the kind of chance stuff I am talking about above.



> Be that as it may, my chief goal in all of my writing has been to take what I have learned by poring over the scientific work, and talking to experts, and trying things on my own, -- and turn it into something most people can understand, think about and use. We are going to lick this together or not at all.


I for one want to hear what you have to say. I recognize the effort you put in and let me say "thank you". 



> But back to WLC and the invasive viral vector.


I agree, this is a very interesting subject.


----------



## peterloringborst

BWrangler said:


> Commercial beekeepers were spraying, fuming and soaking there hives with every combination of barnyard chemicals they could get their hands on.


He's right about that! 










Mitaban (Amitraz) Dip 10.6ml


----------



## Jack Grimshaw

Reno: " one thing we all can agree, your hive will be different tomorrow than it is today."

My chem free hives are doing fine today.
Tomorrow ????? I guess that's what gets me up in the morning.

In 2004 I started 2 pkgs of Southern sourced Italians on Dadant(I think) small cell foundation and 2 on lg cell.
At the same time I decided no more treatments on my other hives,primarily NWC mutts with a few early russians mixed in(remember those head butts?)
All hives on SBB.

Very unscientific.No record keeping,just casual observations.
Some sugar rolls.Drone brood inspection.Some 2or 3 day mite drop counts.
So many mites I had to use a clear grid to keep track of counts.

First small cell hive never drew a straight comb and eventually petered out the first year.
The 2nd did well.had a bumper crop the 2nd year. I swear they were robbers though,5 supers where the other hives in the same yard had less than 2. It was a bear to work .Bulging honey cells on the same frame as depressed broodcells.
Later I would read of MB shaving the frames narrower.That would have solved the bulging problem I think.
By the end of year 2, tons of varroa and some DWV in all 3 remaining hives of Italians and not one made it through the winter.
The mutts had mites also and what I considered to be average winter loss.20-40%.
I did no Tracheal mite disections

But ,Like MB said,I had the same loss when I was treating .So why bother.
I now know that it was timing when I was treating.I was greedy.I wanted that fall flow.I never could get those strips(or wafers towards the end) on before mid Oct.

Like I said.Unscientific.But it works for me.

And I am isolated Peter,but not in some mt."holler"
Suburbia,just off rt 91 between Hartford and Springfield.
Just a few other halfa**ed hobbyists like me but no sideliners or comercial.


----------



## beemandan

Barry said:


> As MB pointed out, I did shake downs which account for a significant loss. It doesn't seem that any are doing it this way anymore.


My regressed bees (2 years) were failing when I unregressed them....and I'm pretty sure I didn't do anything that could be described as a shakedown.


----------



## Countryboy

According to Dewey Caron, Africanized bees don't have mite problems. He commented on AHB drawing smaller cells, and faster brood development. (18-19 days instead of 21, which also correlates to Michael Bush's observations of brood development times on small cells.)

Dewey Caron insisted mite resistance had nothing to do with smaller cell sizes or brood development times. He seemed to think varroa mite resistance in AHB was solely due to AHB raising drones first early int he season, and then shutting down drone rearing.

_Be that as it may, my chief goal in all of my writing has been to take what I have learned by poring over the scientific work, and talking to experts, and trying things on my own, -- and turn it into something most people can understand, think about and use._

Experts don't get stung. The people who don't get stung are people who don't get their hands dirty. Polite circles may call them armchair experts - less polite circles simply call them college educated idiots. Folks who regurgitate college educated idiocy receive even less favorable titles.

There is no replacement for actual experience. Relying on others observations can lead you on wild goose chases (even when these observations are from 'experts'.)


----------



## Omie

> _Small Cells Debunked by World Renowned Bee Researcher_


Well gee, I'm glad _that's_ all settled now.


----------



## peterloringborst

That's what I love about this group, it's always one step forward, two steps back

:applause:


----------



## Omie

Countryboy said:


> According to Dewey Caron, Africanized bees don't have mite problems. He commented on AHB drawing smaller cells, and faster brood development. (18-19 days instead of 21, which also correlates to Michael Bush's observations of brood development times on small cells.)
> Dewey Caron insisted mite resistance had nothing to do with smaller cell sizes or brood development times. He seemed to think varroa mite resistance in AHB was solely due to AHB raising drones first early int he season, and then shutting down drone rearing.


That's interesting. I just finished taking a beekeeping course with a local BK in his 80's (50+ years of keeping bees for a living) who spent some time in Costa Rica learning about how they manage bees down there. (the following is simply what he told us, not my direct experience mind you) He told us that the bees there pretty much all had varying percentages of African bee genetics. He said the beekeepers he met there in Costa Rica scoffed at the many treatments and medications we Americans pour into our hives to combat diseases and varroa etc. He told us that the mix with AHB strain resulted in _very hygienic bees_ which simply did not tolerate larvae with mites or sick bees- any member of the hive not in perfect health was immediately booted out by the other bees, and the BK's always allowed any sickly hives to die off rather than treat them. And he too mentioned that the brood cycle was shorter in these mixed bees with a goodly dose of African genes mixed in. he didn't say what kind/size of foundation (if any) were commonly used there though.


----------



## peterloringborst

This, just in from Brazil



> Varroa destructor mite, an ectoparasite of Apis cerana and Apis mellifera honey bees, is the main pest responsible for problems in apiculture. However, the intensity of damage caused by Varroa mites has been shown to vary according to the region studied. In Brazil and other parts of the world, where bees of African origin and their hybrids predominate, a perfect relationship exists between the parasite and its host.
> 
> However, it is _unknown_ whether the severity of the effects caused by the Varroa parasite depends on the genotype of the bees and/or on the genotype of the mite. Evidence suggests that the mite V. destructor is a complex species. Studies have shown a correlation between the various genotypes of the mite and its fertility in different geographical regions.
> 
> Worldwide differences in the infestation of A. mellifera bees with the mite V. destructor suggest a correlation between some genotypes and a higher or lower virulence of the mite.
> 
> The fertility of Varroa mites in Brazil has increased to European levels. In 1986-1987, only 35% of the varroa females that invaded worker broods had left at the least one viable descendant, compared to 72% in 2005-2006 (Carneiro et al., 2007).
> 
> Genetics and Molecular Research 9 (1): 303-308 (2010) RAPD identification of Varroa destructor genotypes


----------



## peterloringborst

More from Brazil



> the occurrence of defensive mechanisms, such as grooming and the hygienic behavior exhibited by Africanized bees, could be one of the causes for the low levels that this varroasis reaches these bees. However, several investigators support the hypothesis that _the variation in the female reproductive capacity of the mite _V. destructor on workers brood cells from different A. mellifera subspecies _is the main factor_ for differences in the levels of infestation attained by the varroasis pest. In worker brood cells from African bees and their hybrids, the reproductive success of Varroa would be lower than with European bees; this would explain the low level of infestation caused by the mite V. destructor in Africanized bees in Brazil and other countries


----------



## AmericasBeekeeper

Peter, nice article on "The Mystery of the Hive" in ABJ, cannot wait for the sequels.


----------



## peterloringborst

Hey, thanks! I appreciate that greatly

Pete


----------



## bigbearomaha

> That's what I love about this group, it's always one step forward, two steps back



maybe in your way of thinking, luckily your one opinion is as valueless as anyone elses here.

The beauty of this forum is that anyone can express an opinion and it means no more and no less than the next persons. including yours.

Big Bear


----------



## Barry

peterloringborst said:


> More from Brazil
> 
> "In worker brood cells from African bees and their hybrids, the reproductive success of Varroa would be lower than with European bees"


So are we back to the theory that those having success with SC have AHB genes in their bees? I know that was talked about years ago, especially due to the location of the Lusby's.


----------



## Barry

Let's keep the personal remarks off the forum.


----------



## peterloringborst

Barry said:


> So are we back to the theory that those having success with SC have AHB genes in their bees? I know that was talked about years ago, especially due to the location of the Lusby's.


Not where I was headed. The question was about African bees being more hygienic and I posted info pointing towards the variable genetic makeup of the mite, as well as the effect of different geographic locales.


----------



## Tom G. Laury

It is true that we get a lot of feisty bees coming up from south Texas for almond pollination and they don't seem to have had the losses reported in other areas of the country.


----------



## AmericasBeekeeper

Another possibility is that the fresh genetic infusion lessened the effects of genetic depression from 88 years of inbreeding that causes reduced resistance. The heterosis with genes of sub-species exposed to the diseases, pests and parasites in Africa, South and Central America formed hybrids similar to Buckfast, oh where did (and does) he get his original stocks? So these illegal inportations diversified our gene pool from the shallow puddle of eight decades.


----------



## DRUR

"_The work supported by the grant has now shown conclusively_"

_*conclusively--with final determination; as the point of law is conclusively settled.*_

Obviously, the author's viewpoint is so tainted and biased and prejudicial to also be of little or no value. For Seeley to think that his research on 20 colonies 'conclusively' settles this issue would put any statement, past or future to be doubted. It taints all of his credentials. Seeley, simply put, is not to be trusted nor respected, without regard to his credentials.

I suppose that Dr. Dejong's research showing the exact opposite results weighs no merit with regard to Peter's use of the term 'dubunk' and Seeley 'conclusively settles' statement. 

Dr. Dejong's research showed an increase in mite counts directly related to cell size. From 5.4 to 5.1, to 4.9, the mite count attributable to each cell size decreased as cell size decreased. Studies have also shown that mite counts are higher on drones [larger cell size] than on worker cells. Jennifer Berry mentioned this study in her video post numerous times in this forum. Peter, there is no doubt that you have had every opportunity to view this video, but yet seem to turn a blind eye towards Dr. Dejong's study results. Further, you and others fail to explain the successes of other beeks using small cell without mite treatment.

For Seeley to have reached his conclusion with any scientific respect he would have first had to have gone and shown that Dr. Dejong's research results was some type of explainable anomoly. He would also have to visit apiaries of those that are using small cell, without mite treatment, and explain how in today's environment, an apiary can be maintained showing no significant mite count yearend and yearout. Where is the peer review, where is the debate concerning the parameters of the research, etc, etc.

As a side note. I was called about a swarm that was on the ground, actually it was on an asphalt driveway. The swarm was small, covered an area of about the circum. of a 5 gal. bucket and was only about 3 inches deep. Me and my son searched for the queen [which we never located], but did notice that every 2-4 drones had a mite on its back. We probably examined 40-50 drones as this swarm had many. As we pulled the drones out for examination, we also killed them and cast them aside. We then examined the workers. We could not find a single worker with a mite on its back. Just an observation, but I am sure it would have no significance to the so-called scientist of our day, but it sure does to me. High mite counts on drones will have little affect on a survivability of a colony. High mite counts on workers will have an adverse affect on survivability of a colony.


Regard 
Danny


----------



## DRUR

With regard to the argument that AHB are immune to mites. There is a published article by ARS refuting this allegation. During the mid 90's when the AHB 1st began crossing the border, the Weslaco research center maintained an apiary at a remote location which was taken over by AHB bees [after it had crashed from varroa mites. The equipment was still there but all colonies had become residents of AHB. I assume that this equipment was all on large cell although the study did not mention it one way or the other. All of these AHB colonies eventually collapsed from varrao mites. The conclusion was that AHB had no more natural resistance to AHB than European bees. 

Note, though that by the mid 90's varroa were just beginning to have an impact on feral populations. So the Ahb population of that time in that area would not have previously developed an immunity. However, now, both the feral population of Ahb and European bees have developed immunity, ie. through survivior colonies which have spread their genetics. 

I also, take note though that in South Texas most of the feral colonies now have Ahb influence, but since they have been without treatment would have developed as 'survivor ahb', in much the same manner as european feral colonies in nonAhb areas have also developed immunity.

This is one of the reasons why I will be testing my Australian queens on both 'small cell' and large cell colonies to see if these queens which have no mite resistance can survive, or if there is any difference between small cell and large cell.

Danny


----------



## mike bispham

"The work supported by the grant has now shown conclusively that providing honey bee colonies with frames of small-cell (4.9 mm) combs does not depress the reproduction of Varroa mites relative to giving colonies frames of standard-cell (5.4 mm) combs."

Suggested improvement to paper title:

"...providing honey bee colonies with frames of small-cell (4.9 mm) combs AND MAKING NO OTHER CHANGES... does not depress the reproduction of Varroa mites relative to giving colonies frames of standard-cell (5.4 mm) combs."

The successful small cellers a) allow their bees to adjust to small cell through several generations, b), tend to allow them to make their own comb, c) allow natural selection to weed out unfit bloodlines thus bringing resistance behaviours to the fore, d) tend to pay much more attention to treating their guests with respect and sensitivity, rather than treating them like mechanical units of production.

What has been 'debunked' is any claim that simply providing frames of small cell combs to bees conditioned to standard ones, and doing nothing else whatsoever does not depress mites. I don't who would have made such a claim. 

And, as I've said before, scientists like to test one variable at a time. Not often a rewarding strategy when there are a number of additive factors at work.

Just a thought: again, it might be a good idea to read and (and perhaps summarise for us) the author's own conclusions rather than just snatching the raw experimental result. Context and expert evaluation are essential. We'll all learn more that way.

Mike


----------



## mike bispham

peterloringborst said:


> More from Brazil
> 
> "the occurrence of defensive mechanisms, such as grooming and the hygienic behavior exhibited by Africanized bees, could be one of the causes for the low levels that this varroasis reaches these bees. However, several investigators support the hypothesis that the variation in the female reproductive capacity of the mite V. destructor on workers brood cells from different A. mellifera subspecies is the main factor for differences in the levels of infestation attained by the varroasis pest. In worker brood cells from African bees and their hybrids, the reproductive success of Varroa would be lower than with European bees; this would explain the low level of infestation caused by the mite V. destructor in Africanized bees in Brazil and other countries "


I reckon it is worth bearing in mind in conversations about 'africanized' bees that they all stem from survivor populations, and in most localities survivor populations probably vastly outnumber apiary populations. They have what it take to survive because they have adapted in each generation to whatever threatens them. If they hadn't they'd have died out.

This rather turns the whole thing around. They are simply a healthy feral population that is not being continually systematically messed up by the absurd and ignorant artificial maintenance of unfit bloodlines, and the lack of counterbalance from a healthy wild/feral population - which state characterises the US and European populations. 

Mike


----------



## peterloringborst

bigbearomaha said:


> The beauty of this forum is that anyone can express an opinion and it means no more and no less than the next persons. including yours.
> 
> Big Bear


Hey, I like you too. Seriously, what I meant was, days into the discussion, thousands of words later, a couple of johnny come latelys want to quarrel over the wording of the subject header. Do you ever read the newspapers, guys? Banner headlines are always a bit out of sync with the actual story. 

The idea is to get you to read the article, instead of thinking: nothing here -- best move on. Sooner or later, you move on anyway, so it's just a hook. Obviously there is a lot more to it than "Small Cells Debunked by World Renowned Bee Researcher". 

What I like is a long term in depth discussion with all sides weighing in and some advancement in the full understanding of the topic. Personally, I learn more that way. 

Evidently sniping is permitted around these parts, but so far the shots have missed me. I already said once, but it bears repeating: if everyone is agreeing, nobody is thinking. (Thanks Allen, for the great quote). 

PS. Is this overly obfuscatory?


----------



## peterloringborst

AmericasBeekeeper said:


> Buckfast, oh where did (and does) he get his original stocks?


Good question. A lot of Buckfast stock was imported directly into Canada. I don't really know the whole history of bee traffic back and forth between US and Canada, but (I think) it has only been halted in the past ten years or so


----------



## Michael Bush

>Suggested improvement to paper title:
>"...providing honey bee colonies with frames of small-cell (4.9 mm) combs AND MAKING NO OTHER CHANGES... does not depress the reproduction of Varroa mites relative to giving colonies frames of standard-cell (5.4 mm) combs."

Or better yet: "...providing honey bee colonies with frames of small-cell (4.9 mm) combs AND MAKING NO OTHER CHANGES... does not show lower Varroa mite counts relative to giving colonies frames of standard-cell (5.4 mm) combs within the first X months if kept in apiaries of bees with both sized combs..."

Part of what baffles me is that drones are reared mostly in the Spring and that is where I would expect a lot of Varroa reproduction in small cell hives (drones still have a 23 to 24 day cycle) so in the Spring I would expect small cell to have more Varroa as the Varroa have a clearer choice with the small cell obviously not being drones (as opposed to 5.4mm which may be more confusing). So, if the Varroa choose the more effecient method of reproduction there may be more of them in the Spring and Summer and this may drop off as drone rearing drops off because, in my experience, they are not very effecient at successful reproduction in the small cell. In other words the poulation curve of Varroa counts may be dramatically different over the course of the year. But no one seems interested in a full year, let alone multi year experiment, except those who are happily raising their bees on natural and small cell with no treatments. That, of course, doesn't mean anything...


----------



## peterloringborst

Regarding varroa and cell size, I seriously doubt whether varroa mites have any sense of cell size. How would they? Do you suppose they walk around the rim and measure it?

The reason that there are more mites in drone cells has been studied. Several ideas are: 1) drone cells are open a lot longer than worker cells; 2) drone larvae give off more or different odor than worker larvae; 3) nurses visit worker larvae more often and are more diligent about removing larvae with mites on them.


----------



## DRUR

peterloringborst said:


> what I meant was, days into the discussion, thousands of words later, a couple of johnny come latelys want to quarrel over the wording of the subject header.


Ever think that we were not johnny come latelys, but just lacked the time to make a concerted effort to rebut.



peterloringborst said:


> Banner headlines are always a bit out of sync with the actual story.


If, that is how you meant it then I regret my statement concerning my 'debunk' remark, but certainly not the 'conclusively settles' remark by Seeley.



peterloringborst said:


> What I like is a long term in depth discussion with all sides weighing in and some advancement in the full understanding of the topic. Personally, I learn more that way.


I don't guess you have noticed that this 'banner' issue has been discussed to death several times and extensively. This 'new' study adds absolutely nothing [as far as I can see] to the prior studies and therefore was nothing more than a waste of someone's grant money and effort. One might be well served to study why those who are on small cells survive without treatment. Someone with an open mind would do this. 


Regards Danny


----------



## DRUR

peterloringborst said:


> The question is not about whether Michael Bush worries about varroa or not. The question is about whether simply switching to small cells will reduce varroa infestation in colonies.


Actually the question is whether or not bees have a higher rate of survivability on small or natural cell vs. large cell without treatment. But I guess that question *has been 'conclusively' *answered, at least to those of us who are doers.


----------



## DRUR

Barry said:


> I know some say the conversion is only a blip now with plastic SC, but I have not experience that route myself.


Barry, I first purchased my 2 colonies March 2009. These were from a treated apiary. I began splitting and removing the large cell frames. I went from 2 to 8 colonies in one year and have not treated except my last colony that was slowest in converting to small cell. They were crashing from mites and gmcharlie asked that I use the powdered sugar treatments [which I did] to see if I could save them until they were fully regressed. I helped them out also with frames of brood from regressed colonies to boost population and encourage the queen to lay in small cell, which she eventually did. I treated 4-5 times with powdered sugar and after each treatment my mite counts went down. then we entered the heat of August and brood rearing ceased and I suspect this is what saved the colony. In September after the dearth, mite populations shown on 48 hour drops were nominal. All 8 of my colonies made it through the winter and I used them for splits for my 'Bee experiments' [see the thread I started]. I still have not lost any colonies and save for the powdered sugar treatment on that one colony have not treated.

Kindest Regards
Danny


----------



## sqkcrk

peterloringborst said:


> Good question. A lot of Buckfast stock was imported directly into Canada. I don't really know the whole history of bee traffic back and forth between US and Canada, but (I think) it has only been halted in the past ten years or so


As far as Buckfast stock going into Ontario, Canada, I know how that was done and have wrote about it a number of times on beesource. I can tell the story again if you wish. But that is only part of the story I'm sure.


----------



## DRUR

peterloringborst said:


> The question is about whether simply switching to small cells will reduce varroa infestation in colonies.


Another question which needs to be answered is the source of infestation. In another word, whether they be from drones [which would have no consequence on survivability of a colony] or whether they be from workers [which would have dire consequences concerngin survivability].

It is my understanding [although I could be wrong] is that in Dr. Dejong's study he examined the number of mites in the different size cells. And as the cell size decreased so did the mite number. The subsequent studies were more about mite drops. To me the source of those mites [whether they be from drones infestation or worker infestation] is an all important issue.

Kindest Regards
Danny


----------



## DRUR

peterloringborst said:


> Peter Loring Borst
> Beekeeping Experience


Thanks for the response and I will be reading your articles. 

Kindest Regards
Danny


----------



## Omie

I agree with what some have said about this scientific 'conclusive' experiment having been carried on for a very short time using bees that were never previously exposed to small cell foundation. It seems to me that would be a little bit like taking a person who had been smoking cigarettes all their life, having them quit smoking for 6 months, they get diagnosed with lung cancer, and announcing it as conclusive scientific evidence that 'not smoking does not reduce the incidence of lung cancer'.


----------



## peterloringborst

Omie
The test was about the effect smaller cells would have on varroa reproduction. A certain number of people suggested that varroa would fail to reproduce and hence fail to build up if the cells were smaller, like in Apis cerana.

This is what was tested: the effect of just changing the cell size. And the predicted effect failed to materialize. There have been several other studies conducted on this and they found the same result.

If you are saying that there is a long, involved procedure to making it work which takes years, that is a separate issue and you have veered into management which has nothing to do with the size of the cells.


----------



## mike bispham

peterloringborst said:


> ...people suggested that varroa would fail to reproduce and hence fail to build up if ...
> 
> [...]
> 
> If you are saying that there is a long, involved procedure to making it work which takes years, that is a separate issue and you have veered into management which has nothing to do with the size of the cells.


Peter, 

You are on record as saying in your view the selection achieved by stopping treatments and taking the subsequent losses is the likely reason why 'small cellers' are successful at arriving at, and then maintaining healthy stock that does not need treatment. I guess that is the sort of management procedures that you have in mind?

Michael Bush found that this kind of approach did not work until he allowed the bees to build cells to suit themselves. Other have found they can raise bees selectively and have them flourish on standard comb.

Can we agree that free-celling may form a useful part of a strategy to raise healthy bees by allowing, and/or actively encouraging natural resistance to varroa, but that forcing bees straight onto small comb appears to have little effect? And that small/free-celling may be one of a number of changes, all of which help in the aim of weaning off the chemicals and the constant manipulation regimes in favour of having stock that simply does not need such things as a result of strong bloodlines and sensible traditional-style practices? 

I imagine that in designing his experiment Seeley was in part seeking a quick fix that would enable large operations to continue as before. That aim, he showed, would not come this way.

Does that offer a rounded and contextualised account that everyone here can agree with?

Mike


----------



## WLC

Mike:

How about the 'Modern Prometheus' hypothesis?

The retrotransposons, in treatment free stock, 'knock out' genes so that the resulting honeybee strains no longer make substances required by the parasitic mites to complete their life cycle.

So, perhaps one is selecting for something other than cell size.

Those researchers might have been more successful with a 'contaminated' strain of bees!

Just a thought.


----------



## Michael Bush

>Regarding varroa and cell size, I seriously doubt whether varroa mites have any sense of cell size. How would they? Do you suppose they walk around the rim and measure it?


They have tried the following (according to the presentation given by Jennifer Berry at HAS several years ago):

Worker cells in both drone and worker cells and measured infestation. The drone sized cells were more attractive to the varroa even with worker larvae in them. Drone larvae in both worker and drone sized cells. The drone larvae in worker cells were more attractive to the Varroa than the workers in either size cell. The drones in drone cells were more attractive than either.

This would seem to indicate that there is both a mechanism for determining the gender of the larvae and for determining the size of the cell. I have no idea how they would measure it.

>The reason that there are more mites in drone cells has been studied. Several ideas are: 1) drone cells are open a lot longer than worker cells; 2) drone larvae give off more or different odor than worker larvae; 3) nurses visit worker larvae more often and are more diligent about removing larvae with mites on them. 

All of which may contribute. And most of those would also be true of large cell worker cells. They are open a day longer, they have to be fed a bit longer (therefore more visits). The would only lack the right pheromones for the added atractiveness noted above.


----------



## peterloringborst

Michael Bush said:


> >
> All of which may contribute. And most of those would also be true of large cell worker cells. They are open a day longer, they have to be fed a bit longer (therefore more visits). The would only lack the right pheromones for the added atractiveness noted above.


Michael,
I hardly think a difference of one day is significant. According to the work cited below



> The attractive period of drone brood cells is two to three times longer than that of worker brood cells.


They too studied the effect of workers in drone cells:



> in drone cells containing a worker larva 1/2 of the number of mites in control cells were found


The research deals with the detection of odor by the mites, which is more plausible than any idea of them "measuring" cells:



> The attractiveness of brood cells is related to the distance between the larva and the cell rim and the age of the larva.


In other words, they smell the larvae because they are nearer to the edge of the cell. 

They go on to stress the importance of the population sizes of bees and mites:



> The fraction of the phoretic mites that invade brood cells is determined by the ratio of the number of suitable brood cells and the size of the colony. The distribution of mites over worker and drone brood in a colony is determined by the specific rates of invasion and the numbers of both brood cell types.


Source:


> Invasion behaviour of Varroa jacobsoni Oud.: from bees into brood cells
> Joop Beetsma, Willem Jan Boot, Johan Calis
> Apidologie


----------



## Omie

peterloringborst said:


> The research deals with the detection of odor by the mites, which is more plausible than any idea of them "measuring" cells.


There is nothing unusual about insects choosing appropriately sized places in which to lay their eggs. I see myself with the two species of mason bees now nesting in my nesting block tubes- the slightly smaller species _Osmia taurus_ repeatedly checks out various similarly sized tubes while choosing one to their liking, and rejects the slightly too-large tubes in favor of the ever so slightly smaller diameter tubes. The slightly larger mason bee species _Osmia lignaria_ purposely chooses the slightly larger tubes that the littler species rejected. There is just the _tiniest_ difference in diameter between the two sized tubes, yet the bees investigate and evaluate the holes by size (I'd call that 'measuring') and then choose the size they judge to be better suited for their brood purposes. It's not like they are running around with teeny measuring sticks, after all. lol


----------



## peterloringborst

Omie said:


> There is nothing unusual about insects choosing appropriately sized places in which to lay their eggs.


Mites aren't insects 

But seriously, a bee can measure a cavity by going into it and checking the fit. The mite doesn't do this. They sniff their way into the drone cells.


----------



## mike bispham

WLC said:


> Mike:
> 
> How about the 'Modern Prometheus' hypothesis? ...


I don't mean to pour cold water for the sake of it, but... this is not a hypothesis, its a speculative whim. I'm much more interested in the straightforward scientifically based logical argument:

All living organisms need a selective regime to maintain health in the face of ever evolving predators;

Supplying treatments to honeybees removes selective pressure, thus undermining and absolutely disrupting the necessary process;

Failure to substitute human selection means there is no selection;

The logical and empirically demonstrable outcome is increasing vulnerability to an ever widening range of predators. Equals failing health, weakness, genetic inadequacy, or whatever you want to call it.​
The broad mechanism described has the capacity to explain, easily, and in straightfoward manner, using only basic biology and evolutionary theory, all the outstanding questions; for example: why bees can be kept treatment free in some areas and not in other; why some kinds of regimes suffer repeated high losses, why bees are not adapting to varroa, just what causes 'CCD', the puzzles surrounding small-cell...

Nobody yet has refuted the argument, or indicated an empirical counterexample. It simply stands, ready to explain, and show how to fix the problem.

Until they do (and please do try) what this says is: 


 Even if there were no other stress on honeybees, this mechanism alone would account for the current health problem. 

 Until this is fixed, there can be no improvement.

Like I say, I don't want to pour cold water for the sake of it, but your makes me think of an equivalent situation, in which we have a car that doesn't go, and has an empty fuel tank. What would you say to the 'mechanic' who speculates about the problem being inside the distributor, when you already both know that the first thing to do is put some fuel in? Tell, me, really, what would you say, and why?

I'm really puzzled. You profess expertise in biology. Why, when you are qualified to do so, won't you help the effort to put fuel in, instead of endlessly speculating about the hidden possibilities inside the distributor? 

Mike


----------



## mike bispham

peterloringborst said:


> They sniff their way into the drone cells.


Being picky: you know this? There is no tactile or visual input whatsoever? Mites have lungs and a nose? Or do you mean some other kind of 'sniff? You might be right - but I'd like to know what makes you think so. It smells to me like an assumption dressed up as knowledge.

Mike


----------



## 2ndCharter

mike bispham said:


> And, as I've said before, scientists like to test one variable at a time. Not often a rewarding strategy when there are a number of additive factors at work.


I am working on my Black Belt for Six Sigma. What you deem to be a proper study is known as a multivariate analysis, where variable interaction can be shown. The way this is done is through first identifying all the possible variables, even if there is no consensus on their influence. Then you create a DOE or Design of Experiment, through an unbiased mechanism. MiniTab, a statistical software program I use does this.

I really, really need a project to work on as my thesis project for my Black Belt. I would like to work with someone on this if they are serious enough to follow it through. It doesn't have to just be a SC study, which is the point to find out what really does get those big gains.


----------



## WLC

mike bispham said:


> I
> 
> 
> Even if there were no other stress on honeybees, this mechanism alone would account for the current health problem.
> 
> Until this is fixed, there can be no improvement.
> 
> I'm really puzzled. You profess expertise in biology. Why, when you are qualified to do so, won't you help the effort to put fuel in, instead of endlessly speculating about the hidden possibilities inside the distributor?
> 
> Mike


Mike:

Using small cell as part of a no treatment regime does involve selecting for survivors. That also includes survivors that can make RNAi against viral pathogens. Remember the 30% of the strains tested that were resistant to IAPV? That's a real number.

Using transposons to knock out genes isn't anything new. I've done it myself many times in the lab.

For example, what happens when you knock out an undesireable dominant gene leaving only a recessive gene to be expressed? The recessive trait gets expressed at a greater rate.

In the right hands, these newly found retrotransposons can be an invaluable tool.

I've mentioned to the beek with those white eyed drones that they might be a valuable strain to hold onto. They are exactly the type of chance find that can lead to utilizing and important genetic tool, retrotransposition in the Honeybee.

Both you and some of the other natural beekeeping advocates seem to have established a kind of 'mythology' around what you are doing. Unfortunately, the science doesn't back it up.

What I am describing is analytical in nature and testable. Either the no treatment survivors are making RNAi to a virus, or they aren't. Easily tested for today. No 'mythology' required.

Either some genes have been knocked out by virus fragments in those no treatment, mite resistant bees, or they haven't (small cell isn't a factor in this model). It's testable, and you can ID the genes involved.

We need to be objective here. Small cell foundation isn't a miracle cure for mites. It's far more likely that something else is going on.

All I've done is advocate for a testable model without the philosophy or the mythology.

Besides, I like my model better. It's got possibilities.


----------



## Omie

peterloringborst said:


> Mites aren't insects
> But seriously, a bee can measure a cavity by going into it and checking the fit. The mite doesn't do this. They sniff their way into the drone cells.


I never said mites were insects. 

Can you clarify something please? First you said:


> The reason that there are more mites in drone cells has been studied. Several ideas are: 1) drone cells are open a lot longer than worker cells; 2) drone larvae give off more or different odor than worker larvae; 3) nurses visit worker larvae more often and are more diligent about removing larvae with mites on them.


Now you clearly state that the mites seek drone cells because of the odor. Is this another 'conclusively' proven fact that has debunked all other explanations for why varroa prefer drone cells?


----------



## peterloringborst

Omie said:


> Now you clearly state that the mites seek drone cells because of the odor. Is this another 'conclusively' proven fact that has debunked all other explanations for why varroa prefer drone cells?


I am a scientist as such, I don't speak about certainty. Studies suggest the odor component over other sensory inputs. But it is far from certain.



> Without doubt, chemical orientation plays the crucial role during
> all parts of the Varroa life cycle. This becomes obvious in the
> preference behavior of female mites for certain host stages. As a
> parasite without a free living phase, the Varroa mite sticks either
> to the adult bees or stays within a brood cell.
> 
> The secretion of the esters by the honey
> bee larvae shows a clear ontogenetic pattern with a distinct maximum
> at the 5th instar during the time of cell capping (Trouiller
> et al. 1991). Drone larvae produce slightly higher quantities over
> a longer time period, which also supports the preferred infestation
> of drone brood
> 
> The attraction of Varroa females to several fractions of the extract
> from the larval cuticle has been confirmed in different bioassays.
> Not only the larva itself but also semiochemicals from the cocoon
> and larval food have some attractiveness to Varroa females.
> 
> However, we still have
> not identified the real ‘‘host odor” of the 5th instar larva of the honey
> bee: not a single experiment succeeded in luring the Varroa female
> from the adult bees to a dummy containing a certain blend, neither
> in the laboratory nor within the colony


Peter Rosenkranz, Pia Aumeier, Bettina Ziegelmann. 2010. Biology and control of Varroa destructor
Peter Rosenkranz, Pia Aumeier, Bettina Ziegelmann


----------



## Omie

Ok, thanks, that is clearer. So it still has not exactly been established whether _one particular_ factor or even if _a combination of factors_ (some of which we may not even have identified yet) draws more varroa to drone cells than worker cells.

I am not a scientist, but I believe that humans have a tendency to search for a single clear answer to a problem, when at times the answer may in fact lie in a certain _combination_ of factors creating a result. 
It's similar to when a drug is proven to be safe through strict drug trials and then marketed, but people may get very sick and even die if the same 'safe' drug is combined with other 'safe' drugs before it becomes known that there may be very harmful interactions if taking several drugs together in a certain combination. Taken by themselves, all the drugs are quite safe. But combined, they can be deadly. People died before such lethal interactions between medications were discovered. More dangerous medication combinations are being discovered every day.

Lately we've also been reading about the possibility being considered of CCD being the result of a 'chemical soup' of pesticides, herbicides,_ and_ 'good' medicinal treatments accumulating in the hive, along with various other bee stress factors...all possibly combining to result in the complete collapse of a bee colony health and their subsequent death. Or if not resulting in their death, then perhaps in the compromise of the bees immune system or defense systems, leaving them weakened and simply no longer able to combat diseases and pests, despite beekeepers' well-intentioned treatments and medications.

Most scientific studies tend (and rightly so) to purposely make all other factors equal and change only one thing- concentrating on finding the one clear single factor that causes something. This thread's small cell study is an example. While this is a proven basic scientific approach, I think that sometimes it may not find answers if those answers are actually found in certain combination of factors that _together_ produce a result, rather than the cause being one clearcut isolated thing....one pesticide, one drug, one single factor perhaps such as cell size. In such instances, I personally believe it might be wise to back up and take a different approach that looks at a broader set of factors in combination. Not to do so after years of continued failure to identify the specific single cause for bee failure and sickness seems to me like we are not able to see the forest for the trees.

To observe the devastating effect of varroa on bees, for example, and then to conclude the simple solution is to apply something to kill the varroa...rather than to try to find out _why_ the varroa is able to thrive to the point of causing the death of colonies, and studying how to create a situation that enables bees to live with and control varroa themselves, is somewhat shortsighted. After all, varroa die along with the death of the bee colony- the 'goal' of varroa would not normally be to kill off their host. What's going wrong?

Sorry to ramble, just some of my thoughts as I read this and other threads that seem to me to be related in concept.


----------



## palmerbee1629

repeat post


----------



## palmerbee1629

mythomane said:


> Well, there are many "armchair" beeks out there who think that reading studies and scientific journals somehow prove something. Many of the so-called scientists that publish findings such as this are funded or paid off. Just who would benefit by the results of this study? Publish or perish as they say -- never mind what the facts are.


Whoo this is a tense thread as is most of Beesource. Anti-science/pro-science at its greatest. That is what we love about America. I hardly think a PhD holder is a "so-called scientist." I'll add my two peanuts, I think the only people who are getting paid off are the manufacturers of small cell foundation, ergo as the only two manufacturers of foundation in the country Dadant and Kelley that I know of.


----------



## peterloringborst

> try to find out why the varroa is able to thrive to the point of causing the death of colonies, and study how to create a situation that enables bees to live with and control varroa themselves ...
> 
> Sorry to ramble, just some of my thoughts as I read this and other threads that seem to me to be related in concept.


Not rambling at all, you are so right. I was thinking this morning how people are so eager for the simple and so hostile toward the complex. But the paper that I mentioned is an example of where folks have really looked into the varroa situation exactly as you describe they must. Yet, who will read a 24 page paper on varroa where the reference section runs 6 1/2 pages? 

Their conclusion is worrisome



> We must state that we have not achieved the original aim to get rid of the parasite or at least to solve the problems related to Varroosis. There is neither a Varroa treatment available which fulfills all the criteria ‘‘safe, effective and easy to apply” nor a honey bee which is sustainably tolerant to Varroosis under temperate climatic conditions.


But the goals for further research seem to reflect what you were saying:



> Future scientific activities should focus on the most important research fields. These include:
> 
> (i) the development and optimization of safe and effective treatment concepts including new approaches on biological treatments,
> 
> (ii) a better understanding of the Varroa pathogenesis including secondary infections and synergistic effects,
> 
> (iii) the detailed study of host factors which abate the growth of the mite population, and
> 
> (iv) the use of such knowledge for selective breeding of tolerant stocks.


----------



## peterloringborst

One criticism that is often aimed at doubters such as myself is that we offer no constructive alternatives. Fair enough. This short paragraph summarizes the new direction beekeeping must head toward:



> Accustomed management techniques have to be revised. Regular and uniform treatments of bee populations with highly effective acaricides are in opposition to field selection for resistance. To support the spread of more resistant stock, beekeepers need to identify (through monitoring infestation level) and exclude highly susceptible colonies from further propagation. As soon as the individual infestation of a colony exceeds certain threshold levels colonies should either be destroyed, or treated and requeened to prevent domino effects. Preference of shorter brood rearing periods, acceptance of temporary breaks in brood rearing and complete brood removal once a season are some tools beekeepers can use to lower the population growth of Varroa and thus to reduce their dependence on the use of miticide treatments which mask the advantages of mite resistant stock.


Ralph Buchler, Stefan Berg, Yves Le Conte. 2010. Breeding for resistance to Varroa destructor in Europe


----------



## 2ndCharter

peterloringborst said:


> But the goals for further research...





peterloringborst said:


> ...the new direction beekeeping must head toward


I think that any true scientific approach must have no preconceptions. Just my $.02.


----------



## peterloringborst

2ndCharter said:


> I think that any true scientific approach must have no preconceptions. Just my $.02.


For pure research, yes. But for practical research, no. As much as pure research interests me and I value it, ultimately it is of no value to beekeepers if it doesn't help them improve the health of the colonies. 

I don't think that beekeepers can fail to follow the results of research but I don't think that researchers should fail to work on real world problems. That is what interests me in the work of Tom Seeley.

Most of his work is aimed at studying behavior (he _is_ a Neurobiologist). He most recently discovered how the scout bees direct the swarm to the new home. 

But along with the more ambitious projects, he has take time to look into ways of curtailing varroa mites that don't simply keep us on the pesticide treadmill, -- like survivor bees and small cells. 

He isn't looking for some quick fix, but a long term reliable solution. But he has found, as others have, that these two are not panaceas. And as I pointed out in my previous post, I think the future lies in developing new management techniques.

My view has long been that there is little to be gained in tinkering with the structure of the hive. It was basically perfected in the 1800s by Root and Dadant. But there is an infinite potential for developing new management plans. After all, that's what beekeeping is: managing bees. 

You still have to separate the bee-havers from the beekeepers. Bee-havers want to leave the bees alone and let them take care of themselves; nothing wrong with that, I suppose. Bee keepers want the bees to _prosper_ and they want to _get a return_ for their investment, whether it's money, education, or simply pleasure.


----------



## mike bispham

WLC said:


> Mike:
> 
> Using small cell as part of a no treatment regime does involve selecting for survivors.


ANY no-treatment regime involves selection. Let's preserve leave the term 'survivors' for wild/feral bees, and talk instead about the healthiest bloodlines, those that demonstrate multi-spectrum resistance to predator organisms, especially varroa. Small cell is only a part of this larger conversation and activity. Some people have found it has helped them. Selection is utterly essential - even if it is by leaving it to nature, 'taking the losses'. 

Will you agree: selection for the healthiest parents, and the elimination of the weakest, is essential to make a healthy apiary?



WLC said:


> Both you and some of the other natural beekeeping advocates seem to have established a kind of 'mythology' around what you are doing. Unfortunately, the science doesn't back it up.


I don't know what it is you think I am doing, nor why you think the claims I make are myths. You seem to me to be attributing to me views I don't hold. I've made it very clear - repeatedly doesn't cover it - that my aim is to explain how medication itself is the 'poison' that weakens bees by removing selection.

That selective practices without treatments work is multiply empirically demonstrated. That is no myth. The science that explains how and why is, at a core level, extremely simple - the straightforward application of basic biological understanding of sexual reproduction and inhereted traits shows why new generations MUST be made ONLY from the strongest stock. That is what happens in all other forms of organic husbandry. It will have to happen in beekeeping if we are get away from self-sustaining dependence on chemicals. Deep empirical evidence and straightforward deeply established core biology hand in hand. No myths. Children can and do understand both the basic mechanisms and the power and breadth of application of the explanation.

I don't think you don't get this. I think you are deliberately trying to detract attention from this simple truth. Muddy the waters of a clear explanation. 

That is certainly the effect. "No guys, no, the empty fuel tank is a myth. Don't worry about that. Here, look at this funny gadget behind the dashboard - we don't even know what it does! That's a much better strategy for getting this car going." This is transparently absurd. I can only guess at your motivations.



WLC said:


> We need to be objective here.


Will you show me where I have been less than objective? 



WLC said:


> Small cell foundation isn't a miracle cure for mites. It's far more likely that something else is going on.


Isn't that eactly what I said in a recent post? Can you agree with the wording of that post? 



WLC said:


> All I've done is advocate for a testable model without the philosophy or the mythology.


I don't recall any advocacy on your part for testable models - though that's fine by me. No-one here is suggesting anything else, so its a bit of a straw man. I hope I've shown you that I'm not interested in myth either. Nor do I promulgate it. Another straw man. What is this 'philosophy' you want do away with? 

Mike


----------



## mike bispham

peterloringborst said:


> Peter quotes Peter Rozenkranz' paper:
> 
> "Future scientific activities should focus on the most important research fields. These include:
> 
> (i) the development and optimization of safe and effective treatment concepts including new approaches on biological treatments,
> 
> (ii) a better understanding of the Varroa pathogenesis including secondary infections and synergistic effects,
> 
> (iii) the detailed study of host factors which abate the growth of the mite population, and
> 
> (iv) the use of such knowledge for selective breeding of tolerant stocks.


There is a contradiction at the heart of this set of recommendations. That is: 

_The more successful (i) is, the harder it will be achieve (iv)​_
(ii) and (iii) will no doubt aid (i). With better understanding of the mechanisms, new treatments will be possible. 

Just to go through what you all already know (but which Peter and WLC refuse to acknowlege - that is, they neither accept nor offer to refute):


The more effective the treatments, the more weak bloodlines will be maintained.

The more weak bloodlines are maintained, the more sickness there will be in the next generation.

The more sickness there is in the next generation (and on) the more demand for new treatments there will be.

Of course if your aim is to have a continent full of drug-addicted bees needing constant treatment, and a large bee replacement industry, this is all just fine. 

Another follow-the-money exercise is also illuminating:

The more demand for new treatments there is, the more research monies will be made available. The more research money is around, the more the journals will crop.

I think the research industry, guided by the journals, is perhaps one parasite too many for the honeybee. 

Mike


----------



## mike bispham

Thank you Peter. My marks added:


peterloringborst said:


> "Accustomed management techniques have to be revised.
> 
> ***Regular and uniform treatments of bee populations with highly effective acaricides are in opposition to field selection for resistance. ***
> 
> To support the spread of more resistant stock, beekeepers need to identify (through monitoring infestation level) and exclude highly susceptible colonies from further propagation. As soon as the individual infestation of a colony exceeds certain threshold levels colonies should either be destroyed, or treated and requeened to prevent domino effects. Preference of shorter brood rearing periods, acceptance of temporary breaks in brood rearing and
> complete brood removal once a season are some tools beekeepers can use to lower the population growth of Varroa and thus to reduce their dependence on the use of miticide treatments which mask the advantages of mite resistant stock.
> 
> Ralph Buchler, Stefan Berg, Yves Le Conte. 2010. Breeding for resistance to Varroa destructor in Europe


One quibble - an important one. The authors seem take the approach that manipulations are witout penalty. They are not. Bees that have needed manipulation will tend to make new bees that also need manipulation. Both medication and manipulation should be regarded equally. Bees that need either should be subject to the penalties outlined. I'd expect the authors to talk about evaluating stock to find the best for reproducing, as well as the worst for elimination.

Otherwise, really good healthy stuff. Again, thanks Peter. Can I say too that I'm truly pleased to hear that you agree this is the way we must go. 

Let's note that the task of improving stock is given to ordinary beekeepers - the authors use the term 'field selection'. This fits with the conversation we had recently (elsewhere) about distinguising between 'grassroots' and 'centralised' breeders. The idea that centralised breeding alone can get us out of the fix of degraded genetic stock is happily absent. Let's hope we hear a lot more about field selection.

Mike


----------



## WLC

Mike:

I've spent alot of time trying to explain to you that by selecting for no-treatment bees that are resistant to disease and allowing the rest to perish, you may in fact be doing the opposite of what you truly desire.

You may have been selecting for a new class of retrotransposons that have never existed before in nature, and allowed the uncontaminated stock to disappear.

By claiming that natural selection, aided by a chemical free/small cell regime, produces a healthier bee, you have promulgated an errant philosophy and a myth.

As a result, beekeepers and conservationists are now facing a never before seen threat.

Nature also produces monsters like HIV (remember free love?).


----------



## mike bispham

WLC said:


> Mike:
> 
> I've spent alot of time trying to explain to you that by selecting for no-treatment bees that are resistant to disease and allowing the rest to perish, you may in fact be doing the opposite of what you truly desire.


Keyword: MAY.

What is the force of that MAY? I've asked you to substantiate this science-fiction alarmist speculation about what seems to be a perfectly natural process from the literature. You haven't. Until you do this seems to me to be nothing more than your own little woo woo 'we need research urgently' game. 

You could also tell us why you think you know better than i.e. Ralph Buchler, Stefan Berg, Yves Le Conte (see very recent posts) and the many other trained researchers who see no such peril.



WLC said:


> You may have been selecting for a new class of retrotransposons that have never existed before in nature, ...


Nature has ALWAYS selected entirely new genetic combinations, presumably (we understand) including those arranged by the mechanisms you describe. 



WLC said:


> ...and allowed the uncontaminated stock to disappear.


The idea that such new combinations are somehow 'contaminated' is entirely unsustained. The use of such an alarmist term is typical of your approach. 



WLC said:


> By claiming that natural selection, aided by a chemical free/small cell regime, produces a healthier bee, you have promulgated an errant philosophy and a myth.


This is errant nonsense. (Unless one accepts your unsubstantiated theory.) Beside the attept to stop the movement toward selective management in its tracks before Bayer and co start losing serious money, it has a further dangerous corollary: it implies that we must carry on medicating and 'saving' all the current genetic combinations that have been produced by two decades of misconceived management, in the hope that somewhere in that lot we'll find some 'uncontaminated' stock. We can then a) wipe out all 'contaminated' bees; b) replace them with bees bred from those we've saved.

This is idiocy of the first order; a house of cards built on a non-threat, leading to a proposition that is utterly impossible. 

Oh, lets not forget the few millions of research dollars (me please) followed by a multi-billion dollar operation to track down and wipe out all the contaminated bees. I'm sure you'll find it easy to locate some very rich backers. 

Mike


----------



## WLC

Mike:

It's not a game. It's not science fiction. 

Virus fragments have gotten into the bee genome that weren't found in the bee genome project data which is just 6-7 years old.

Remarkably, less than 1% of the honeybee genome is composed of transposon/retrotransposons. That's about to change.

Yes, it's in the literature, and it's very new.

Yes, virus fragments from Honeybee pathogens have been found in other arthropod species. No, they don't belong there either.

Yes, it does mean that those beekeepers who successfully kept mites and pathogens out of their stock by treating may have less of a contamination problem as a result. Yes, they have more chemicals in their wax, but less virus fragments in there bee's genes. 

You don't have to go on a bee killing rampage, just buy instrumentally inseminated stock from a good breeder.

While your natural beekeeping philosophy is a good one, it's a myth to assume that it produces healthier bees (sort of like the small cell debate).

Mike, it seems like part of your philosophy is to let the whole world burn.

Bayer didn't do it (CCD). Nature did.

As for the claim that small cell reduces mite load, the science doesn't back it up.

So, I came up with my own equally valid claim. They're selecting for bees that have had an odorant, needed for mite reproduction, that was affected by a virus fragment. The odorant was either knocked out or silenced.

I can create my own mythology too. It's the claim game.


----------



## peterloringborst

> In biology, the idea of progress appeared in the writings of naturalists in the eighteenth century, particularly in the works of the French naturalist, Georges Buffon. We are in the habit of attributing the triumph of the idea of progress in evolution to Darwinism, just as it's sometimes said that Darwinism is the chance of variations, plus selection.
> 
> Such abbreviated versions are caricatures, and very unfair to Darwin. In fact, he harbored an instinctive distrust of the idea of progress. He had a subtle, if not embarrassed position on this question. We recall that he confided to Asa Gray, "The sight of a peacock feather makes me sick." He pondered the notion of the progress of evolution, which brought him to a very personal understanding of nature and of the role of chance in evolution.
> 
> In fact, as the French historian Charles Lenay has shown (1996), Darwin advocates systemic chance. For him, there is no water-tight partition between chance variations and selection, or, more precisely, this partition is only impermeable in one direction. Selection has no influence over variations; variations are not brought about by a tendency toward "progress."
> 
> On the other hand, variations can and do strongly influence the conditions of selection. Thus if the conditions of selection impose from the outside a rigid and evolutive framework, what can result is an evolution that takes on the appearance of progress, despite the completely random nature of the variations.
> 
> 
> Chance, Progress and Complexity in Biological Evolution
> Author(s): Rémy Lestienne and Roxanne Lapidus


----------



## Tom G. Laury

When the feathers fly, this forum comes to life.


----------



## Ravenseye

Tom is right but please keep the flying feathers on topic and refrain from posting personal challenges. For the record, I think all the participants here are clearly knowledgeable and deserve consideration of their perspectives.


----------



## WLC

mike bispham said:


> If you want to waste your time playing dumb myth games that's your choice. Please don't pretend they are anything else. There are people here who want to work at separating truth from myth and lies, in the earnest effort to improve our understanding of what has gone wrong with modern beekeeping. It'd be good if you didn't put obstacles in their way.
> 
> Mike


Isn't that the whole point of the thread? Small cells debunked by researchers?

You know, the small cell claim vs controlled experiments.

As for keeping an open mind...

Chance favors the prepared mind.

Both Peter and I, as well as others, have tried to tell you that you are mistaken in your beliefs about selection (both natural and artificial).

Kindly take the hint.


----------



## peacekeeperapiaries

mike bispham said:


> Any chance Peter you could share the nature of your scientific qualifications? Your Phd topic for example?


I have read this and other similar threads with great interest as I am not a scientist but do enjoy the seperate views on all of this stuff. I have an open mind I do however notice MIKE that we dont know your qualifications either, do you keep bees, are you a "bee scientist" you very rarely provide supporting reference materials, scientific data, or information sources outside your own website which states the same resolution to "the problem" you have repeatedly stated on this and other threads. Whereas PLB provides plenty of studies and reference materials (his office or study must be full floor to ceiling) and we know he has been inside the industry in several capacities for 30 plus years. WLC is obviously well versed and educated on RNA/DNA/Genetics, etc....what do you bring to the table as far as experience, education, and reference material supporting you viewpoint which you so emphatically state is the FINAL answer to all of our problems. As previously stated I have an open mind and all these theories, myths, guesses, and supositions are interesting to me especially WLC's as I know nothing about that stuff but what little I understand makes some sense. Thanks for the food for thougt and supporting your position it does make for an interesting read and makes me wonder which view if any will be the overall winner of resolving the problems with the bees.


----------



## Omie

peterloringborst said:


> But the paper that I mentioned is an example of where folks have really looked into the varroa situation exactly as you describe they must. Yet, who will read a 24 page paper on varroa where the reference section runs 6 1/2 pages?


Not me, _I confess_. 



> But along with the more ambitious projects, he has take time to look into ways of curtailing varroa mites that don't simply keep us on the pesticide treadmill, -- like survivor bees and small cells.


I am glad to hear this.


----------



## mike bispham

*Re: Small Cells: Recovering the Topic*



WLC said:


> Isn't that the whole point of the thread? Small cells debunked by researchers?


As I've pointed out (and Michael Bush has supported me) that statement is vastly too under nuanced to be of much use. Yes, small cell as a single instant cure, done in way the researcher did it, didn't work. But that is all. 

I don't want to spend my time defending 'small celling'. I don't even like the term - I think 'free-celling' describes what a lot of people do much better. As I've said, I recognise that some people successfully keep bees without treatments on standard foundation. (Though free-celling is my own preference, and I would recommend it for those wishing to wean their bees off medication.)

I'm in agreement with the same broad analysis that Peter and a lot of others make. That often in the past free/small celling was mistaken for a cure, when actually the thing that was working - the 'difference maker - was the fact that these beekeepers were 'taking their losses'. That is, they were letting natural selection take its course. And that does succeed. 

Some however were doing still more to help strengthen their stock, and yet still mistaking their policy of free-celling to be the key. Perhaps chief among these is Dee Lusby; and I exchanged letters with her on few months ago on this very topic. I suggested the view outlined in the paragraph above, and she agreed. What is more she said, she has always, pretty much without thinking, selected as she worked. She'd systematically reproduced from her best, and systematically eliminated her weakest. 

When varroa hit, she continued this regime, but made the fatal mistake of treating. She entered the same nightmare that everyone else did. It ended when she, in her terms, 'regressed' her bees, which entailed allowing free celling AND NOT TREATING. She took her losses. And she's never looked back.

I suggested to her that in her writing and correspondence she might talk rather more about the business of systematic selection, and the way non-treatment eliminated the weakest. She agreed, wholeheartedly. 'It's something I've never really thought about, just because I've always done it, and I guess I assumed everybody knew that. How else would you keep bees? But I can see now that not everybody knows that' paraphrases her position.

Stock keeping, she agrees, requires breeding. No ifs, no buts. You have to control the breeding process. And treating the weakest, and letting them despoil the next generation - and the one after that... is probably the stupidest thing a stock keeper can possible do.

I mentioned this conversation to Randy Oliver a few months ago. 'I said exactly the same thing to her' he replied. I've talked in similar ways to a considerable number of successful keepers, large and small, and to many of the researchers whose names appear regularly here. None of them has ever offered to defend the notion that treatments followed by reproduction lead to weakness. 

With that in mind; your next point:



WLC said:


> Both Peter and I, as well as others, have tried to tell you that you are mistaken in your beliefs about selection (both natural and artificial).
> Kindly take the hint.


As far as I can tell Peter is not in disagreement with this, my core position. And, as far as I can tell, nor is anybody else who has written in any depth here. 

It would be very useful if you would explain for us just what it is you see in the above account, or in my position on the fundamental need to select in order to maintain health, that is wrong. 

You say I am mistaken in my beliefs about selection [both natural and artificial]. Just what are my mistaken beliefs? Pinpoint them and we'll examine them.

Mike


----------



## mike bispham

peacekeeperapiaries said:


> I have an open mind I do however notice MIKE that we dont know your qualifications either, do you keep bees, are you a "bee scientist" you very rarely provide supporting reference materials, scientific data, or information sources outside your own website which states the same resolution to "the problem" you have repeatedly stated on this and other threads.


Fair question - its asked fairly regularly, and I should keep a cv to paste in at this point! 

I learned beekeeping from an ancient gardener who'd learned from his father... As a gardener and countryman he held an integrated understanding of living things. He know how to breed dogs, he used kept seed in his garden - often strains that had been regrown in the same place for generations. His view on sickness was quite gentle - on sickly bees he'd say 'everything is entitled to a chance'. If he wanted increase he'd do it from his best without thinking. But he never needed to - swarms were plentiful and he just kept bees with a light touch. 

At that time, about twenty years ago, I maintained up to six hives for about 5 years. I made two observation hives, and tried different kinds of containers. And I fitted what I saw and learned from Fred with what I already understood about living things. I'd learned vegetable gardening from my father. I remember vividly one year - I was probably five or six - helping him select runner beans to store for next year's seed. He'd indicated that we should keep the large, nice looking ones, and I asked why. "Because they will probably make nice plants - the little twisted ones probably won't" is the gist of his simple explanation. That could be understood by a six year old, and that same understanding has underpinned all my thinking about living things - including husbandry and stock keeping - ever since. As I grew up in the farming village I came across keen dog breeders - any pub was full of vigorous discussion of the best parentage for lurchers, whose terrier would make the best father for Joe's b.itch and so on. My sister was a keen horsewoman. Same conversations. The agricultural shows and village flower shows were competitions in which the best breeders won. So the message was constant: keeping living things strong and healthy entails active breeding. 

At secondary school I took biology for three years, taught by a farmer - we had a school farm. Same stuff we probably covered basic genetics, though I don't specifically recall. I can remember learning about AI, and how males were carefully selected from vigorous disease-free stock. 

At some time, probably in my late teens, I became aware of the idea of natural selection, that in the wild the weakest simply die, and that males often fight over the females, the strongest thus earning the right to supply the genes for the next generation. In this bloodlines of the stronger and healthier always increased as a proportion of any population, at the expense of the weaker. 

Facinating stuff to a teenager. Now I could understand how stock keeping mimiked the process of natural selection for the fittest strains. It all came together as one unified piece of understanding. The topic has remained facinating for me ever since - and on that kind of foundation I've read, watched tv programs, made limited formal studies, practiced in the garden, and observed my own children... over the intervening 30 odd years.

I left school in my early teens, and had no further formal education until I took a degree in philosophy at Kent University aged 50. I took, among others, modules in philosophy of science, participated in a reading group studying causality, and wrote a long essay dealing with social evolution (the way good ideas survive and spread). I've earned a vague living from various business, all largely using my hands. (see www.suttonjoinery.co.uk for example) I'm not a good businessman - as soon as sufficient money is coming in to get by I'm distracted by the interesting things in life - the big questions, the incredible fact of existence, will it rain soon, what is so facinating to bumblebees about my tin roof - you know the sort of thing.

When varroa came, Fred had retired. My local beekeeper/supplier looked at my hives, scolded me for being ignorant of developments, bought me up to date about varroa, and said that from now on everyone would be be treating. In that instant my heart sank. Not because my bees would die without treatment - that's nature, and as a counrtyman I accepted it. But because I knew, even as he spoke, that _if everone treated the problem would never go away_. The bees I loved, and that were so much a part of my garden - not MY bees THE bees - would be held in perpetual sickness by the policy of medication. I made the decision not to treat and with a heavy heart, and not a little anger at the stupidity of men, saw them perish.

Ever since then, at intervals I've thought, read, talked studied, written, corresponded and thought some more about this issue. If you've seen my website you'll see quite a lot of thought and reading has gone into getting a good grip on this particular issue. 

The driver? I want to have bees in my garden again. Real bees, not sickly drug-addicted bees that are a disgrace to any self-respecting husbandryman. That destroy the wild bees around. 

As much as that, I want beekeepers the world over to understand this simple mechanism, and that they themselves are, without realising it, their own worst enemy. They are the ultimate cause of the continuous sickness. The never-ending drive for more remedies, more studies leading to better treatments has driven me to distraction - because everything I know and understand about living things points in the same direction. Deny selection and you WILL get sick bees. 

To come up to date: these days I'm tied up in a project to create a working market garden from bare fields - and propagation is my main activity for now. As I make and plant a few thousand of the right sorts of plants, designed as a mixed organic smallholding centred on fruit, I'll be trying to raise bees as best I can. And trying too, to finish a book about the origins of the logical side of western thought in the rise of formal rationality in 7th-4th C. BC Greece, centred on cosmology and substance theory. So if I'm tetchy and impatient at times, perhaps you'll understand. 



peacekeeperapiaries said:


> ....what do you bring to the table as far as experience, education, and reference material supporting you viewpoint which you so emphatically state is the FINAL answer to all of our problems.


I hope the above tackles some of that. The last bit is referencing material. First, a technical point: not the FINAL answer, but a NECESSARY MOVE if the problem is to be made to go away. There will always be more problems. But all the while there is systematic treatment, there will alwys be sickly bees. And I don't merely state it - I argue it - answering, as best I can, any questions that come up, and never ever avoiding awkward ones - that would undermine my own effort to distinguish between truth and falshood, and be dishonest to my fellow correspondents, and disruptive of their efforts to do the same. 

First; I supply references materials if asked. But I try to avoid any distraction from the simple key point. It's all too easy to pretend there is something complicated going on, and that you can learn more in some paper - that others often can't get hold of... that's not my game. I have a very simple point to make that is unaffected by studies that essentially subsequent to the foundations I work with. 

The final reference upon which my case rests is the single idea that there are identifiable principles that can be used to reason about the world. It is the task of science to identify these principles, and use them as the ultimate foundations for explanations. 

All principles must be in agreement with all other principles; and all theory must also be consistent with all principles. All thinking, therefore, has to be integrated. 

In the biological sciences one of the core principles is that of natural selection for the fittest strains. The weakest die, and reproduce not at all; the strongest reproduce the most; and each generation is given vigour by this process. 

This principle is held to be true by all qualified biologists the world over. It underlies, and is implicit in, all those learned papers. Of course there is plenty of detail to be added, and more to be learned about the complex mechanisms in play - but _none of that alters this principle_. 

This rest is logical arguments from this principle, building on the belief that the world is a logical place. With that in mind we can say: 

IF this principle is true, 
AND
IF my argument is valid (that's the technical term) 
THEN my conclusion is true. 

This is logic; just like adding numbers, and, if done satisfactorily, just as true. 

An example:
IF selection is essential to health (the principle of NS - and all the community of biologists says it is) 
AND there is no selection
THEN health will suffer.

This gives us, for example, the position:

EITHER all biologists are wrong
OR
failure to select WILL cause sickness.

This fits perfectly with all the evidence I've ever seen. And with everything I'ver learned about husbandry, life, gardening, horses... bees... 

This kind of thing underlies all science - though scientists are sometimes barely aware of it, and sometimes make faulty inferences, or try to argue with only vague material - there are lots of ways it can go wrong. 

Ultimately my arguments are what matters, not my (mostly informal) qualifications. I reference the principle of natural selection for the fittest strains as my foundation, and build on that. I don't have the time or the money to follow the scientific literature - but that doesn't matter all that much because none of it can possibly contradict what I'm saying - all the writers are biologists, who write in an manner consistent with the same principles of biology that is the foundation for my understanding. Whenever I do read it, if something comes up that contradicts my position, then I investigate to see what has gone wrong. Either I'm at fault, or the writers is, or there is some kind of misunderstanding. That process continually improves my understanding.

So there you go - today's version. Hope that helps.

Mike


----------



## WLC

"It would be very useful if you would explain for us just what it is you see in the above account, or in my position on the fundamental need to select in order to maintain health, that is wrong. 

You say I am mistaken in my beliefs about selection [both natural and artificial]. Just what are my mistaken beliefs? Pinpoint them and we'll examine them."

Uhh, Mike.

I've already explained it. So has Peter.

Ultimately, nature selects for extinction. Intelligent beings select for desirable traits in their stock and are in a never ending struggle to preserve those traits against nature's assaults.

Nature's latest assault against the beekeeper is the transgenic bee.

I hope that in the struggle between man and nature that you are on 'our' side.


----------



## bigbearomaha

that's half the problem with people. they see themselves in a struggle against nature instead of realizing the need to work and live with nature.

This constant perception of seeing nature as an adversary and feeling as though one must 'conquer' it leads people on in the idea that they can overcome nature, rule it, control it, if they only invent yet another synthetic, another 'workaround'

The 'problems' we living, natural creatures face are natural and the 'solutions' for them will be found as well in natural adaptation.

we are much better off working with nature than trying to fight it.

But, as always, people are free to struggle as they choose to.

Big Bear


----------



## Ravenseye

Since requests (challenges even) for qualifications seem to quickly spiral into accusations, let's drop these types of posts altogether and stay with the original topic. This isn't a peer review process, it's an idea exchange and everyone here is qualified to have and share their thoughts.


----------



## peterloringborst

> The 'problems' we living, natural creatures face are natural and the 'solutions' for them will be found as well in natural adaptation.


This is a breathtaking oversimplification. The idea that natural is somehow better is easily disproven: if you remember natural includes viruses, bacteria, various carnivorous animals, all happy to make a meal of you and me.

The whole nature vs. mankind argument falls flat when you try to say what nature is. Nature is either everything, like God, or it's our romantic ideal of what is pretty in life, which is silly.

Having survived polio, tuberculous, numerous severe infections, a rattlesnake bite, bee stings, as well as avoided tetanus, small pox, etc. due to vaccinations, I have no illusion about what nature is.

Back to the topic, the idea that small cells are natural and big cells are not, is simply not supported by facts. In Europe honey bees make cells that are larger than the bees in Africa. 

The so-called small cell size (4.9) _is the size of the African bee cell._ Why would we want to use the size that African bees use for European bees? That seems absurd on the face of it.

If you know anything at all about the evolution of the honey bee, you know that it comes from Africa. There are many branches, but the main branches are 1) the African bee of the present; 2) the Asian bees (Apis cerana, etc); and 3) the European bees. 

Hundreds of thousands of years have passed since these branched out, and the differences are pronounced. So it is reasonable to assume that even the African branch is different from the original African ancestors, but let's say it is similar to the original.

The European bees and some Asian bees developed the ability to overwinter. The Asian bees over time got smaller (except Apis dorsata) and speciated. The European bees over time got larger and were well on their way to speciation, until we got involved. 

The world would no doubt be a happier place if we had not moved European bees to Asia, and African bees to America. But the world has gotten a whole lot more crowded and we are well on the way to have all the problems everywhere.

Back to nature: what is nature, really? It is a struggle for survival. Some would say a struggle between the good things and the bad ones, but see how silly that sounds? Nature doesn't take sides! It's a pitched battle and there are a lot of ways to survive it.

Survival of the fittest doesn't mean survival of the meanest, although often the meanest ones do survive. Other ways of survival are: being smarter, faster, sneakier, less noticeable, being unattractive, poisonous, tiny, huge, omnivorous, etc. 

Some living beings eat oil, sulfur, some survive without air, light, etc. Supposedly there are living organisms thousands of feet below the surface and there are bacteria that can survive intense radiation. 

There simply is no purpose to all of this: it's how it is! Our purpose as beekeepers is to survive, with bees. We are the ones who take sides and bet on the race. 

Obviously, varroa, nosema, bacteria, bears, etc. all are natural and have just as much "right" to live here as me and my bees. If we kicked back and let nature take its course, there is simply no guarantee that any of the species here today would be here tomorrow.


----------



## peterloringborst

> Nature is either that untamed thing, though ultimately tameable, that is separate from humanity now cloistered behind the walls of towns and cities formed by interstates and motorways.
> 
> Or nature is that beautiful and idyllic place where we escape to find ourselves or that we, good generous people that we are, go to clean up as if Mother Nature were a decrepit old woman who can no longer wipe herself or -- for those who are good but far too busy -- we pay someone else to clean her up in our name.
> 
> Where nature is seen as violent, untamed other, one tends to treat it as the enemy of humanity, to treat it as the arbiter of death with whom no peace can be made.
> 
> In the vision of nature as idyllic other where we are nature’s children, one tends to treat nature as friend. This performs a cession between humanity and nature that separates the two from one another in a relational way.
> 
> There is no difference in kind between humanity and nature, only a difference of degree. This means that humanity is natural, and thus to posit nature as other to humanity is to misunderstand the way humanity and nature interact.
> 
> Anthony Paul Smith


----------



## BEES4U

Just reading the verbiage and there is a lot of it.
Most of you are aware of the fact that there is no silver bullet and IPM can be used as a tool or a new tool in bee management.
Experience with a few hives does not qualify for successful management for 100's or better yet 1,000's!
Sometimes factual evidence difficult to accept and it's scientifically important to publish data so it can be scrutinized.
There can be some problems doing complicated research and they are the following:
1 experimental error
2 improper observations and measurements of data.
3. language difference.
4. the human element that can askew data
5. small experimental base, like small hive numbers.
6. lack of experience
Regards,
Ernie


----------



## peterloringborst

BEES4U said:


> 1 experimental error
> 2 improper observations and measurements of data.
> 3. language difference.
> 4. the human element that can askew data
> 5. small experimental base, like small hive numbers.
> 6. lack of experience
> Ernie


How do any of these relate to the study at hand? Do you suppose Dr. Seeley lacks experience? Or that he makes improper observations?

Dismissing trials on the basis of sample size is a big mistake people tend to make, who don't know enough about statistics.

OK, right now, we know you can lie with statistics. That's a separate issue.

But a correctly designed sample can tell you what you need to know. A good example is sampling for varroa. We use about 250 bees from a colony. But the sample is carefully taken from the open brood area. This is about one percent of the bees.

If you get a few varroa in a sample this size, you know the level is pretty low. If you get 10 to 15, that represents a phoretic load of 1000 to 1500 mites, which is maybe half the number in the hive. 

If the sample yields 50, you got trouble. That equals maybe 10,000 mites in the hive. You don't need to count every bee and every mite.


----------



## BEES4U

Good morning Peter.
Ernie


----------



## peterloringborst

Hi Howdy, Ernie

Pete


----------



## 2ndCharter

peterloringborst said:


> Dismissing trials on the basis of sample size is a big mistake people tend to make, who don't know enough about statistics.


I can agree and disagree on this point, having the statistical background I have. I think that people would be surprised at how small test groups need to be in proper design of experiment. However, that is when all variables can, to some degree be controlled. A good example of this would be in modifying a recipe for an alloy in an experiment for improving shear strengths. 

You can take the same principles to put in practice with studies on what can affect mite tolerance or survivability. We must consider that there are factors that would be out of our control. This would require us to interject a bit of common sense and include as many concurrent replications of the DOE as possible. Then, and only then, could inferences be made on what would be statistically significant. A properly designed experiment, spread across the country (replications) would do much more for finding truths than creating speculation.


----------



## Omie

peterloringborst said:


> Back to the topic, the idea that small cells are natural and big cells are not, is simply not supported by facts. In Europe honey bees make cells that are larger than the bees in Africa.
> The so-called small cell size (4.9) _is the size of the African bee cell._ Why would we want to use the size that African bees use for European bees? That seems absurd on the face of it.


I think it's interesting that this kind of debate almost always seems to build on the premise of two choices only: using either large cell foundation or small cell foundation. Discussion then ensues on which foundation cell size is 'natural' and which isn't. 
Allowing bees to build their _own_ foundation and _decide for themselves_ what size cells they need at any particular time in their hive cycle is typically skimmed over or not entered into the discussion at all.
I tend to feel that providing bees with foundation where the cell size, whether large or small, is specifically imposed by us humans is the part that is 'not natural'. 
In my own opinion, the two choices here are not large cell vs. small cell...but are rather uniform cell size determined and imposed by the beekeeper using manufactured foundation vs. varied and changing cell sizes freely chosen by the bees depending on what the bees feel they need for the hive's wellbeing at the time.
Just my thoughts.


----------



## peterloringborst

> I think that people would be surprised at how small test groups need to be in proper design of experiment.


To which I would add, if the sampling is done wrong, the data are crap no matter how many thousands samples you have.


----------



## peterloringborst

Omie said:


> I think it's interesting that this kind of debate almost always seems to build on the premise of two choices only: using either large cell foundation or small cell foundation. Discussion then ensues on which foundation cell size is 'natural' and which isn't.


Not me. To me it's a no-brainer: it doesn't make any difference. But to not use foundation at all? Way too much trouble. 

Of course, if any of these things made a _real_ difference we would all be doing it. Results talk. Doesn't matter what we _think_


----------



## akbees

I marvel at the anti-science comments. Surely, we are open to listening to scientific opinion. I enjoy and appreciate all sides of the fence. It's called being open minded as opposed to what seems to be happening in our culture right now.

Listen to everything and then make your choices, but don't belittle people for having the good sense to ask the question and test it. We all want these problems solved don't we?


----------



## bigbearomaha

Peter, you can make nature as over-complicated as you like, but that doesn't change the fact that all living things abide by the laws of nature. Like it or not.



> the idea that small cells are natural and big cells are not


What on earth was that about anyway? No one said a thing about any cells being natural or unnatural. you seem to be creating arguments where there are none.

Nature is indeed everything. I'm not sure why that seems to bother you or others, but you cannot simply live in denial that science is merely a procedure of study and observation. As as matter of fact, the scientific method, as it were, was brought to the world primarily by members of religious orders in order to better study and document the world around us.

Over-quoting doesn't make or prove the contrary.

nice try though.

Big Bear


----------



## Omie

peterloringborst said:


> ...But to not use foundation at all? Way too much trouble.


Your comment reminds me of 30 years ago when I was a brand new mother. Many of my well meaning friends and relatives strongly advised me to bottle feed, because breastfeeding was 'too much trouble'.


----------



## WLC

I can't wait to see how Peter responds to that one.


----------



## WLC

It's obvious to me who's full of hot air. 

Peter has presented two studies so far that show that small cell isn't responsible for lower mite loads.

Others have stated that when regressing to small cell, there will be colony losses.

So basically, you are selecting for something, as yet unknown, that is causing lower mite loads in some colonies.

That's all there is to it.


----------



## bigbearomaha

so, you are dismissing the first hand experience of those who have seen in their own bees the positive results of allowing for natural/small cell sizes in favor of two reports simply because the reports have degrees associated with them?

seems to me the so called 'scientists' can't keep their hard science in control as every few years, what was 'proven' is later to be dis proven.

did you know how many scientific studies by scientists proclaimed fish oil to be beneficial to brain health, yet just this past couple of weeks, a new study has just dis-proven it. how's that for concrete science?

It's all well and good to study and observe natural activities and behaviors of creatures, however, to say that there is any single authoritative solution/answer/cause for any of these things is simply arrogance and prideful thinking.

Don't worry about replying to me, I am done with this thread and in the future am going to be much more selective about which threads I participate in on this forum. too many seeming omniscient scientists.

Big Bear


----------



## peterloringborst

> Quote: the idea that small cells are natural and big cells are not
> 
> What on earth was that about anyway? No one said a thing about any cells being natural or unnatural. you seem to be creating arguments where there are none.


I have been studying this topic for more than ten years. The whole principle of the small cell myth is that large cell foundation was introduced and artificially enlarged the entire Apis mellifera population and that's why we have varroa mites. 

If we would "regress" the bees back to the original smaller size all our problems would go away. So it is small cellers that think that their way is somehow more natural, although there is a new faction which thinks that NO foundation is even MORE natural. 

I am not the one who is distinguishing natural from artificial. If you think I am creating these arguments, you just tuned in late.

But as an aside, the fact is that the _burden of proof _rests upon all of those who claim that using anything other than standard foundation in standard frames has any benefit whatever over these appliances. 

My statement is that the standard hive is suitable, and what is needed are better management practices, which include selective breeding. But, as WLC points out, whenever one selects, one should really know what is actually being selected.

An example, of course, is purebred dogs. These dogs have many fine qualities which were enhanced by selection. They also have a myriad of flaws, which were inadvertently enhanced by selection.


----------



## peterloringborst

bigbearomaha said:


> Don't worry about replying to me, I am done with this thread


It's not the science that's made of concrete ...


----------



## peterloringborst

> Peter, you can make nature as over-complicated as you like, but that doesn't change the fact that all living things abide by the laws of nature. Like it or not.


Uncomplicated nature! I love it. The birds and the bees, & no problems. Of course all living things abide by "the laws of nature". Trouble is, nobody knows what the laws are. (Maybe there's an article about this at Wikipedia)


----------



## WLC

Bigbear, 
You have nothing to be upset about. If you are using small cell, and you have lower mite loads and better production, who cares what anyone else thinks or says?

You've got it made.


----------



## peterloringborst

WLC said:


> Peter has presented two studies so far that show that small cell isn't responsible for lower mite loads.


Actually, now there are at least seven.



> Jennifer A. Berry, William B. Owens, Keith S. Delaplane. 2009. Small-cell comb foundation does not impede Varroa mite population growth in honey bee colonies
> 
> A. M. Ellis, G. W. Hayes, J. D. Ellis. 2009. The efficacy of small cell foundation as a varroa mite (Varroa destructor) control
> 
> Liebig, G., Aumeier, P., 2007. Helfen kleine Zellen gegen Varroa? [Do small cells help against Varroa?]
> 
> Wilson, M. W., Skinner, J., Chadwell, L. Measuring The Effects Of Foundation On Honey Bee Colonies: A Sare Producer Grant Project
> 
> Seeley, T. D. Evaluation Of Small-Cell Combs For Control Of Varroa Mites In New York Honey Bees
> 
> Taylor, M.A., Goodwin, R.M., McBrydie, H.M., Cox, H.M., 2008. The effect of honey bee worker brood cell size on Varroa destructor infestation and reproduction.
> 
> Mary F. Coffey, John Breen, Mark J.F. Brown, and John B. McMullan. 2010. Brood-cell size has no influence on the population dynamics of Varroa destructor mites in the native western honey bee, Apis mellifera mellifera


Still waiting to hear from the other side


----------



## peterloringborst

So far I have found one study supporting small cells for reduction of varroa, but it was done with African bees, the cells of which_ are naturally smaller_



> Varroa mite infestations in Africanized honey bee brood are clearly affected by comb cell width. When compared in the same colony, the largest brood cells, those in Carniolan combs (mean of about 5.3 mm inside width) were about 38% more infested than the Italian comb brood cells (mean of about 5.15 mm), which in turn were about 13% more infested than the self-built Africanized combs (mean of about 4.8 mm). This same tendency was found in all six colonies. Message and Gonçalves (1995) found more than twice as many mites in Italian-sized compared to Africanized-sized brood cells; however, they used old Africanized combs, with much smaller cells (4.5-4.6 mm inside width); our Africanized combs were newly built and therefore had larger cells.
> 
> Giancarlo A. Piccirillo and D. De Jong 2003. The influence of brood comb cell size on the reproductive behavior of the ectoparasitic mite Varroa destructor in Africanized honey bee colonies


----------



## peterloringborst

And finally, to thoroughly muddy the water, it was discovered that:



> Old honey bee brood combs are more infested by the mite Varroa destructor than are new brood combs. Giancarlo A. PICCIRILLO, David De JONG. 2004.
> 
> We had expected that there would be fewer V. destructor in the smaller brood cells in the old combs than in the relatively larger brood cells in the new combs, as previous experiments had indicated a positive correlation between cell size and infestation rate.
> 
> However the cells in the old combs were much more infested than those in the new (naturally built) combs, even though the former were significantly smaller. The old comb cells were four to over five times as infested as the new brood comb cells.
> 
> It is clear that these mites strongly preferred old worker brood comb cells to new worker brood cells. However, the cues that the mites use to make this discrimination are unknown.


----------



## Omie

peterloringborst said:


> But as an aside, the fact is that the burden of proof rests upon all of those who claim that using anything other than standard foundation in standard frames has any benefit whatever over these appliances.


What is 'standard' today will probably not always be so, just as it was not 'standard' long ago. 
Change is constant, change is inevitable. 

Some people have no compelling urge to _prove_... they simply _do_.

Hey, I just hived my two newly arrived nucs today- I'm so excited!!! :banana::banana:


----------



## mike bispham

WLC said:


> ...small cell isn't responsible for lower mite loads.
> 
> Others have stated that when regressing to small cell, there will be colony losses.
> 
> So basically, you are selecting for something, as yet unknown, that is causing lower mite loads in some colonies.
> 
> That's all there is to it.


The 'unknown' is... those features and traits that enable these strains to be healthy without human help. Or, 'resistance' both narrow and broad spectrum. These traits are probably similar if not identical to those bought out in the special breeding programs - the 'hygienic' behaviours. Does anyone know of any genetic tests of survivors, or of successful 'natural' beekeepers stock? That would be a very interesting study.

I think its important to realise we don't need to know the exact details of the mechanism - or indeed anything at all about them We just need to take advantage of the fact that they emerge naturally when we stop treating, and enable make what was a sickly population healthy again.

Mike


----------



## mike bispham

bigbearomaha said:


> did you know how many scientific studies by scientists proclaimed fish oil to be beneficial to brain health, yet just this past couple of weeks, a new study has just dis-proven it. how's that for concrete science?


Hi Big Bear,

My understanding is that the 'science' behind this idea was largely dreamed up by the vitamin manufactures. The, like the chemical companies, do this sort of thing regularly. Its their bread and butter. One trick is to pay for a lot of studies, then only publish and cite those that indicate a positive benefit, while burying those that indicate no or a negative benefit. They are expert at things getting good publicity, and getting close to regulators and respected public bodies like health authorities - here they ran a 'trial' of fish oil in some schools, proclaiming great benefits of all kinds. 

There are no laws against this sort of thing, and no-one is charged with overseeing them and checking their claims. There is a chap over here called Ben Goldman who specialises in unpicking their methods - he good reading.

The point, it isn't 'science' at all, its snake-oil salesmen dressing up their product in the clothing of science. 

Mike


----------



## mike bispham

peterloringborst said:


> The whole principle of the small cell myth is that large cell foundation was introduced and artificially enlarged the entire Apis mellifera population and that's why we have varroa mites.


Who on Earth would claim that! What nonsense - this is another of your straw men - imaginary claims set up by you just so you can demonstrate they are wrong!



peterloringborst said:


> If we would "regress" the bees back to the original smaller size all our problems would go away. So it is small cellers that think that their way is somehow more natural, although there is a new faction which thinks that NO foundation is even MORE natural.


OF COURSE no cell is more natural. That doesn't mean it will, alone, solve all our problems, or even that it will make any difference at all. But it IS more natural.



peterloringborst said:


> My statement is that the standard hive is suitable, and what is needed are better management practices, which include selective breeding. But, as WLC points out, whenever one selects, one should really know what is actually being selected.


That is likely to be an impossible condition to fulfil for a long time. Living organisms, and their interactive relations with other living organisms, are extremely complex things. There is no reason to think we might EVER know all the details - or even be equipped to comprehend them all at once if we did. This is another argument for perpetual research.



peterloringborst said:


> An example, of course, is purebred dogs. These dogs have many fine qualities which were enhanced by selection. They also have a myriad of flaws, which were inadvertently enhanced by selection.


Sure. But good breeders know what kinds of flaws their breed is vulnerable to, and make the effort to eliminate them. That is, whenever such features show up they don't use them for reproduction. In fact what good breeders do, constantly, is choose the very best individuals for breeding. 

Beekeepers, by way of contrast, systematically keep all the weakest alive, and use them for breeding. And then wonder why they have sickly bees.

To think in terms of 'flaws' is however misleading. We have to think in terms of fitness to the environment to get a clear picture.

Mike


----------



## Guest

peterloringborst said:


> So it is small cellers that think that their way is somehow more natural, although there is a new faction which thinks that NO foundation is even MORE natural.
> 
> But as an aside, the fact is that the _burden of proof _rests upon all of those who claim that using anything other than standard foundation in standard frames has any benefit whatever over these appliances.


Um, isn't the size that bees would *naturally* make cells by definition the most *natural* way? "Somehow more *natural*..." hmmm...why wouldn't it be?

"...standard foundation in standard frames..."

Your claims of "standard" skew the argument...are large cells really the standard? If they are not, then where does the burden of proof lie?

Seems to me that the "standard" would be the way the bees make cells naturally and the "non-standard" way would be for a human to artificially manipulate the bees to make cells a different size than they normally would.

I'd submit for your consideration that anybody who wants to make any claims must shoulder the burden of proof, whether you are claiming small cells are better or large cells are better or there is no difference.


----------



## mike bispham

WLC said:


> Ultimately, nature selects for extinction.


 Wow! What a corker! I'm going to keep that one!



WLC said:


> Intelligent beings select for desirable traits in their stock and are in a never ending struggle to preserve those traits against nature's assaults.


Sooo...

Wherever there are no intelligent beings around to do the careful selecting, all living things are sickly and become extinct...?

For the few billions of years before mankind evolved - just a few hundreds of thousands of years ago - all living things became extinct? Would that include Honeybees? Did they become extinct? Estimates of the age of the species vary from 20 million to 100 million years - that's something in the region of 130 times as long as we've been here. 

What about all the wild animals around today? Nobody selects them. Why are they not becoming extinct?

WLC your grasp of natural selection is worse - much much worse - than my grasp of brain surgery. I really don't know where to start; but try a few exercises:

1) Imagine that in a given population you take out all the healthy individuals, and do your best to make the next generation from the weakest individuals you can find - those that you have to force-feed with medication to keep alive. 

In a similar given population you take out instead all the weakest individuals and make the next generation only from the very strongest you can find. 

All else being equal, how which new population will be stronger?


2) In the UK we've just had our coldest winter for forty years. This cold can be expected to have killed off a larger than usual number of the wildlife population - those unable to withstand cold.

Will the new generations be a) more likely to be able to withstand cold winters, b) less likely to withstand cold winters than if there had not been a cold winter?


Despite your weak grasp of natural selection, your statement about breeding for desirable traits is very true. _But the single the most important desirable trait is GOOD HEALTH_. Otherwise known as (broad-spectrum) RESISTANCE. And so we must _make every effort to select for health_. 

That imperative absolutely rules out allowing weaklt individuals to contribute to the making of new generations. No one would use a persistently lame stallion for stud purposes; and for exactly the same reasons no-one should use bees that have to be propped up with chemicals as breeding stock.

And it follows that treating sick individuals that would then contribute to the genepool must be something we do not do. To do so, we can easily see, would be utter madness. We must either a) not treat, or b) treat and stop that weak individual from mating. Anything else will perpetuate the weakness.

Mike


----------



## WLC

Mike:

"WLC your grasp of natural selection is worse - much much worse - than my grasp of brain surgery. I really don't know where to start; but try a few exercises:"

I'd say that you could use a brain transplant. Do you mind if I give it try? 

"...All else being equal, which new population will be stronger?"

The one that doesn't have a molecular parasite. :doh:

"...Will the new generations be a) more likely to be able to withstand cold winters, b) less likely to withstand cold winters than if there had not been a cold winter?"

None of the above.

Since Peter has provided seven references to studies that show that small cell isn't effective, I'd say that there's nothing left to debate on the small cell issue.

By the way, Darwin has been extensively revised by the findings of modern molecular biology. 

'Survival' doesn't mean 'good health' or 'desirable'. It simply means 'survival'. As Peter pointed out, you can't select from something that's dead.

Breeders often find themselves in a 'genetic bottleneck' when they fail to understand that.

Natural beekeepers seem to be heading towards a 'genetic bottleneck' of their own when they use 'survivors' as a cornerstone of their selection process.

A beautiful philosophy, with an apparently good idea 'natural selection', heading towards a special issue of "Nature" (the science periodical).


----------



## Michael Palmer

>>Quote:
Originally Posted by peterloringborst 
The whole principle of the small cell myth is that large cell foundation was introduced and artificially enlarged the entire Apis mellifera population and that's why we have varroa mites.<< 




mike bispham said:


> Who on Earth would claim that! What nonsense - this is another of your straw men - imaginary claims set up by you just so you can demonstrate they are wrong!
> Mike


Not taking sides in this debate, which seems to be getting rather nasty, but....

I believe Peter has it right. The idea was developed by the Lusbys, and is at the center of the small cell theory. Correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## deknow

peterloringborst said:


> The whole principle of the small cell myth is that large cell foundation was introduced and artificially enlarged the entire Apis mellifera population and that's why we have varroa mites.<<


not quite right...more like, "that's why the bees are oversized"...and just like overweight humans, overwieght bees have all kinds of health problems...varroa among them.

peter keeps referring to the "myth", but it is actually well documented in any historical book you care to read...doolittle, root, dadant, langstroth, etc...all claim the natural size of worker comb to be less than 5.08mm. arguing the effects is one thing, but ignoring virtually every single historical record is foolish.

from some posts on bee-l on this same subject (i copied these directly out of the original books myself):


> A few things to think about the article below:
> 
> 1. "worker - comb measures very nearly 5 cells to the inch" and "true worker - comb generally contained five cells within the space of an inch" means that the size of worker comb is measured by the author as smaller than 5.08.
> 
> 2. The last paragraph _seems_ to say that there was a push in 1888 to make the bees larger, that the author didn't think it possible simply by increasing foundation size...unless breeding were also brought into it. That the biggest problem was the propensity of larger bees to make too many drones, and that the use of all worker foundation overcame this hurdle, opening up the possibility to make the bees bigger.
> 
> I dictated and typed this right out of the original volume.
> 
> deknow
> 
> The ABC of Bee Culture
> 
> A Cyclopaeoia of Every Thing
> Pertaining to the Care of the Honey Bee;
> Bees, Honey, Hives, Implements, Honey-Plants, Etc.,
> 
> PAGES GLEANED FROM THE EXPERIENCE OF THOUSANDS OF BEE KEEPERS ALL OVER OUR LAND
> 
> And Afterward Verified by Practical Work in Our Own Apiary.
> 
> BY A. I. ROOT.
> MEDINA, OHIO:
> 
> 1888
> 
> Under: HONEY-COMB
> Pages: 163-164
> 
> DIFFERENT KINDS OF CELLS IN THE HONEY - COMB
> 
> The bees build two distinct, regular sizes - drone and workers cells. The worker - comb measures very nearly 5 cells to the inch, on average. Some specimens average a little larger, and some little smaller; but when the comb is that all irregular, it is quite apt to be a little larger. That's specimens of true worker - comb generally contained five cells within the space of an inch, and therefore this measure has been adopted for the comb foundation. If there are five cells to the inch, a square inch would give, on average, about 25 cells, and 25 on the opposite side would make 50 young bees that would be hatched from every square inch of solid brood. As foundation is so much more regular than natural comb, we get a great many more bees and a given surface of comb, and here, at least, we can fairly claim that we have improved on nature.
> 
> The drone - comb measures just about 4 cells to the inch, but to be seen less particular about the size of it then with the worker. They very often seem to make the cells of such size as to best fill out a given space; and we, accordingly, find them of all sizes, from workers size all the way up to considerably larger than 1/4 of an inch in width. Drones are raised in these extra-large cells without trouble, and Honey is also stored in them; but where they are very large the bees are compelled to turn them up, or the honey would flow out. As the honey is kept in place by capillary action, if the cells exceed a certain size, the adhesion of the liquid to the wax walls is insufficient, of itself, to hold the honey in place. Where drones are to be reared in the very large cells, the bees contract the mouth by a thick rim. As an experiment, I had some plates made for producing small sheets of fdn., having only 3 1/2 cells to the inch. The bees worked on a few of these, the same thick rims, but they evidently did not like the idea very well, for they tried to make workers cells of some of it, it proved so much of a complication for their little heads that they finally abandoned the whole piece of comb, apparently in disgust. Bees sometimes rear worker brood in drone comb, where compelled to from want of room, and they always do it in the way I have mentioned, like contracting the mouth of the cells, and leaving the young bees are rather large birth in which to grow and develop. Drones are sometimes reared in workers cells also, but they are so much cramped in growth that they seldom look like a fully developed insect.
> 
> Several times it has been suggested that we enlarge the race of honey - bees, by giving them larger cells; and some circumstances seem to indicate that something may be done in this direction, although I have little hope of any permanent enlargement in size, unless we combined with the idea of selecting the largest bees to propagate from, as given a few figures back. By making the cells smaller than ordinarily, we can get small bees with very little trouble; and I have seen a whole nucleus of bees so small is to be really laughable, just because the comb they were hatched from, was set at an angle so that one side was concave and the other convex. The small bees came from the concave side. Their light, active movements, as they sported in front of the hive, made them a pretty and amusing site for those fond of curiosities. Worker bees reared in drone cells are, if I'm correct, sometimes extra-large in size; but as to whether we can make them permanently larger by such a course, I'm inclined to doubt. The difficulty, at present seems to be the tendency to rearing a greater quantity of useless drones. By having the hive furnished entirely with worker comb, we can so nearly prevent the production of drones that is safe enough to call it a complete remedy.





> PRACTICAL TREATISE
> ON THE
> HIVE AND HONEY-BEE
> BY
> L. L. LANGSTROTH;
> FOURTH EDITION
> 1884
> 
> COMB
> Page 74
> The size of the cells in which workers are reared never varies; the saying may substantially be said of the drone - cells, which are much larger; those in which honey is stored very greatly in-depth, while in diameter they are of all sizes, from that of worker to that of drone cells. As 5 worker, or 4 drone cells, will measure about one linear inch, a square inch of comb will contain on each side, 25 worker, were 16 drone cells.





> from:
> "The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Beekeeping"
> Edited by Roger A. Morse, and Ted Hooper
> (this particular text appears to be written by the editors)
> 1985
> 
> Page 79
> "BEESWAX is used to build hexagonal cells with three faced bases. Normal honeycomb is of two sizes: worker comb has cells 1/5 inch (5mm) in diameter, and drone comb has cells 1/4 inch (6mm) across"
> 
> 
> from:
> "First Lessons IN BEEKEEPING"
> By C. P. Dadant
> Revised and rewritten by
> M. G. Dadant AND J. C. Dadant
> 
> Revised and Reprinted 1946
> Reprinted 1947
> 
> Page 30
> "The cells in which the worker bees are reared measure about five to the inch or a trifle over twenty-seven to the square inch. The cells in which drones are reared measure four to the inch."


...then there is the work of Dr. Ericson (who worked with dee on some of this research), the head of the Tucson Bee Lab, who states quite plainly that our kept bees are unnaturally large (this was years before "africanized bees" were in that area).

...but the most convincing is the first excerpt from root, as he tells us the size he is seeing in natural comb, and speaks of a plan to make it (and the bees) larger (and free of drones) with foundation (and selection).

deknow


----------



## peterloringborst

> I'd submit for your consideration that anybody who wants to make any claims must shoulder the burden of proof, whether you are claiming small cells are better or large cells are better or there is no difference.


Yes, well, let's look at it this way. Over the twentieth century many things were standardized. Many of these standards may have been ill advised, but to challenge any one of them, one must have a very strong argument. 

Examples: household current set to 110 volts in USA, 220 in Europe, 12 volts in cars. There was a strong push for the safer 12 volt system to go into houses but it did not.

The inches, feet, ounces, pounds system prevailed in the US while Metric was accepted as standard in Europe and by the scientific community. Railroad tracks were standardized.

The bee hive was standardized in the USA on the Langstroth pattern, with cell size set according to extensive experimentation. I manufactured comb foundation in the 1970s, and there was no question but that we were making the standard size. 

Some companies back then offered drone size foundation to use in comb honey boxes or frames, on the assumption that drone comb uses less wax, but it was not very popular. 

Now, to challenge the use of 110 current in homes? Good luck, no one would listen. To challenge the inches and feet system? We have been trying to overturn this for decades. The whole world is metric but us! 

My point is that while the standard may not always be the best, it is the standard and quite often_ it is the best._ But more importantly, though, is that the cost of changing everything would be vast and therefore the _burden of proof _that it is worth the trouble _rests on the challengers._ Those who already employ the standard don't have to do anything.


----------



## Barry

Michael Palmer said:


> The idea was developed by the Lusbys, and is at the center of the small cell theory. Correct me if I'm wrong.


The Lusby's were the one's that brought cell size into the current art of beekeeping. They combed through all the old writings and saw a link with cell size. All those old references are available in their POV section.
http://www.beesource.com/point-of-view/ed-dee-lusby/

While there are specific references "5 cells to the inch", "25 cells to the square inch", there is some debate over exactly how that was measured. Dee puts forth her view and understanding on it in her writings.


----------



## peterloringborst

Hi Barry
Thanks for pointing that out. All the history and back story is right here at BeeSource. Don't take my word for any of it:

http://www.beesource.com/point-of-view/ed-dee-lusby/

By the way, this is one where _we agree to disagree_. I do not say that I am right and others are wrong. 

My whole point is: stack up the science and see which pile is higher.

My list shows two studies (using African bees) say it works; 7 (using European bees) say it doesn't. Send me your papers!


----------



## deknow

peterloringborst said:


> My whole point is: stack up the science and see which pile is higher.
> 
> My list shows two studies (using African bees) say it works; 7 (using European bees) say it doesn't. Send me your papers!


Is this all it takes to "prove" something? I'm pretty confident that I can pile up more pre-1900 references to natural worker cell size being below 5.1 than you can saying 5.2-5.4.

deknow


----------



## WLC

Unless they had varroa way back when, it's not the issue at hand.


----------



## mike bispham

peterloringborst said:


> But more importantly, though, is that the cost of changing everything would be vast and therefore the _burden of proof _that it is worth the trouble _rests on the challengers._ Those who already employ the standard don't have to do anything.


To change to a free cell regime costs nothing. I'm not sure I can see what the notion of 'burden of proof' adds to the discussion. Any individual beekeeper can make up his or her own mind about whether or not they want to try changing. The most important thing is to have an understanding of what actiuons will make a difference - and knowing why also helps in coming to a decision. 

Overall, I have to say I find it hard to understand those who take the view that forcing bees to work to a fixed size, when by my understanding they naturally vary their cell sizes, seems to represent unduly rigid thinking. Especially as there is a demonstrated relationship between prevalent cell sizes and resistance to varrah (the mite prefering larger cells). I think it is entirely likely that some of the survivor strains may be exploiting this behaviour, perhaps lowering the proportion of large cell comb. I've no evidence to offer - but its an area that would, in my view be worth looking into. 

My understanding is that Dee Lusby's 'regression' takes the form of allowing bees to make their own cell size while stopping treatment, and thus bringing natural selection into play. She reports that over several generations both bees and cell sizes get smaller. (And that this process does take several years - you can't force a strain onto small cell comb)

I wonder which is chicken and which is egg. Is that strains that happen to be smaller have less of a problem with varroa than those that happen to be larger, thus surviving and raising their numbers in the population? Or is it that those bees that 'like' to build tight-fitting cells happen to be those that also exhibit other useful behaviours (like the hygienic activities) that enable them to survive, and thus raise their numbers in the population, are then made smaller by the smaller cells? 

Whatever the answers to those questions (and I'm not sure I've exhausted the options there), it seems clear to me that it is the natural selection bought about by stopping treatments that is key to her success, while it seems equally clear that free-celling is not necessary - since others succeed in freeing their bees from treatments through selective breeding alone. 

Last point: I think the phrase 'small-cell' has outlived its usefulness - unless and until it is given some sort of specification. Key to that would be a distinction between attempts to force bees onto pre-drawn small comb, and the 'regression' method employed by Dee and others. These are entirely separate activities, and just because one does no discernable good, it does not follow that the other is similarly useless. One can go on quite correctly mouthing 'small cell didn't work' while refering to what Seeley did, while needing to be much more open to the idea that a period of free celling that ends with small bees in small cells might well be a useful move - as many attest.

This failure to distinguish between these two activities has, in retrospect, I think made this discussion much harder than necessary.

Mike


----------



## mythomane

There are people that may choose to "stack up the science and see which piles are higher," but that in my mind does not get anybody anywhere. You can stack the deck any way you want it as suits your end -- there are many beeks keeping bees without treatments on small cell and have been for many years. Regression does not cause any losses. My 11 year old students do this with large-cell nucs all the time. They love PF-100s and regress on it easily. The bottom line is even if small cell is not the complete answer, those on it are usually concerned with not-treating and manage their bees accordingly. Most with success. In summary:

Good stock. Unadulterated comb. Fresh equipment. Plentiful clean forage. Keep your hives strong and populated.

You can talk about this until blue, and shuffle papers, etc, while we continue to keep our bees and honey clean and without treatments.


----------



## peterloringborst

mythomane said:


> You can talk about this until blue, and shuffle papers, etc, while we continue to keep our bees and honey clean and without treatments.


Nobody here is disputing the need for clean honey, bees and non-chemical controls. What is being questioned is whether or not small cells reduce varroa reproduction. Nobody has shown they do. Many have shown they don't. 

I was just joking about the stack of papers. That isn't how science works. It isn't sold by the pound. Anyway, it did serve as a useful litmus test to see who does or does not have a sense of humor.

:doh:


----------



## DRUR

peterloringborst said:


> What is being questioned is whether or not small cells reduce varroa reproduction.


Maybe the source of that production also needs to be shown, i.e. are the varroa generated from workers or from drones?



peterloringborst said:


> Nobody has shown they do.


Dr. DeJong has shown they do. Also, if I recall Randy Oliver ran an experiment in which the mite counts were substantially lower on honeysupercell [small cell]; although the count could have been attributable to the fully drawn plastic frames.



peterloringborst said:


> Many have shown they don't.


Very limited parameters of the test and none subject to peer review.

However, No one has ventured in to small cell apiaries to figure out why these apiaries can survive without treatment on small cells.

Also, there was a study done in Russia [prior to importation of the Russian methinks] which showed that the Russians had high mite counts but it was attributable to drone population as opposed to worker population.

There are so many unknowns here and it shows a preconceived opinion when one states the issue is conclusively settled [when its not], or that it has been 'debunked' or is a myth. Both terms you have now used Peter, and IMO both are rediculous.

Kindest Regards
Danny


----------



## WLC

"Nobody here is disputing the need for clean honey, bees and non-chemical controls."

While I agree on clean honey and bees, I might have an issue with non-chemical control.

Unless non-chemical controls can be shown to effectively reduce viral loads from IAPV, KBV, ABPV, DWV, etc., then there's still the increased risk of selecting for molecular parasites (like integrated viral fragments that can contain silencing RNAs and also knock out genes).

The corroborating evidence is pointing in that direction, and quite frankly, we know how 'selecting' for survivors can play right into it (especially after a rather protracted debate).


----------



## mythomane

A lack of humor has always been my problem. So, Peter, how many hives are you currently running? Are you treating? Are you aware that there are many keepers in your area who are not treating and have been successful for many years? A pile is papers is the same as baited discussion in my mind. It does not get anywhere. Back in 95, I was keeping bees in New Mexico. Les Crowder, (among many other very good, very experienced beekeepers) lost the majority of their hives. Mites had just hit hard there and we tried all kinds of soft treatments. Essential oils, formic, etc. Swinging in the dark. Hundreds, sometimes thousands of hives lost seemingly overnight. After a year or two, Les just gave away his equipment. Everything. Went to TBH. He grafts queens with a twig. Fresh start. At the time I couldn't figure it out. I scooped much of the equipment and harvested a fair amount of honey, but the mites crept up on me in the end. This was after I learned about small cell in Bee Culture and called their home number listed in the article. Around 96? Regression back then was harder. At least for me. In 99 I sold everything and started over. Clean. My point is -- that you have to make that shift in doing. Talking and piling papers and typing on the internet is not going to get you there.


----------



## peterloringborst

I am voluntarily ending this discussion, as it has now reached an impasse.

Talk to you later.


----------



## mike bispham

WLC said:


> Unless non-chemical controls can be shown to effectively reduce viral loads from IAPV, KBV, ABPV, DWV, etc., then there's still the increased risk of selecting for molecular parasites (like integrated viral fragments that can contain silencing RNAs and also knock out genes).
> 
> The corroborating evidence is pointing in that direction, and quite frankly, we know how 'selecting' for survivors can play right into it


We know nothing of the kind. All we know is that one member with a very shaky grasp of basic biology is trying to puff that myth into play.

Mike


----------



## mike bispham

peterloringborst said:


> I am voluntarily ending this discussion, as it has now reached an impasse.
> 
> Talk to you later.


Before you go Peter, could you tell us how Seeley's study of the Arnot Forest bees impacts on the issue of the effectiveness of allowing bees to build small cells?

You've cited this work several times as 'proof' that small cell keeping can be debunked - yet the paper makes no mention of cell sizes.

The author concludes that it is probably the evolution of avirulence in mites that is responsible for the survival of these bees:

"impact assessment
Bee biologists worldwide are becoming aware that the problem of Varroat mite parasitism of honey bees may be solved through selection for mite avirulence, not just bee resistance. Beekeepers are starting to develop methods for favoring vertical (parent to offspring) rather than horizontal (between unrelated hosts) transmission of mites between colonies. The study of the feral honey bees in the Arnot Forest has clarified the importance of keeping bees in ways that favor the evolution of mite avirulence."
http://fotb.drogon.org/library/feral_bees/Seeley_Arnot_feral.pdf

(A more rounded assessment might talk about co-evolution - how the protective traits have been raised in the bee population, while those mites that tended to kill their hosts eliminated their own genes from the mite population by dying themselves.)

Seeley doesn't - at least in this paper - say anything al all to support the notion that 'small celling' has been 'debunked'. 

Mike


----------



## mike bispham

mythomane said:


> In summary:
> 
> Good stock. Unadulterated comb. Fresh equipment. Plentiful clean forage. Keep your hives strong and populated.
> 
> You can talk about this until blue, and shuffle papers, etc, while we continue to keep our bees and honey clean and without treatments.


There is one problem with this sunny picture. If you have neighbouring apiaries who treat heavily, your bees will be effectively poisoned by their drones.

This, in my view, is the main reason why free-celling works in some areas and not in others. 

When free of such poisoning, a healthy naturally-selected breeding population and a healthy apiary exchange genetic material happily, to the detriment of neither.

By contast, in the vicinity of a medicating/treating apiariary, drones carrying genes that make unfit bees, dramatically undermine the health of the wild/feral bees surrounding them, and likewise the health of those apiaries within range. The fit bees' subfamilies, resulting from healthy queen and healthy sperm have to 'carry' the non-resistant subfamilies resulting from the unfit sperm. As the proportion of unfit subfamilies rises, the likelihood of the hives failing rises.

Trying to raise bees naturally in a breeding pool populated only by unfit bees is therefore much harder than doing so in a healthy deme. The key is to focus on the health of the breeding pool. Given good forage and freedom from unselected drones, the bees will do the rest. 

Given a healthy wild population that has co-evolved an 'unstable equilibrium' with its predators, all you have to do is catch-em. That's not clever beekeeping - its just being in the right place at the right time.

Mike


----------



## Guest

peterloringborst said:


> My point is that while the standard may not always be the best, it is the standard and quite often_ it is the best._ But more importantly, though, is that the cost of changing everything would be vast and therefore the _burden of proof _that it is worth the trouble _rests on the challengers._ Those who already employ the standard don't have to do anything.


Seems to me if one were starting a new hive that no change would be made...only a decision as to what size cell...when making a decision (not a change) one evaluates all of their options and chooses the best one.

So if you're starting from scratch no cell size has any advantage over another unless there is proof of such.

I'll grant you if you've already got comb of a certain size you'd want a compelling reason to change it, especially if your hives are healthy and thriving. Though if they are not, one might look at cell size as one possible reason.


----------



## mike bispham

WLC said:


> "...All else being equal, which new population will be stronger?"
> 
> The one that doesn't have a molecular parasite. :doh:


The deeply established understanding provided by Biology predicts "the population made by the stronger bees." This is the result of _the principle of inherited traits._ Organisms inherit their featurs from their parents. All else being equal, weak parents 'tend to' make weak organisms; strong parents 'tend to' make strong organisms. (That 'tend to' means it doesn't always happen, but the statistical probabilities are on that side)

Thus the biblical lesson: Jacob breeds from the strongest stock, and prospers, while his brother's sheep, unselected, sicken. Thus the medieval injunction: 'put best to best'. Thus the practice in every single field of organic husbandry (bar modern beekeeping): select the healthiest to make the new generations; ALWAYS eliminate the weak from the breeding stock.



WLC said:


> "...Will the new generations be a) more likely to be able to withstand cold winters, b) less likely to withstand cold winters than if there had not been a cold winter?"
> 
> None of the above.


Wrong. The new generations will be made from parents that had what it took to survive cold winters. They will be more likely to survive cold winters than they would have been had not last winter eliminated those who did not have what it takes to survive hard winters.



WLC said:


> 'Survival' doesn't mean 'good health' or 'desirable'. It simply means 'survival'.


The relationship between good health and survival is so clear and so obvious I don't quite know how to respond to somebody who cannot see it for themselves. 'Good health' and 'likely to survive' go hand in hand. Do you think that the least healthy songbirds and the most healthy songbirds survived our hard winter in equal numbers? 

The same with good health being a desirable feature of stock. No stockman wants unhealthy stock, since they are less likely to survive, thus causing economic damage, and also less likely to thrive, thus causing vets bills and lower outputs. All stockmen (except beekeepers) therefore carefully breed health and vitality into their stocks.



WLC said:


> As Peter pointed out, you can't select from something that's dead.
> 
> Breeders often find themselves in a 'genetic bottleneck' when they fail to understand that.
> 
> Natural beekeepers seem to be heading towards a 'genetic bottleneck' of their own when they use 'survivors' as a cornerstone of their selection process.


This is the opposite of the truth. It has been pointed out by several key researchers (Marla Spivak and Norman Carreck among them) that the danger of loss of genetic diversity is increased when beekeepers fail to maintain their own local strains and instead turn to replacement queens and nucs. These come from centralised breeders, who cannot - even when they make the effort - supply anything like the same measure of diversity. Allowing and encouraging local strains to reach their own accommodation with pests and diseases is the surest way to protect biodiversity.



WLC said:


> A beautiful philosophy, with an apparently good idea 'natural selection', heading towards a special issue of "Nature" (the science periodical).


The principle of natural selection for the fittest strains is at the heart of biology as taught all over the world. That is the way it is. I do understand that some people have special objections to aspects of it.

Mike


----------



## WLC

mike bispham said:


> We know nothing of the kind. All we know is that one member with a very shaky grasp of basic biology is trying to puff that myth into play.
> 
> Mike


Mike:

I'm not sure why you keep trolling. However, since Peter has withdrawn from the thread, I think I'll join him.

PS-Mike, you've made my ignore list.


----------



## Barry

mike bispham said:


> There is one problem with this sunny picture. If you have neighbouring apiaries who treat heavily, your bees will be effectively poisoned by their drones.
> 
> This, in my view, is the main reason why free-celling works in some areas and not in others.


Except I know that Dennis M. is surrounded by commercial bees who treat heavily. I'm not surrounded by commercial, but have plenty of hives around that get treated. I have a hard time buying into the isolation theory that has been suggested.


----------



## bigbearomaha

Mike, you have made it to my favorites list.

Barry, I would have to amend the comment 



> If you have neighbouring apiaries who treat heavily, your bees will be effectively poisoned by their drones.


to 



> If you have neighbouring apiaries who treat heavily, your bees could be poisoned by their drones.


isolation of colonies is a hard thing to make happen on a mainland because you just never know when other bees have entered the area elsewhere.

I can see how drones from treated colonies can pass on undesirable traits (coming from treated colonies) to people who want no treatment at all.

we can study and observe bees and their traits/behaviors and still not truly understand everything because there is nothing we can do authoritatively to effect their behavior. 

No doubt we can find commonalities and generalities that give us good direction and biologically speaking, there are some consistencies we will find as well.

To say that one and only one thing is or isn't the last word on the subject is a fallacy becasue among creatures of Nature (not robots or otherwise) there are always anomalies that can and do cause diversity, even the slightest within the same group of creatures. 

Hence the variety among Apis Mellifera we see. Local influences on bees have effected minute changes, causing them to be somewhat different over time from what is essentially the same bee elsewhere in the world.

The suggestion the small cell only will eliminate mites is not a factual one. I agree with Mike B that it is a combination of effects of natural cell building of varied cell sizes as determined by the needs of the bees that provides a number of nuances that are more conducive to tolerating, reducing mite load/effect on the colony.

one only need a basic understanding of the scientific process to understand how the objective study and observation of things can go a long way to providing us information about the creatures around us.

No Ph. D required.

Big Bear


----------



## mike bispham

Barry said:


> Except I know that Dennis M. is surrounded by commercial bees who treat heavily. I'm not surrounded by commercial, but have plenty of hives around that get treated. I have a hard time buying into the isolation theory that has been suggested.


How does Dennis M. operate Barry? Does he select very actively, and has he bought in resistent stock? I didn't mean to say it was impossible - just harder. I think I'd want to tweak that statement to:

"If you have neighbouring apiaries who treat heavily, your bees will adversely affected by their non-resistant drones - and the more there are the greater the effect" 

or something of that kind. 

I'll be very pleased if you can convince me that the effect is mimimal. It's my understanding that the recessive nature of some of the relevant genes for hygeinic behaviours mean that resistant bees are very vulnerable to the effects of drones that don't carry them.

Mike


----------



## mike bispham

Michael Palmer said:


> >>Quote:
> Originally Posted by peterloringborst
> The whole principle of the small cell myth is that large cell foundation was introduced and artificially enlarged the entire Apis mellifera population and that's why we have varroa mites.<<
> [...]
> I believe Peter has it right. The idea was developed by the Lusbys, and is at the center of the small cell theory. Correct me if I'm wrong.


I think what I was objecting to was the idea that a correct understanding of Dee's present position makes such a claim. The only people who would hold such a claim would be badly misreading her - though that is understandable as she has talked far more about natural cell than about the other key part of her management.

So if it is the case that the Lusby's _once_ thought that artificially large cells are solely responsible for the widespread infection, it isn't so now. Dee agrees that artificially maintaining weak bloodlines is the key problem - although she will, I expect, still hold strongly that bees are naturally smaller, and that natural cell sizes work better.

I think one problem is that a great many people think that 'small cell' beekeeping is just a matter of taking away stamped foundation. It isn't. To follow Dee's teaching taking away treatments is also essential. For that reason 'small-cell' beekeeping is very much a misnomer, and that has lead to a great deal of argument and confusion. What Dee practices and teaches is not 'small cell beekeeping', but could be well described as 'natural cell selective beekeeping'. 

Given the apparent uncertainty over the issue of whether 'standard size' is (always) the 'right size' (see i.e. Deknow's contributions), and the widespread attestments that unstamped foundation (or no foundation) seems to help (i.e. Michael Bush's reports of his own experience) it seems to me that there may be some truth in the idea that artificially-sized bees may yet turn out to be part of the varroa problem. 

Mike


----------



## Barry

mike bispham said:


> How does Dennis M. operate Barry? Does he select very actively, and has he bought in resistent stock? I didn't mean to say it was impossible - just harder.


I will call Dennis this weekend and verify my understanding of his situation.


----------



## Allen Dick

Dennis has revised his story many times.


----------



## Barry

As far as I'm concerned, when it comes to beekeeping, that's a sign of an honest man.


----------



## Allen Dick

Maybe I should have said "revised his _history_", and "This is as I recall with my own imperfect memory, having followed the story through several websites over time". Am I the only one who has seen this? Am I mistaken? I'd be delighted to be proven wrong. I think I may have copies of some of the original versions somewhere, though, since I backed some of the sites up during times when they came and went.


----------



## mike bispham

*Dennis M & small cells RE. drone influence*



Allen Dick said:


> Maybe I should have said "revised his _history_"..


Perhaps you could give us a summary of the significant changes you have seen, note any key changes, contradictions and so forth? You may just find that what has happened is that the man's narrative has evolved with his developing understanding. If that hadn't happened something would be wrong - he wouldn't be learning and/or wouldn't be bringing his learning to bear on his understanding of his past experience, and the way he accounts for it. 

Meanwhile perhaps you have views on the likelyhood of influence of drones from neighbouring medicating apiaries on adjacent naturally kept hives and wild/feral bees?

Mike


----------



## BWrangler

Hello Everyone,

This is not the first time Allen has suggested that I've changed my "history". And it's not the first time I've suggested that he go back and read them again. I doubt it will do any more good now than it has done in the past.

That history is intact. Here's a list of my websites, dates and archive.org links. Anyone interested can check it out for themselves. 

www.geocities.com/topbarguy
www.geocities.com/usbwrangler 7/15/03
http://fire.prohosting.com/topbargu 5/9/04 http://web.archive.org/web/20040610050044/fire.prohosting.com/topbargu/
http://wind.prohosting.com/tbhguy/bee 10/10/04 http://web.archive.org/20041207005142/wind.prohosting.com/tbhguy/bee/bee.htm
http://bwrangler.madpage.com/bee 8/27/05 http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://bwrangler.madpage.com
http://bees.farvista.net http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://bees.farvista.net/
www.bwrangler.com 12/27/07
http://beenatural.wordspace.com 11/?/09

Why so many sites? My primary focus was on learning about website scripting and design. I used free webhosts, which usually had a short lifespan, for that purpose. The bee content was secondary. Content was sometimes reorganized. But was basically cut and pasted from one site to the next. 

Checkout the early lists for my posts there as well. Bee-L is a good place to start. I think you will find them historically consistent with the "history" of my sites. Search for Dennis, Murrell, BWrangler.

And while there, checkout what the more 'informed' who have posted here have historically said. They've got an interesting "history" as well. Most of them have got a big axe to grind, especially topics regarding small cell, natural and not treating. And they aren't nearly as open minded as they would like others to believe. Other words like arrogance and contempt come to my mind when I read those Bee-L posts.

What I find interesting is that those axe grinders have to come to Beesource and troll to get any kind of audience. Anyone knowing the history of Beesource must be laughing their socks off. I know I am.

Dennis Murrell - BWrangler


----------



## Allen Dick

OK. Thanks for posting that info Dennis. 

Having a complete trail helps people who may rely on your curent writing understand how your ideas evolved. It seems you have made some claims and it is important that people can assess your credibility. 

People who don't make claims and who are not held up as examples don't have that worry, but you are in the spotlight.

I haven't time to look back at all your references right now, but may well do so some time. Seems to me I tried once before and could not locate much. I did not try very hard because, frankly I do not subscribe to your beliefs. What is important, though, is that those who plan to depend on your opinions can see how you reached them.

As I mentioned, my memory is imperfect and I am often surprised by going back through my own writing to see I have done something before or differently from how I recollect it so I could be completely wrong. I notice these same tendencies and apparent inconsistencies in other writers as well. As for your history, maybe I misunderstood it the first time around, but to me it still does not add up. That could well be my error, but I am not convinced.

As for opinions, they can change with time, sometimes due to new data or sometimes due to things which were new and untried having developed a track record. Opinions will vary with region as well, so don't be too hard on people who don't agree with you when you are challenged. These discussions should be about the ideas themselves and the proofs, not about the people. So let's not get personal. It says things about us that may tell others things about us that we may not intend.

I personally am not convinced about your claims and chronology and it will have to stay that way until I have the time and inclination to research the question. That said, it may be a long while before that happens because I would do it only out of curiosity as your story is not credible to me and also does not have any practical application in what I do.

That should not bother you though, since there are many who accept what you write. I'm just one guy.

You may also recall I offered to host your site free of charge at one time when it went dead again, since I found your ideas provactive and felt some continuity would be useful for people trying to follow your experiences. Although I did not agree with you, I felt your ideas are interesting and worthy of exposure. You did not accept the offer.

Memory is a funny thing.


----------



## Barry

Allen Dick said:


> I personally am not convinced about your claims and chronology and it will have to stay that way until I have the time and inclination to research the question. That said, it may be a long while before that happens because I would do it only out of curiosity as your story is not credible to me and also does not have any practical application in what I do.


I find it interesting that you will publicly "put down", create doubt about someone's experience and history but can't recall or point to anything in particular that would give credit to your statement.


----------



## Allen Dick

Are you deliberately trying to start a fight, Barry?

I am deliberately being discreet and attempting to avoid a conflict while saying "caveat emptor". 

To be more specific in dissecting the issue, I would have to do a lot of research to document my recollections and impressions. A lot of time has passed. Maybe I could dig up my copies and maybe the websites Dennis listed can be found and are dated and complete. As I said last time I looked I had little luck. Have you looked yourself?

As I said, I am sufficiently convinced that what Dennis has to say is not consistent with my own experience and the experience of people I respect, and what I have read of his writing over the years (and I have read some of it multiple times) that I would be wasting my time just to satisfy you and a few other people who would not like what I found anyhow. 

I am merely saying to those who are going to invest time or money on the basis of what Dennis writes to examine the questions and think for themselves before plunging. I imagine Dennis would advise the same.

I would give the same same warning about following myself -- or anyone else for that matter. 

How about taking my comment for what it is worth and leaving it at that?

As I say, I respect Dennis, but am not convinced about his views or the history.

Peace.


----------



## Barry

Allen Dick said:


> Are you deliberately trying to start a fight, Barry?


No Allen, I'm being very deliberate questioning you on a comment you made about Dennis.

"Maybe I should have said "revised his _history_", and "This is as I recall with my own imperfect memory, having followed the story through several websites over time". Am I the only one who has seen this? Am I mistaken? I'd be delighted to be proven wrong. I think I may have copies of some of the original versions somewhere, though, since I backed some of the sites up during times when they came and went."

No, it is up to you to proven _Dennis_ wrong, not us prove _You_ wrong. I know Dennis, and one thing he is not is dishonest. Disagree with his views all you want, but I'll jump in when you start making accusations of this sort.


----------



## BWrangler

Hello Allen and Everyone,

It seems I'm not the only one who has made claims and whose credibility is in question. And it seems I'm not the only one with a historical record that can be researched! 

>>So let's not get personal...ideas...proofs...not about people.>>

Yet, your two post don't discuss a single idea or proof of mine. Rather they discredit me personally and indirectly discredit my ideas. And that's not new and I'm not surprised. I've experienced it before. And to see it again indeed does say something. But that's not a new revelation either.

>>should not bother me....>>

You're absolutely right. Whether your convinced or not doesn't bother me at all. It's never been my purpose to convince, convert, have people believe in, or follow me in any way. 

My purpose was simply to share my beekeeping experience. And how that experience has changed from the typical conventional commercial beekeeping focus you're so familiar with, to my natural beekeeping experience. It's not applicable for everyone and was never intended to be. If there's some value that's ok. If not, that's ok as well.

>>many accept....>>

Ah, not very many. I'm not very active on the lists anymore. And my website isn't a barn burner. It would have bitten the dust without my other related web interests.

But today, it's not a matter of accept. A whole generation of beekeepers are moving forward. They don't have the same commercial beekeeping focus both you and I were weaned on. They understand the difference between the old paradigm and the new. They read extensively and try things out for themselves. They are having fun doing it. And they write about.

When we first started discussing this stuff on Bee-L a decade ago, one could count all those with natural cell experience on one hand. A few years later, using stats on my site, I figured about 75 people actually were working bees this way. Today there are more websites/blogs about people actually keeping bees this way than I can keep track of. My poor little site has been lost in Google limbo. And that's a good thing.

Beesource has been a major factor. Here, people can freely share their ideas across a wide spectrum of purposes, experiences. And there's room for those with a different beekeeping focus than the commercial one we're so familiar with. In fact, that's why Beesource was originally started. And over this very subject as well. Imagine that.

>>...free of charge...>>

I do remember. And I remember thanking you for the offer at the time. But as you know, I don't have much trouble finding free ones. :>)

I'll end with the same focus I entered this discussion with. There are those who successfully keep bees naturally. They are in various locations world-wide. Run in different equipment. Have a variety of climates. Use different bees. They may not know exactly why their bees and beekeeping is so successful when all the experts predict disaster. Yet they know how to do it and are doing it. These are the hows.

There's another group of beekeepers who can't believe it's so. And until some expert provides them with the whys, they will never believe that the hows can keep bees as they say they do. Ultimately the hows are seen at best as misguided. At worst, as liars.

Dennis


----------



## peterloringborst

> There's another group of beekeepers who can't believe it's so. And until some expert proves to them the whys, they will never believe the hows, let alone try them.


There is no such group. Maybe you should read through the posts and see what is being discussed. Numerous studies have shown that small cell foundation does not reduce varroa reproduction. _That_ is the topic here, not natural beekeeping or you.


----------



## BWrangler

Greetings Peter,

You mean like the one with the bottle of Amitraz :>)

Dennis


----------



## peterloringborst

I liked that, yes


----------



## BWrangler

Hi Guys,

Peter's right. Let's get back to the subject.

Tom Seeley is one smart guy. And I don't doubt that the other authors are lacking either. Really, it doesn't take much to set up and run a test like the ones done here. Anyone who can count, work hives and has a statistics smart friend could do the same. Let their results simply say what they say. 

Most who have switched to small cell sized comb and stopped treating have experienced much the same kind of results. Tom Seeley and others have just quantified what most of us have experienced in colonies lost, to mite overloading, after the first season.

If putting small cell comb in a hive, like a treatment, was all that was involved, end of matter. It wouldn't work. At least not initially.

But there's more to natural beekeeping than cell size. There's selection and adaptation involved as well. And it's a process with both the bees and the beekeeper getting better at it over time.

It would be a shame if the researchers involved confused inserting small cell comb as a treatment with natural beekeeping, a process. That would be the end of research into the matter.

That's a natural tendency when coming from a treatment perspective. I had it and when my 16 three story boomer hive plus nucs small cell test yard crashed after my first season on small cell, I rushed to Arizona to see small cell bees for myself. What I saw and my discussion with Ed Lusby convinced me to continue on with those hives. 

And it would be a shame if the natural beekeeping community experiences the same confusion. I'm interested in anything Tom Seeley does. Much of what I know about natural bee behavior originated with his research.

Regards - Dennis
I would have studied natural feral bee trees for myself, if there were feral bees or trees in Wyoming. :<)


----------



## peterloringborst

BWrangler said:


> It would be a shame if the researchers involved confused inserting small cell comb as a treatment with natural beekeeping, a process. That would be the end of research into the matter.


Right. In this we agree completely. I began posting on this forum this year by invitation. One of the first discussions I initiated was to look for other factors responsible for the success of some beekeepers to keep hives alive without using chemotherapy. 

My friend Mike Johnston was the first to make me really believe it is possible in this region. Subsequently, I visited Kirk Webster, and then wrote extensively on what I had gathered from discussion, reading, and experimentation.

Tom Seeley's work make it clear to me that simply collecting bees from the woods is not a solution, nor is simply changing the cell size. However, that is not to say that nothing is to be gained from these actions. But the hallmark of an inquisitive mind is to try to figure out what is going on.

Following the work of Dave deJong, it is plausible that switching to brand new foundation of any type may retard varroa buildup, as they seem to prefer old combs (odor?). Following the work of Nick Calderone and myself, huge gains can be made by trapping varroa on drone comb and removing them. 

Following the work of Seeley and others, simply changing the cell size alone, will do very little or nothing to retard varroa buildup. By the way, I think the effect of small cells, and what is the correct natural size of cell are two separate issues. It wouldn't matter to me if the smaller size was natural or not, if it would work. 

On the other hand, the idea that European bees were smaller a hundred years ago is unprovable. Following the literature one quickly realizes that they weren't measuring cells to the nearest hundredth of a millimeter, that it was accepted that the cell size is not fixed but _falls within a range of sizes._

Following the deductions of WLC, the success of some beekeepers may be directly related to an accidental genetic modification of the honey bee genome. In other words, the naturalists may be inadvertently propagating genetically altered freak bees. 

According to my pipedreaming, the dynamics of crowding vs isolated colonies may account for a large part of the difference between small scale beekeepers apparent success and large scale beekeepers huge losses. Although some evidence suggests that small timers lose a greater percentage of hives.

Recently Dave Hackenberg made the news again proclaiming:


> "Everybody is seeing (bee) losses this winter," said Hackenberg, of Lewisburg, Pa. "This was probably the worst year ever."


----------



## slickbrightspear

Numerous studies have shown that small cell foundation does not reduce varroa reproduction.

It may not reduce varroa reproduction but do the bees survive better even with the varroa that is the question i would like to see answered. I could care less about varroa reproduction if the bees live good and produce honey.


----------



## peterloringborst

slickbrightspear said:


> It may not reduce varroa reproduction but do the bees survive better even with the varroa that is the question i would like to see answered. I could care less about varroa reproduction if the bees live good and produce honey.


If the bees don't "live good and produce honey" then you will care about varroa reproduction! Obviously, if varroa can't reproduce, they can't overrun the hive. That's the whole point. Furthermore, even a moderate varroa load leads to complications due to open sores on the bees, viruses and the whole ball of wax.


----------



## mike bispham

BWrangler said:


> Peter's right. Let's get back to the subject.
> 
> Tom Seeley is one smart guy. Tom Seeley is one smart guy. [...] Let their results simply say what they say.


I may have missed it, but could I ask again how Seeley's Arnot Forest paper, cited and summarised here, bears on the discussion about small cells? His results say - nothing about small cell whatsover. They speculatively attribute the forest bees survivability to co-evolution - a milder mite. Are we talking about a different paper? 

Mike


----------



## mike bispham

peterloringborst said:


> Right. In this we agree completely. (The _process nature_ of natural beekeeping) One of the first discussions I initiated was to look for other factors responsible for the success of some beekeepers to keep hives alive without using chemotherapy.


Peter, having agreed with Barry about the importance of the process of natural beekeeping, you now ignore it completely. Instead you ramble on about various non solutions - all of which have been discussed extensively. You say you want to look for other factors responsible, yet make no attempt at all to speak about the key aspect of the process that Barry instances... systematic selection of the strongest strains, and elimination of the weakest. 

This is a distinct pattern. It is readily apparent that you dislike the whole idea that bee bloodlines can be strengthened by selective reproduction, and its corollary - that medication/treatments (like the drone removal technique you instance) interfere dramatically with that process. 

Whenever the importance of selection is pointed out to you - as it has been on numerous occasions, you avoid making a response, or make a 'response' that avoids the poster's point, or simply change the subject. Here you have 'responded' to Barry's point about process by first agreeing, thus clothing yourself as a sympathiser, then ignoring the point completely, returning to the red herring of badly defined 'small cell' and other scattered non-solutions. This, we can note, is typical 5th columist behaviour. 

Pretty well everyone here believes that selection/non treatment are an essential part of the process of natural beekeeping. It is the real 'difference-maker'. Yet you always refuse to engage with that aspect of the conversation. Instead you persistently sidetrack it - right now, for example, you and WLC are trying to scare up nonsense about how apiary selection is actually harmful. There is a well established pattern. 

I don't suppose for a moment this post will persuade you to change. My intention here is rather to point this pattern out to the other posters here, in the hope that we might be able to combat Peter's efforts to prevent discussion of the real mechanisms and processes that are in action in 'natural' i.e. selective beekeeping. 

Mike


----------



## mike bispham

peterloringborst said:


> There is no such group. Maybe you should read through the posts and see what is being discussed. Numerous studies have shown that small cell foundation does not reduce varroa reproduction. _That_ is the topic here, not natural beekeeping or you.


The overarching topic is, it seems to me, whether or not something has been debunked. We've successfuly shown that 'small cells' does not constitute a recognisable method, and have tried to discover just what it is that the debunkers think they are attacking. We've revealed a muddle. The notion that 'small cell' is some concrete method has been debunked - shown to be a false target of attack. The very idea that a particular method of beekeeping has been debunked has itself been debunked. The title of the thread has been shown to be incoherent - not even false.

What has been shown is that those thinking that substituting small cell foundation, and doing nothing else, will help, will be disappointed. And that those who have small cells as a result of keeping bees in a natural fashion are often successful. You cannot therefore take 'natural beekeeping' out of the conversation. It is an essential part of any conclusion, any conversation involving small cells. 

And at this particular moment one of the topics is indeed Dennis' integrity - which has been rudely impugned - as part of, it seems, a concerted campaign to discredit advocates of natural beekeeping. 

Anyway I thought you'd left the discussion - what happened there?

Mike


----------



## Michael Palmer

mike bispham said:


> I think what I was objecting to was the idea that a correct understanding of Dee's present position makes such a claim. The only people who would hold such a claim would be badly misreading her - though that is understandable as she has talked far more about natural cell than about the other key part of her management.
> Mike


Well, maybe but...

I know Dee. Been at conferences where she talked about all the evidence she has in her files. Evidence that all our bee problems started with enlarging bees with larger cell foundation. Has Dee changed her mind in the last 9 months since I last heard her speak on the topic? Anyone? Deknow?


----------



## deknow

i'm not sure if i understand the question....but any questions about what dee believes are best asked of her. with that said:

1. be careful with the "natural cell" term....usually applies to foundationless comb, not SC foundation.

2. yes, dee's claims are than many of the problems we have originated with the enlarging of the cell size....but also that cell size alone is far from the only thing wrong with the current state of affairs in beekeeping....but oversized (and overweight) bees impacts all manner of health issues, no matter what the other issues may be (just as they do in humans and dogs).

deknow


----------



## camero7

"but oversized (and overweight) bees"

I started using foundationless this year. My new bees from this foundation are obviously smaller than the packages they are replacing. Interesting and time will tell if this has any effect, health and Varroa wise.


----------



## mythomane

peterloringborst said:


> I am voluntarily ending this discussion, as it has now reached an impasse.
> 
> Talk to you later.


Well....so much for that. Still haven't answered my question as to how many hives you are personally running and if they are treated and why/with what.


----------



## slickbrightspear

peterloringborst said:


> If the bees don't "live good and produce honey" then you will care about varroa reproduction! Obviously, if varroa can't reproduce, they can't overrun the hive. That's the whole point. Furthermore, even a moderate varroa load leads to complications due to open sores on the bees, viruses and the whole ball of wax.


you missed my point maybe small cell does not stop varroa reproduction but that the bees are able to live and survive better with the varroa load and still make honey and survive none of these tests look at that aspect.


----------



## camero7

What I'm looking for are bees that can co-exist with Varroa without loading up on virus/nosema. Maybe a pipe dream but there are some who seem to have bees able to do that. That's why I'm trying natural cell, northern bred survivor queens, VSH/SMR queens, looking for the combination that can survive my winters, build up enough for apple pollination up here and produce a reasonable crop of honey...


----------



## devdog108

The russian Hybrids I have have some mites. I was talking to the gentleman I bought them from and he agreed that they do. I dont think we will ever eradicate them, but rather co-exist. He also told the state Inspector that he DOES NOT TREAT whatsoever...So, that being said, I agree with you Cam.......except i do NOT want yours or Peters winters...LOL


----------



## mike bispham

Peter presents as evidence that 'small cell' makes no difference to varroa seven studies, listed at the bottom of this post.

It seems to me _from the titles _that 1) to 5) address the proposition that simply inserting small cell comb into standard hives containing standard bees will not be helpful. Since we already knew that, those papers (if their contents are properly reflected in their titles, and if I've read them correctly) are not particularly interesting. 

Judging by their titles 6) and 7) might however be interesting. 

From the abstract of 6) http://www.ibra.org.uk/articles/20081124_18?month=1&year=2009 it seems to me that the test shows things that have little relevance to questions about the relation between cell size and varroa in _stable colonies_. We could argue about that.

7) http://www.apidologie.org/index.php?option=article&access=doi&doi=10.1051/apido/2010003 is harder to summarise, but it seems that the conclusion is one we share:

"Consequently, there is no evidence that small-cell foundation would help to contain the growth of the mite population in honeybee colonies and hence its use as a control method would not be proposed. "

Again, no one here thinks this would help. 

What all these papers show is that placing small cell foundation in standard sized hives achieves nothing.

What none of them appear likely to demonstrate is that allowing natural cells (i.e. letting the bees decide, whether on no foundation or on unstamped foundation) has no effect on varroa. The anecdotal evidence we know of, and which some here have experienced, is that free celling may well be helpful. These papers give no indication to the contrary.

Mike

Peter's list:
1) Jennifer A. Berry, William B. Owens, Keith S. Delaplane. 2009. Small-cell comb foundation does not impede Varroa mite population growth in honey bee colonies

2) A. M. Ellis, G. W. Hayes, J. D. Ellis. 2009. The efficacy of small cell foundation as a varroa mite (Varroa destructor) control

3) Liebig, G., Aumeier, P., 2007. Helfen kleine Zellen gegen Varroa? [Do small cells help against Varroa?]

4) Wilson, M. W., Skinner, J., Chadwell, L. Measuring The Effects Of Foundation On Honey Bee Colonies: A Sare Producer Grant Project

5) Seeley, T. D. Evaluation Of Small-Cell Combs For Control Of Varroa Mites In New York Honey Bees

6) Taylor, M.A., Goodwin, R.M., McBrydie, H.M., Cox, H.M., 2008. The effect of honey bee worker brood cell size on Varroa destructor infestation and reproduction. 

7) Mary F. Coffey, John Breen, Mark J.F. Brown, and John B. McMullan. 2010. Brood-cell size has no influence on the population dynamics of Varroa destructor mites in the native western honey bee, Apis mellifera mellifera


----------



## Bens-Bees

One thing that I would like to see studied is the effect that small cell foundation has on the number of eggs laid by the queen. I kind of wonder if there's something to be gained by: 
1: having more cells per frame, 

and 

2: the queen not having to walk as far from one cell to the next (I know it's a miniscule difference, but it adds up over time and the less walking the queen does, the more energy she should have left over for egg production... in theory anyway).

What are your thoughts on this Peter? You're more on the fore-front of the research side of things, so do you know of any such studies?


----------



## Michael Bush

It's always safest to make sure you are actually measuring what you want as a result. If what you want as a result is a specific number of mites in the cell, then by all means measure that. If what you want is X number of eggs laid by the queen, then by all means measure that. The danger is when you assume a relationship between one thing and another thing in something as complex as real life. Managers do this all the time. They decide to measure the productivity of a worker by measuring X. But the worker, figuring this out, goes to great lengths to get a higher X without doing any more work. And usually they succeed. The point is you should measure what you want.

What I want is bees that survive, are productive, and are managable. If they have those three traits, what do I care exactly how hygenic they are or how many mites are in a capped cell?

I say the way to do this is set up several yard a few miles from each other in one general area with half large cell, half small cell and all roughly the same genetics and see who the "last man standing" is and what kind of productivity you get.


----------



## BWrangler

Hi Michael,

>I say the way to do this is......

Where could we find a guy dumb enough to do it? ))

Regards - Dennis


----------



## peterloringborst

Michael Bush said:


> What I want is bees that survive, are productive, and are managable. If they have those three traits, what do I care exactly how hygenic they are or how many mites are in a capped cell


Sure, this makes perfect sense. That is, if you are person completely devoid of scientific curiosity. Ironically, all of the people that you claim to admire such as Langstroth, Doolittle, Jay Smith and all, were tireless in their desire to know, to understand, and to take advantage of that knowledge and understanding. To take a position of "who cares why it works as long as it does" is contrary to everything these men stood for. It's contrary to the spirit of scientific curiosity and to the advancement of knowledge and understanding in general. I find the very idea somewhat embarrassing to contemplate.


----------



## mythomane

peterloringborst said:


> Sure, this makes perfect sense. That is, if you are person completely devoid of scientific curiosity. Ironically, all of the people that you claim to admire such as Langstroth, Doolittle, Jay Smith and all, were tireless in their desire to know, to understand, and to take advantage of that knowledge and understanding. To take a position of "who cares why it works as long as it does" is contrary to everything these men stood for. It's contrary to the spirit of scientific curiosity and to the advancement of knowledge and understanding in general. I find the very idea somewhat embarrassing to contemplate.


Michael is on the front lines keeping bees without treatments successfully. How about you Peter? Langstroth, Doolittle, et al. were doers, and Michael is not doing anything contrary to "what they stood for." How many hives are you running treatment free, Peter? Are they surviving? Why or why not?


----------



## DRUR

mythomane said:


> Michael is on the front lines keeping bees without treatments successfully.


Now what does this matter? I mean this isn't really the issue with most is it? It's about producing a bunch of dependent bees, then dependent beekeepers.

I am now on my 2nd year without treatments on small cells. Of those colonies which haven't swarmed, all have large bee populations and are thriving. At this point I consider swarming to be a greater menace to honey production than the mites [at this point I am into honey production but will probably try my hand at pollen production, and then maybe propolis, one step at a time sweet Jesus].

Peter, it seems to me that YOU have missed Michael's point [at least this is what I gleaned from his statement]. Perchance I will clarify.

Let's see, we are told that bees on small [or natural] cells have mite loads higher than those on large cells. We are told that bees can't survive the mites without treatments. And so, the obvious conclusion is that you must keep bees on large cells and treat with chemicals. Of course then when you do this you will eventually have to get on the government dole to pay for your bee losses. *RIGHT?** RIGHT.*

So now the government has to help those on 'large cells' chemically treating to compete against us contrarians.* RIGHT?*, *RIGHT.* I am waiting for a federal tax on honey to support this program so that the successful small cell beeks can help support the those who treat.

And I suppose that it doesn't matter to the 'inquisitive so-called scientists', that there are those who are keeping bees on small cells without treatments, aren't having major losses, aren't enhancing the chemical companies 'Income Statement', aren't contaminating the colonies with chemicals, and aren't contaminating the products of the bees which *WE the PEOPLE* consume. Oh, no, these 'so-called scientists' have no curiosity as to how beeks can be successful on small cell year after year, producing products of the bee [albeit with less prodcution] without contaminating the product, and also without giving a large portion of our effort [a.k.a. labor] to the chemical companies. And all this with obviously higher mite loads using small cells as all the so-called scientists are telling us. So, maybe our obvious conclusion would be that these issues which are so important to 'survival' are only really important to those who chemically treat.

Peter, I admit that I have favoritism to small cell working because I won't 'chemically' treat my colonies [although, I will use whatever other management techniques which may enhance my success].

I think it is also time that you admit your favoritism to chemical treatments/suport of the chemical treatments as is evidenced with you derogatory use of the term 'debunked' and 'myth' as it relates to small-cell without any inquisitive scientific investigation into how beeks can be successful using small cell.

Regards
Danny Unger


----------



## peterloringborst

Some of us are interested in the scientific study of varroa resistance. We want to_ know why _some bees thrive where others fail. For example:



> Varroa destructor mite is currently the most serious threat to the world bee industry. Differences in mite tolerance are reported between two honey bee species Apis mellifera and Apis cerana. Differential gene expression of two honey bee species induced by V. destructor infection was investigated by constructing two suppression subtractive hybridization (SSH) libraries, as first steps toward _elucidating molecular mechanisms of Varroa tolerance_


It is possible that there are molecular differences between Apis cerana and Apis mellifera and these difference account for the success of varroa on mellifera. You know, in all these discussions nobody mentions the fact that Apis cerana could be easily kept in North America, and it is practically immune to varroa. It is a small bee and makes small colonies, but it would be well suited to part time beekeepers. But given the current political climate, it would be hard to make a case for allowing in any more _aliens_.


----------



## BWrangler

Hi Guys,

>Where could we find a guy dumb enough .....

I know of one really dumb guy in Casper. But there's no need to find someone new. There's are people scattered all around the globe who have already done it. And they have been able to take what they've learned and keep healthy, untreated bees successfully. 

I guess they didn't need someone to tell them the why's before they discovered the how's. Maybe knowing the how's was enough to keep bees in a more natural way, today. Such is the art of beekeeping.

Eventually the science of beekeeping will catch up and help refine the art. And that's a good thing.

Personally, I'm going to be very skeptical of using my smoker until I see a peer reviewed, journaled, double blind, statistically valid test. Maybe smoking bees isn't any better than smoking cigarettes. Maybe it does more harm than good. But until then, I'll keep the matches handy. And I'll stay upwind. ;-)

Regards - Dennis


----------



## peterloringborst

BWrangler said:


> I guess they didn't need someone to tell them the why's before they discovered the how's. Maybe knowing the how's was enough to keep bees in a more natural way, today.


OK, then. How?


----------



## mythomane

Knowing the name for something and understanding the thing itself are very different things. My feeling is that if you wanted to really understand you would be keeping bees in the manner of Sam Comfort or Webster just to the east of you and not comparing notes from various papers and studies written by others. You wrote somewhere that the bees that people keep in your area without treatments "just die." Not so, of course. I guess we are all just a bunch of liars. Bush, Myself, Dee, Comfort, etc. all have ten of thousands of dollars invested in our operations and we work them without chemicals and have for many, many years. We have lost a few bees (sometimes many) but things have improved measurably the last decade. We have the heart to move forward and gamble with real blood and money in what we believe, rather than waiting for some grant money and puttering about writing papers that no one reads. I am invested in my bees with more than cash or theory -- On the side of Stubbs BBQ sauce it has a quote above his head: "My Life is in these Bottles." Right.


----------



## peterloringborst

Bens-Bees said:


> (I know it's a miniscule difference, but it adds up over time and the less walking the queen does, the more energy she should have left over for egg production... in theory anyway)


I would say you are correct that it is a minuscule difference. It sort of like saying that by having my phone on my desk rather than on the wall ten feet from me, is going to save me X amount of time during the day. I don't think you'd ever see it. 

Many people have tried different sized frames over the years on the idea that if the queen could spend more time on a single comb, before going to the next comb, the hive would benefit. Dadant's jumbo frames are an example. They were something like a foot deep and almost two feet wide. 

The Langstroth frame makes a pretty good frame to handle, not so big. The supers tend to be too heavy for most people these days, so the medium super is very popular. I know a few people who use only medium sized frames for brood and honey.

But these are beekeeper issues, not about the queen's access. Even so, I think that you would be hard pressed to show that hives did better with the big frames than the small ones, so then the beekeeper's convenience becomes the main concern, if the other makes no difference.

P.S. Sorry to be so slow to reply. I have been getting shouting off the forum lately so I tend to go off and sulk


----------



## BWrangler

Hi Peter and Everyone,

>OK, then. How?...

Now that's a rhetorical question! And I know you don't need an answer from me.

But for anyone else wondering there are some common elements among the various ways people are keeping bees naturally.

-stop treating their bees with pesticides
-get rid of all contaminated equipment and comb
-let the bees establish themselves on new clean comb of small/natural cell sizes
-let the bees and mites fight it out and breed from the survivors
-work with their bees rather than working over their bees

Sounds real simple. And it is.

Regards - Dennis


----------



## peterloringborst

BWrangler said:


> Hi Peter and Everyone,
> 
> >OK, then. How?...
> 
> Now that's a rhetorical question! And I know you don't need an answer from me.
> -let the bees and mites fight it out and breed from the survivors


No, it wasn't. I want to know what you propose. 

And, if there are no survivors? 

Or, even if there are, how can you call yourself a beekeeper if you routinely lose 90% of your hives? Bee loser, is more like it!


----------



## Barry

peterloringborst said:


> how can you call yourself a beekeeper if you routinely lose 90% of your hives?


You won't find any of us losing 90% of our hives. If we did, we would be doing something else. Yes, it's a rhetorical question!


----------



## arthur

I'm on my 4th season with my first hive, never once treated for varroa. Regular large cell foundation.

I'm sure if had used small cell, I would be crowing about how wonderful small cell is.

But since I am not, I have to attribute it to something else. Like the starting stock (B. Weaver SMR).


----------



## honeyshack

Well good for you

So here are some questions

How much honey do you produce in a year from that hive?
Is it close or above your State average?
Is that hive viable enough to split every year?
In that first hive, that hive has never once died. and you replaced with a split? Or shored up with another hive?

honeyshack


----------



## arthur

I've not harvested all that much honey out of this hive, partly by choice, partly by inexperience, and partly due to mismanagement. For example, when I put on a queen excluder in the 2nd season (?) I trapped the queen in a honeybound super and realized it when I checked for brood and there wasn't any. 2nd season, produced a shallow of capped honey, which I delayed harvest on until my father could teach me how to extract, and when he finally drove up, I opened the hive and that capped super had turned into brood. Good lesson. I harvested a few frames that season. 3rd season I pulled a medium off in the spring, did no fall harvest on purpose. This season, I only pulled off the top super (medium), could have pulled some more if I wanted. Need to check on them, to see if they have drawn out and finished the medium with foundation I put on to replace that medium. That was probably 3wk ago. Again, there has been more honey to take out of this hive than I have done. I'm still figuring this stuff out. I would say, based on impression, that this hive would be in the avg. to low avg. in terms of production. That's just a guess. But who knows, foraging issues are also big. For example, we have had some springs with a ton of rain that have made for poor honey harvests during this time. By far, this year has been the best for the bees, in my 4 seasons, due to only period rain this spring.

Yes, the hive is viable enough to do splits, and then some. It has swarmed at least once (again, mismanagement, or more precisely, lack of management last season). Right now it is chock full of bees, 1 deep, 2 mediums, and 1 shallow, no queen excluder. I've never done a split before, because I've had no place to put an additional hive before (this is my first season to have more than one hive--three. I inherited two hives). But I do plan to split this hive this season, because it is a bit hotter than I would prefer.

This is a first hive, from a package, given a little bit of syrup the first season (I stopped after a while), never any after. Never received pollen substitute. Never had a single chemical treatment. Obviously, as implied, never died off. Never shored up with a single bee.

And pretty certain that the queen was superceded by the end of the 3rd season.

It should not be very controversial that a hive can survive without treatment on large cell. I'm sure it happens all the time.


----------



## honeyshack

OK, so you do not know what your honey production is compared to your state average.

Glad your bees do well. However for a commercial producer, not that much honey production is not a great thing. 

So, get back to me on your production VS your state average.


----------



## Barry

arthur said:


> I have to attribute it to something else. Like the starting stock (B. Weaver SMR).


Great! You should mention this to Peter B. He's looking for something that works besides SC.


----------



## BWrangler

Greeting PLB and Everyone,

Now Peter, there you go again! Up to your old ways.

>And, if there are no survivors?

That might be a possibility if one were working with just a couple of hives. But in actual experience, I don't know of anyone who has lost all of their hives in the process. Even those with two or three hives seem to come through with some survivors.

Having survivors is a factor for success. But they are a just a very small part of it. I had some problems breeding off my survivors. And through that process found out they are less important than other aspects. Anyone interested can read about my recommendations in the "Standard Equipment Transition to Natural Comb" section toward the bottom of the page here:

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

>Or, even if there are, how can you call yourself a beekeeper if you routinely lose 90% of your hives? Bee loser, is more like it!

I can see by your question that you really don't understand the process or the experience.

I don't know of any natural beekeeper who routinely losses more than 10% of their bees. Most loose far less than that. Writing articles about natural beekeeping is very presumptuous, at best, with such little understanding, if lack of understanding is the problem. And from the tone of your post, I don't think that's the problem! So what's new?

I used to be a "Bee loser" on a commercial scale. I followed all the latest research and advice put out by the colleges and extension agencies. But that "enlightened" pathway led to sick bees, empty boxes, chemical resistant mites, routine queen supercedures, contaminated comb, a dependence on package bees, very high winter losses, a large percentage of spring dinks, and the routine collapse of many hives every 5 to 6 years. Now that's a Bee loser if ever there was one! And following this pathway will guarantee one a PhD in bee loss. I've got one. And I know how to spot one as well.

That's the current state of beekeeping affairs for those who continue down that pathway. All that whining in the press and on the lists about bee loss, government funding and the latest and greatest mite/ccd/disease research says it all. Most who call themselves beekeepers know their bees are in trouble. They know their bees are sick.

Peter, where is your beekeeping at? What's your percentage loss? What's happening to those who follow your advice? What do they routinely lose? I'm sure there are more bee losers around than some would like to admit. Why so silent Peter? Have you got a PhD in bee loss which qualifies you as a bee loser too?

But I am no longer a bee loser. And my PhD in bee loss went out to the trash with all those strips, acids, essential oils, mineral oil, etc. and mite treatment research I'd accumulated over time.

I'm a natural beekeeper now. And I don't plan on returning to that bees lost pathway. It's just too much work and produces such dismal results.

After an initial, not routine(there's a difference between routine and initial) loss of 90%, my bees rebounded.

That's been clearly stated in what I write. And is quickly picked up by most who read more than just the picture captions on my site. And others going natural have had the same experience. Peter, did you miss that in their experience as well?

And what a difference. I no longer have stacks of empty equipment. Don't need package bees. Don't worry about swarming as I have more bees than I need. And my queens routinely survive 3 1/2 years with few queen supercedures.Typically I lose less than 1% for three years. Then I'll loose about 6% the forth year. That's an overall loss that consistently runs at 3% through time. 

And that 3% loss isn't from mites or disease. It's winter/early spring queen failure. I used to requeen at the end of the second season. But since going natural, I've have just left the process to the bees. I can easily make up the 3% difference, in the spring, by splitting. 

But that's going to change, as I'm somewhat emotionally scarred from my bee loser days, where piles of empty equipment, poor winter survival, lots of dinks, and a dependence on package bees with queens that were quickly superceded was the spring norm. Now, I just hate to see any spring loss. So, I'm going back to requeening at the end of the second season. Maybe I'll cut that 3% in half.

Regards
Thinking if one can't or won't understand the how's, it's impossible to evaluate the why's.


----------



## BWrangler

Hi Arthur,

That's interesting. BWeaver stock (Harbo) was the basis for my bee stock although I've tried about everything else as well. Concerning mite tolerance, all those stocks did well on natural/small cell comb. But the Harbos were superior in many other aspects.

Go ahead, crow about your stock. If you can keep your equipment clean, your bees healthy, and produce a honey you're not ashamed of, what more could you want? You can crow as loud as you please.

My own experience indicates that getting the pesticides out of the hive and the bees on clean wax is the most important factor for bee health. Natural cell size and broodnest structure are factors that allows the bees to tolerate the mites which keeps the pesticides out. And a bee that is resistant to the mite vectored viruses insures colony survival.

Back in the good old days, when varroa was first encountered, massive colony losses occurred. Beekeepers rushed to the "enlightened" for a solution which got us all on the pesticide treadmill. And earned most of us a PhD in bee loss.

At the time we thought we were doing the right thing. Turns out we were really the desperate following the blind.

But today many know better. And they and their bees can do better.

Congrats - Dennis


----------



## peterloringborst

BWrangler said:


> Greeting PLB and Everyone,
> 
> Now Peter, there you go again! Up to your old ways.


I don't know what you mean by this. Why are you taunting me? 

I have collected numerous survivor colonies. Several of these survived for several years after the beekeeper died. I avoided using varroa controls, not wanting to put strips of any kind in my hives. I made splits from the survivor hives. I also bought a few packages over the years. _All of these hives died from varroa. _

This year I bought some nucs, I have one swarm that I requeened with a VSH breeder queen, and I have a wild swarm in a barrel. I also have had problems with a bear so I now have an electric fence. 

I have visited Kirk Webster and Mike Johnston, both treatment free beekeepers in the Northeast US. I have written extensively about treatment free beekeeping in the American Bee Journal. I even gave talks about treatment free, until I realized that it fails more often than it works.

Having spent a lot of time looking into this subject and discussing it hear on Beesource for the past 5 months in over 500 posts, I have come to the conclusion that the main factor involved in most of the success stories is LUCK.


----------



## deknow

peterloringborst said:


> Having spent a lot of time looking into this subject and discussing it hear on Beesource for the past 5 months in over 500 posts, I have come to the conclusion that the main factor involved in most of the success stories is LUCK.


hmmm, so the more you talk the more you learn?

deknow



> We must believe in luck. For how else can we explain the success of those we don't like? - Jean Cocteau


----------



## peterloringborst

deknow said:


> hmmm, so the more you talk the more you learn?
> 
> deknow


Is that a taunt, as well? Yes, the more we talk the more we learn. I joined this discussion group 5 months ago for the express purpose of discussion: talking, listening, learning. Why am I characterized as the bad guy? Because I say: _I don't believe you, prove it?_ This seems reasonable to me.


----------



## peterloringborst

From one of my first posts on BeeSource, February:

Now, we all want to know why some populations of bees seem to be mite resistant. There have been countless theories, conjectures, hypotheses up the wazoo. Some seem plausible and some seem like pleasant fantasies. Not wanting to be stuck behind the eight ball, I have studied them all to try to make some sense of it.

My favorite theory is that nothing has anything to do with anything else, it seems to explains what we see nicely. Unfortunately, you wouldn't bet on such a scheme. It is quite clear that there are mite free, disease free colonies and management frequently has little to do with this fact. 

But as we quickly learn, simply leaving a hive alone can quickly lead to empty boxes. Were that not the case, we beekeepers would all own private jets, instead of all those folks who got those big bonuses from the government bank bailout. Let alone beekeeping is surely a thing of the past. 

I certainly know, because over the past few years I have been too busy to look after my hives much and I have tried to stock them with so-called feral bees, thinking that if these bees survived in the woods with no help, they could survive at my place with no help. Didn't work out. 

Now, the theories come. Some say the problem is the cells are the wrong size, that they have been artificially enlarged. I never bought this argument, never made sense to me, was not plausible. And work which I posted by Wilson (post #1) seems to show that European bees when allowed to build comb, do in fact build 5.4mm cells.

Even if that were not the case, smaller worker cells might deter mites, because they are closer in size to the worker cells of Apis cerana, in which mites don't reproduce. But I figured smaller cells would make smaller bees and the mites would squeeze in their with them, which the work by Jennifer Berry seems to show.

Finally, we could suppose that if it isn't the comb, then it could be the bees themselves. Given enough time, they could develop mite resistance through natural selection. Mike Allsopp appears to support this hypothesis and in fact I wrote to him about it. He disparages the whole idea of breeding better bees.

He points to wild populations of scutellata developing mite resistance in seven years. However, those are scuts and most of us neither have not want them. I asked him if he thought it would work with European bees. That's the question, he said, and left it at that. So it's up to us to find out. 

Without going back over Tom Seeley's Arnot Forest experiment, I have concluded that the key to having mite resistant populations is isolation. That is the one thing good bees have in common, they're a bit out of the way; not in the mainstream of beekeeping territory. 

I have found that bringing healthy feral bees into my neighborhood is the kiss of death. They immediately pick up heavy mite loads and tank. Obviously, I needed to leave them where they were. In fact, this widow gave me her husband's bees and told me I could keep them where they were, way back in the woods. I probably should have, but it was hours from here and I want bees in my yard!

But what makes the bees do well in isolation? I really don't think it has anything at all to do with breeding (or combs, or any of those other things). I think an isolated population of bees and mites strike some sort of balance. 

Now don't get me wrong, I don't buy the whole argument that a parasite doesn't kill its host. First off, mites are dumb bugs and all they know is that they reproduce in bee cells. So whatever happens is the result of natural selection. 

Nature has no problem putting bees and mites together and watching them all die. Obviously, the mites that survive will have some trick that makes them able to do it, same as bees that survive. Whatever trick they have stumbled upon that gives them the edge, that's what saves them. 

Honey bees have a very sophisticated system to prevent inbreeding. Even closed populations like the bees of Malta, or Sardinia, etc., do not seem to suffer inbreeding depression like you would expect. This is probably due to a very high recombination rate in the germ cells. 

This mechanism causes the offspring to differ from the parents in various ways, so that if there are lethal combinations, they won't take the race down the drain, but instead will be constantly diluted by chromosome crossing. So bees are very resistant to inbreeding but also very resistant to rapid adaptation.

For real change to occur in bee populations I believe you need either a very smart breeding program or a large isolated population of ferals. I question whether such a population exists in the US with the exception of the Southwestern desert region. [And Texas and FLorida]

On the other hand, the mites do not have this mechanism *and* they breed in very closed populations. This could lead to either a decrease in vigor, or an adaptation that would prevent them from killing their host. 

Conversely, mites living in large bee yards which are situated near many other bee yards, would have much more opportunity to move from hive to hive via drifting. At the very least, this eliminates the need to avoid killing the host, because you can always drift into nearby colonies. 

But more than that, having families of mites (in different colonies) outcrossing would lead to more vigorous mites (hybrid vigor as opposed to inbreed depression). Moving colonies from locale to locale prevents local adaptation and encourages the spread of parasites and pathogens. 

Now if you are a migratory beekeeper, what good is all of this? You can't afford to sit in one place, got to keep moving. Sideliners can maybe find some lonely hollow in the hills of Chemung county to isolate their bee yards, but what are we going to do?

I propose isolated year round bee yards as places to raise healthy bees. These could be nurseries in which to raise healthy bees to replace losses, or to sell to other beekeepers who suffer losses. 

In the past most of the bees sold have come from places that have the right climate to get bees to market early. In the future we will raise bees in places that have the right type of forage and the right amount of isolation to allow the bees to prosper, maybe become locally adapted, and perhaps to equilibrate with their parasite load.

Because in the wild, there is no such thing as a parasite free organism. In fact, all organisms are host to a myriad of other smaller creatures. It only becomes a parasite when the host begins to suffer. If the organism is beneficial, both guest and host thrive. 

But bottom line here is that the health of bees probably requires ideal forage and a reasonable amount of isolation from the mainstream of beekeeping. I don't live in such a spot but I know where some of them are ; )


----------



## beenovice

peterloringborst said:


> Now, the theories come. Some say the problem is the cells are the wrong size, that they have been artificially enlarged. I never bought this argument, never made sense to me, was not plausible. And work which I posted by Wilson (post #1) seems to show that European bees when allowed to build comb, do in fact build 5.4mm cells.


Carniolan bee which is European bee do in fact build cells much smaller than 5.4mm if left on their own. Cell size also depends on altitude but I guess scientists didn't research that yet :lpf: or did they ?  

It doesn't really matter what you think is plausible and what not. As long as some of us are doing it, we don't need scientific studies to tell us how it is not working. For some *it simply is. * 
You can of course spend all your life searching for answers and never really doing it. As I see it, you still don't have the right mindset for actually doing it...that of course is only my feeling and not scientific fact. Just so we are clear 

In beekeeping if you live by the science you are living in the past....


----------



## peterloringborst

beenovice said:


> Carniolan bee which is European bee do in fact build cells much smaller than 5.4mm if left on their own. Cell size also depends on altitude but I guess scientists didn't research that yet :lpf: or did they ?


First statement is false. Second statement is? Show me any evidence cell size is linked to altitude. Any.


----------



## beenovice

peterloringborst said:


> First statement is false. Second statement is? Show me any evidence cell size is linked to altitude. Any.


I did measurments myself and actually all worker brood cells are smaller than 5.4mm. I have Carniolan bees. So my statement in my case is not false. It may be false for other beekeepers keeping bees elsewhere with different bee races.
But saying something is false just shows you don't really want to listen and learn. Talk is more your way. I guess even if I show you photos of my comb with a meter on the photo you will say it is fake aka photoshopped or what ?

As for altitude. It just shows that you didn't do enough research on cell sizes and beekeeping.....

http://www.brnda.com/
http://www.brnda.com/Clanci/Pcelinjesace/tabid/68/Default.aspx

He researched more than 70 wild colonies. He measured cell sizes from collonies on different altitudes and came to interesting conclusions.
Romanians also did measurments in 1988 and found different cell sizes in different regions and altitudes.

Hope you find a way to translate.....

He is the author of that bee with varroa video 

http://www.youtube.com/user/IvanBrndusic - Interesting guy.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSGa9DKraGA

He for example went totally the other way. He is keeping bees without treatments for 15 years on foundation. Totally dofferent theories from natural comb and cell size as far as varroa fighting is concerned...


----------



## peterloringborst

beenovice said:


> But saying something is false just shows you don't really want to listen and learn. Talk is more your way. I guess even if I show you photos of my comb with a meter on the photo you will say it is fake aka photoshopped or what ?


I have done this too, and I did not find them to be "much smaller" -- whatever that means. _Let's see your photo._ By the way, we will want to know the average size, not the smallest size. Also, by the way, I have the records of many researchers who measured cell sizes all over the world. And these records are in English. Finally, to say I believe a statement to be false, does not indicate that I am not listening. And to say that I am not listening because I don't believe you is a cop out. Make your case with facts, not unsupported claims. If you can't do that,_ it is you who have the weak argument.



_


----------



## beenovice

Well, I do find cells much smaller on my natural comb than on my foundation. I don't understand this "believe you". What is there to believe ? Proof here, proof there. Climb down from a mountain already.....

First photo - comb made on foundation : 










Second photo - natural comb :










I don't argue and I am not into arguments. Just saying what I see. I have no arguments. Just see that my foundation colonies suffer and my natural comb ones don't. One I have to treat and those on natural comb I don't. All in the same beeyard.


----------



## BWrangler

Hi Peter,

You wrote:
>I have collected numerous survivor colonies....All of these hives died from varroa.....

In another place, you wrote:
>And, if there are no survivors?

>Or, even if there are, how can you call yourself a beekeeper if you routinely lose 90% of your hives? Bee loser, is more like it! 

You said it all by yourself to others Peter. Now say it to yourself! Does it sound like a taunt only when it's headed your way? If I'm a bee loser at 90%.What are you at 100%? Looks like another bee loser to me. And having been one, I can spot one!

Now here's a curious observation concerning your survivor hives. They were survivors and apparently they were doing fine all by themselves. They were called survivors for a reason, right? But something changed and they all died from varroa. What was that change? What made the difference? Why did it happen to you when you got your hands on them? Were you unlucky!

And here's another curious observation concerning my bees. I was counting and breeding off my most mite tolerant hive. But without treatments all those hives would have died just like yours did. Then I changed something and they all lived without treatments. Not a one lost to varroa mites. What was that change? What made the difference? Why did it happen to me. Was I just lucky?

I think not! Because what I've done has been replicated, in principle, by beekeepers in other climates, locations, using different equipment, and different bees. And it's been done with hundreds of hive, through decades of time.

Maybe luck might be involved with a few hives, in limited locations over a short period of time.

But ascribing luck to those cumulative natural beekeeping successes, while admitting such success, sounds like the ultimate bee losers excuse to me.

Regards - Dennis


----------



## peterloringborst

BWrangler said:


> Now here's a curious observation concerning your survivor hives. They were survivors and apparently they were doing fine all by themselves. They were called survivors for a reason, right? But something changed and they all died from varroa. What was that change? What made the difference?


I brought them to my house.



> And here's another curious observation concerning my bees. I was counting and breeding off the survivors. But without treatments all my survivor bees would have died just like yours did. Then I changed something and they all lived without treatments. Not a one lost to varroa mites. What was that change? What made the difference? Why did it happen to me. Was I just lucky?


OK, what? Wasn't that my question?


----------



## BWrangler

Hi Peter,

Seems like we've been here before. Check out message #212. 

Now if I get the "bee loser" response, I'll know I'm in some kind of time warp. Maybe I'm even in the twilight zone. And you're in it with me. 

I don't often get on the lists anymore. I check them about once a month and infrequently find something that catches my eye or is authored by someone I consider a must read.

I've written about my experience. And those writings are freely available for anyone to read. The conclusions I've drawn there are consistent and have stood the test of time in spite of Mr. Dick's accusations.

We've both been running around the tree barking at each other. And it appears we're back at the start. So what more can I say. Not much. Anything more would be a waste of both my time and yours.

I've got a life, such as it is, beyond beekeeping. My beekeeping, back when I was a bee loser, once occupied most of my time and thoughts. Then, it was quite a challenge to keep boxes full of healthy, productive bees. But today, it's no longer a challenge that requires much attention. I've spent far too much time here dealing with diseases and pests. So I'm gone again. I've got other things more productive to do.

Regards - Dennis


----------



## Barry

peterloringborst said:


> I brought them to my house.


Please expound on this. Those of us who have gone the no treatment route have share in detail what we've done. Simply saying "I brought them home" leaves the remaining 95% of the details in the dark.


----------



## WLC

Pardon the interuption:

Didn't Peter provide a number of scientific studies on the issues of small cell and survivor (Bond) colonies?

I am still waiting to see scientific studies from the no-treatment camp as to why their bees are survivors.

I certainly do know of some studies that can help with forming a hypothesis as to why they survive. I already have a few of my own.

Isn't the key issue one of providing proof of why survivors are survivors? I have yet to see one.

It does need to be from a scientific study however.

Finally, it's unwise to suggest that others, particulary those with a scientific/bee inspector/beekeeper background, 'take a course'. This coming from a 'Neo-Luddite' who hasn't quite made it to 2010.


----------



## jonathan

WLC said:


> Finally, it's unwise to suggest that others, particulary those with a scientific/bee inspector/beekeeper background, 'take a course'.


Yest I find that extremely patronising - especially coming from someone who has no scientific background, no scientific qualifications and no bees.

The way to learn - here or any other forum- is to ask questions rather than trying to impose pet theories on all the contributors here by shouting the loudest and embedding personal abuse in nearly every post.
Surely this thread is about small cell and why it may or may not work?


----------



## beenovice

WLC said:


> I am still waiting to see scientific studies from the no-treatment camp as to why their bees are survivors.


Here you go : http://www.apidologie.org/index.php...=/articles/apido/abs/2007/06/m6118/m6118.html

This study went on a lot longer than one season  It didn't measure the mite loads but survivability....

I find it amazing how all want some sort of proof. What proof. Bees simply survive without treatments. Who cares why they survive if they survive ? If they die we need an answer why...but if they survive it is only natural thing they do and we just continue doing what we are doing as long as they survive. 
We tell what we are doing and that's it. We are no scientists. I let them do the science. Still waiting for an answer from them why they survive 
In the meanwhile I have colonies that survive without treatments. I don't know why  It just is. Simple as that. 
I find it strange they didn't provide an answer yet........

And what is this "camp" thing. Don't you get it that people keep bees without treatments. Those beekeepers are in no camp as far as I can see. I am certainly in no camp. For a proof callers you quickly put people into boxes, camps, etc.... pih !


----------



## peterloringborst

Barry said:


> Please expound on this. Those of us who have gone the no treatment route have share in detail what we've done. Simply saying "I brought them home" leaves the remaining 95% of the details in the dark.


So, for three years I worked as a NYS bee inspector and had no bees. Not allowed. After I quit, I got a couple of hives. One was a swarm that was living in a box on natural combs. The other was a hive that had been let go for about five years, as the owner had died. 

According to Dennis, this is what I should have done:

-stop treating their bees with pesticides
-get rid of all contaminated equipment and comb
-let the bees establish themselves on new clean comb of small/natural cell sizes
-let the bees and mites fight it out and breed from the survivors
-work with their bees rather than working over their bees

I didn't have any pesticides, and the plan was not to use them.
I didn't have any equipment, except the stuff that came with the hive, which had been treatment free for five years.
I bought brand new supers with wax foundation

The bees did real well the first summer. Drew out the foundation and made honey. They did real well the following spring, no treatments. I made a split off the best hive, which was very ornery, by the way. Couldn't work it all without getting stung. 

By August the split was overun by mites, and got robbed out. The best hive had mites up the wazoo. Put Apilife VAR on to try to salvage the colony. A bear came by (attracted by the scent of the thymol) and destroyed it.

The natural box hive was doing so-so. I had cut the combs out and put them in frames. All natural. Very nice bees but extremely slow to build up. Requeened with VSH breeder. This one barely made it through the winter, and is very slowly building up. 

Bought two nucs, haven't checked for mites, haven't treated. ABout the only thing I did wrong according to the above list is that I used foundation. My bad. I don't think there is strong evidence that using foundation increases mite levels. But there you have it.


----------



## peterloringborst

One more thing: I think I have about $500 into this so far and so far fed only the bear.


----------



## peterloringborst

beenovice said:


> Here you go : http://www.apidologie.org/index.php...=/articles/apido/abs/2007/06/m6118/m6118.html
> 
> This study went on a lot longer than one season  It didn't measure the mite loads but survivability....


This is the article that led me to the conclusion that the key factor was isolation. These hives used _regular combs_, and they were not renewed. 



> Our results clearly show that some honey bee colonies can survive without protection from Varroa for longer than 1 or 2 years, as previously reported. The 12 colonies observed in the first group of colonies survived on average at least 9.8 years, and 5 of them survived more than 11 years.
> 
> We can conclude that the Varroa infestation of untreated colonies did not cause more colony loss during that nine-year period compared to colonies treated with Apivar.
> 
> We however think that environment and apicultural methods could have played a part. The areas where the experiments were done are outside France’s major agricultural zone and very favorable to the development of honey bee colonies.
> 
> The colonies were manipulated only when necessary and were not moved or managed as professional beekeeping would recommend, and the lack of beekeeping and environmental stress might have favored bee survival.


----------



## WLC

Beenovice:

The study abstract that you linked doesn't say a thing about why the survivors 'survived'. It does say that they weren't as productive.

That's not very helpful.

There you have it. No there, there.


----------



## peterloringborst

beenovice said:


> Don't you get it that people keep bees without treatments.


Yes, we get it. We are trying to figure out why it works. The people that do it have stated repeatedly that _they don't care why it works. _ To some people that is completely unacceptable. The very paper you cited was a longterm attempt at getting at why it works. Why read it if you don't care?


----------



## beenovice

Gee...You have to accept that some people do it while others think about it. To some people it is completely acceptable. I don't need to know how some things work. I just use it if it works. Others want to know. We don't have to prove anything to anyone. 
We just say how things are. And things are looking good for bees in our beeyards. 

WLC : I showed you the research that proved the bees survive without treatments. It was long term study not one season. I am perfectly happy with 5 kilos of honey from a hive that never saw any chemicals. Then again, I don't keep bees for a living. Your goals are different than mine....this is where the problem starts. It is funny how you question this study while the studies that prove what you think you don't question at all. Everything is fine  Proof, proved...good, good, conclusive..  ehh it is futile. You all made up your minds. 

peterloringborst : Well we are not trying to figure why it works since for us it just works. If it doesn't work for you I would try to figure out why it is *not* working for *you* and not why it is working for me and others. 
Experience says it is working. Now you have to figure out why it is not working for you. 

We can go on for days with this. The thing is that you cannot say something is false if I saw it with my own eyes. This is kind of stupid from your part and will not help you in any way. And you scream for help. Listen first, talk later. I provided you with a source of cell size in different altitudes. Unfortunately it is in foreign language you don't speak and you went on that you have all the research you need in English. Well ok


----------



## peterloringborst

beenovice said:


> We can go on for days with this. The thing is that you cannot say something is false if I saw it with my own eyes. This is kind of stupid from your part and will not help you in any way. And you scream for help. Listen first, talk later. I provided you with a source of cell size in different altitudes. Unfortunately it is in foreign language you don't speak and you went on that you have all the research you need in English. Well ok


Actually, I have been studying this closely for ten years. I can go on for another ten years. I have never disputed what you say. To say I am stupid is a real conversation ender, my friend. I am not screaming at all.

I have been to Slovenia and I was told by numerous persons that they accept the fact that if they want to communicate with the rest of the world, they have to learn other languages. Slovenian is only understood by one or two million people, most of them not beekeepers. I have Slovenian friends I communicate regularly with, in English. English, like it or not, is the common language of billions of people, not 2 million.

I never (never) said that I "have all the research I need in English". I _don't have all the research I need!_ so how could I say that? 

So far as I can tell, there are two streams of thought here: 
1) if so and so says it works, that's good enough for me. 
2) we want to know the mechanism of why a thing is working or not working. 

If my car stopped in an intersection and wouldn't go, I would take it to a mechanic. I would want it fixed, yes. I would also want to know why it stalled in the intersection, and I would want some assurance that it wasn't going to do that again.


----------



## beenovice

I didn't say you are stupid. I did say it is stupid to say something is false if I saw it with my own eyes. You yourself with your statement that what I said is false called me a liar. I felt offended. Yet I don't cry like you ( oh my why everyone thinks I am bad guy ). Jeez. 
In my eyes such statement is stupid. I would never say to someone something is false if he told me he saw it with his own eyes. Especially a thing he measured himself and a thing that can actually be measured. But you do question everything and everyone and you do it undercover, utilizing some fancy - give me scientific proof thingie. I am no scientist. I just say what I see. 

Again with English. I provided you the resource you asked for. Once I did you have the problem with language. I am not at fault if you don't speak other languages. But if you want to find information you yourself will have to find sources in other languages also and not dismiss those just because you don't understand the language. I provided you with source. Get yourself a translator and educate yourself. Btw...it is not in Slovenian, it is in Serbian and Romanian language. 
Of course we accept the fact that English language is universal language, especially on the Internet. I don't know really what this has to do with the source I provided to you about cell sizes and altitudes. Altitude is one of the factors that may affect cell size. That is all I said. Provided the source upon your request. If you are really into it you will find a translator and study the findings. There is no issue about communication here. As far as I can see I speak English here. If there are some grammar and spelling mistakes, I am sorry. English is my fourth language.....but do point out the mistakes I made and I will try to improve my English skills...Going on how many people, a million or two speak my mother language has no place in this debate....It only shows you have nothing else to say. I see you are doing this frequently....once confronted you look the other way and talk about something else. Sometimes you even ignore people when they present you their view and just continue with your way...Well that my friend is also conversation ender.


----------



## Barry

peterloringborst said:


> If my car stopped in an intersection and wouldn't go, I would take it to a mechanic. I would want it fixed, yes. I would also want to know why it stalled in the intersection, and I would want some assurance that it wasn't going to do that again.


And if my car purred along not giving me problems, I wouldn't think once about why that is. I'd just be out enjoying a car that works. That's another mindset.


----------



## Barry

beenovice said:


> Well we are not trying to figure why it works since for us it just works. If it doesn't work for you I would try to figure out why it is *not* working for *you* and not why it is working for me and others.
> Experience says it is working. Now you have to figure out why it is not working for you.


I think this is it in a nutshell. One reason I don't much get into these debates anymore. I did the work *I* needed to do to satisfy *my* determination to keep bees without treating. SC wasn't the only idea I looked into but was what I found successful.


----------



## DRUR

Peter states in part in his post #70:



peterloringborst said:


> What I like is a long term in depth discussion with all sides weighing in and some advancement in the full understanding of the topic.


And I responded in part in my post #74:



DRUR said:


> I don't guess you have noticed that this 'banner' issue *has been discussed to death several times and extensively. This 'new' study adds absolutely nothing [as far as I can see] to the prior studies *and therefore was nothing more than a waste of someone's grant money and effort. *One might be well served to study why those who are on small cells survive without treatment. Someone with an open mind would do this.*


Now I ask you Peter exactly what has the time and effort that everyone who has added a contrarian viewpoint to your position added that hasn't previously been laid out in the other threads? Methinks Nothing.



peterloringborst said:


> This is the article that led me to the conclusion that the key factor was isolation.


I will add this though from some of your own observation, that for this [natural beekeeping] to succeed that it is generally in isolated areas. You might take note [or rather heed] of what Mike Bishpham has been trying to enlighten us with the fact that weak sickly drones pass their sick genetics on to healthy bees, eventually with catastrophic results in later generations. Your observations are probably correct. That being there is more success in localized remote areas where 'typical modern practices' are not implemented to the extent that the naturalist have to contend with a flooded drone populations of sick puppies.

Regards
Danny


----------



## peterloringborst

Barry said:


> And if my car purred along not giving me problems, I wouldn't think once about why that is. I'd just be out enjoying a car that works. That's another mindset.





> In _Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance,_ the Narrator describes the "romantic" approach to life of his friend John Sutherland, who refuses to learn how to maintain his own expensive new BMW motorcycle. John simply hopes for the best with his bike, and when problems do occur he becomes extremely frustrated and is forced to rely on professional mechanics to repair it. In contrast, the Narrator has an older motorcycle which he is mostly able to diagnose and repair himself through the use of rational problem solving skills. The Narrator exemplifies the "classical" approach to life.
> 
> In another example, Pirsig explains to the reader how one should pay attention and learn: when the Narrator and his friends came into Miles City, Montana, he had noticed that the engine "idle was loping a little", a sign that the fuel/air mixture was too rich. The next day he is thinking of this as he is going through his ritual to adjust the valves on his cycle's engine, because it "has picked up a noise". In the process, he notes that both spark plugs are black, another sign of rich mixture. He solves the puzzle as he is thinking about the feel-good-higher-altitude-mountain-air; the altitude is causing the engine to run rich. New jets are purchased, and installed, and with the valves adjusted, the engine runs well. His cycle begins coughing and almost quits when they get into the mountains of Montana. This is a more severe altitude problem, but he knows it will go away when they get back to lower altitude. He does adjust the carburetor to prevent overheating on the way down.
> 
> With this, the book details two types of personalities: those who are interested mostly in gestalts (romantic viewpoints, such as Zen, focused on being "in the moment", and not on rational analysis), and those who need to know details, the inner workings, mechanics (classic viewpoints with application of rational analysis, vis-a-vis motorcycle maintenance) and so on. The Sutherlands represent an exclusively romantic attitude toward the world. The Narrator initially appears to prefer the classic approach. It later becomes apparent that he understands both viewpoints and is aiming, not for the middle ground, but for the necessary ground that includes both.
> 
> He understands that technology, and the "dehumanized world" it carries with it, appears ugly and repulsive to a romantic person. He knows that such persons are determined to shoehorn all of life's experience into the romantic view. Pirsig is capable of seeing the beauty of technology and feels good about mechanical work, where the goal is "to achieve an inner peace of mind". Zen and the Art demonstrates that motorcycle maintenance may be dull and tedious drudgery or an enjoyable and pleasurable pastime; it all depends on the inner attitude, or lack thereof.


 Wikipedia


----------



## beenovice

peterloringborst said:


> A statement that's false should be called false. Thousands of measurements of combs have established the average size for European, African and Asian bees. Full documentation is available.
> 
> The measurement of one person (you) that doesn't agree with all the rest is _suspect_. I didn't say you are lying, just that one piece of data doesn't outweigh all the others, taken over many decades.


Can you please provide the documentation you talk about. I am only interested in European bees. No need for African and Asian bees. 
Thank you.

Are we talking average cell size or average worker brood cell size here ? I only measured worker brood and not honey and drone cells doh  Maybe this is the issue here....

My experience and experience of couple of other beekeepers in Europe that I am communicating with is that Carniolan bee will build smaller than 5.4mm cells for worker brood when left on their own to build comb without foundation.

Here is a guy saying that my bees will build 5.4mm cells while I have over 500 natural combs built and there are no 5.4mm worker brood cells to be seen. I really don't get it. But I am not scientist....
Maybe that is why there is a clash between me and you. You are telling me something I know is not true since I measured it myself. I did not read it. I did it myself. Go figure :doh: ....


----------



## DRUR

Peter:

You have somewhat of a valid point, but with regards to bees and mechanical instruments there is a profound difference which I would gather that you don't recognize nor would you accept.

Man has created the motorcycle and in doing so has set up procedures and techniques to rectify future developing problems. Of course he needs to be aware of how to do at least routine maintenance to fully enjoy his mechanical device. However, to become an 'expert' on having to delve into the more complex repair mechanism would really take the joy away from the machine for some of us.

However, with regards to the honeybees, man did not create this creature, but Rather the Creator of this Universe [John 1:1-3]. I also, believe that the Creator provided within his plan a more complex repair mechanism for dealing with many of these problems, natural selection being one of these. However, man often hinders this repair mechanism with his intervention. In much the same way that if I attempted to do a major automobile or motorcycle repair, I would probably make the matter worse, by intervening with his expensive treatments, man has also made the matter worse. JMO

Regards
Danny


----------



## Barry

Unfortunately, the Wikipedia example has no bearing on what we were talking about. I didn't get to be where I am by buying someone else's work (hives) or being "romantically" minded. I did the hard work required to be treatment free. Perhaps you are identifying with the romance?


----------



## peterloringborst

Barry said:


> Unfortunately, the Wikipedia example has no bearing on what we were talking about.


Actually it does, because it clearly delineates the difference between those who want to know the how, why, etc. and the ones who don't really care so long as it's working. I am not passing judgement, just trying to illustrate the difference in a way that more people will understand.


----------



## peterloringborst

Denwood, Philip (2003) Cell Size. Electronic resource. http://www.dave-cushman.net/bee/denwood.html

Grout, Roy A. (1936) Influence of Size of Brood Cell Upon the Size of the Worker Bee. American Beekeeping Journal. April, 1936

Phillips, Everett Franklin (1915) Beekeeping. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University, Mann Library. Electronic resource. http://bees.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=bees;idno=5017431

Root, Amos Ives (1984) An eyewitness account of early American beekeeping: the autobiography of A. I. Root. Medina, Ohio : A.I. Root Co.

Schmidt, Ahlert (2002) Re: Natural comb cell size. Archives of Bee-L, February 17, 2002. Electronic resource. http://community.lsoft.com/

Spivak, Marla, et al (1991) The African honey bee. Boulder : Westview Press

Taber, Stephen & Charles D. Owens (1970) Colony founding and initial nest design of honey bees, Apis mellifera L. Animal Behaviour. 18(4) : 625-632


----------



## Barry

I understand, Peter. But in this thread, most weighing in do not fall in the "either or" camp. For myself, I was not willing to take the romantic view "to keep bees one must treat." I spent untold time talking with other beekeepers who were not treating and tried to learn from them. I applied what I learned to my own bees. With hands on experience, errors, failures, changing ideas, etc., success finally came. What can be explained scientifically to my success matters not to me at this point. My goal of treatment free beekeeping has been attained. I'm ready to get on that bike and enjoy the ride not giving thought to how it is I am enjoying the ride! I already know. I already did the work. I'm just enjoying the fruits now.

You are still on that journey to reaching your goal (if that's your goal). I can't say it's going to work for you just because it worked for me. But there are many other beekeepers that have gone through the same process I went through that give me reason to believe that it could work for you.


----------



## Barry

peterloringborst said:


> Actually it does, because it clearly delineates the difference between those who want to know the how, why, etc. and the ones who don't really care so long as it's working.


But I feel the hitch is, unless "we" can come up with scientifically proven how's, why's, etc.'s, it doesn't count and it becomes the litmus test or a factor for division, needlessly.


----------



## beenovice

peterloringborst: 

See. Some of the links say the natural comb cells are actually smaller than that on foundation  Did you even read the first link you posted ? 



> "I, myself, together with other beekeepers, often compared colonies on 750 cell foundation at a comb distance of 37 mm with colonies on natural built comb at a distance of 34 mm. The 'natural' colonies were always stronger, developed faster and had less winter loss. As a result, they gave more honey (an average of 20% in my apiary of 30 beehives). The bees were also healthier: This past year there was an outbreak of chalkbrood, only the 'natural colonies' had no trace. If foundation with the natural number of cells (±850) was available, I would fit all my hives with it."


It's a no brainer  

Again. What is the average we are measuring here ? Is this the average of worker brood cells or all cells on the comb ? Just so we are clear. I only measured where worker brood cells are ( where worker bees actually hatched ). 
It is possible that average is 5.4mm if we measure all cells ( honey and drone ). 

If you read the link I posted from Ivan Brndušić he writes that comb size varies from 4,6mm to 5.3mm. He throws the altitude argument there quite obviously. 
Read this : http://brnda.com/Clanci/Pcelinjesace/tabid/68/Default.aspx
The thing is that he did the measurments from actual wild colonies while most others, including me did it from our backyard hives. 

What you don't seem to get is that experience can be different and different bees in different locations will build different cell sizes. You don't get this so you go on about false statements...pretty useless if you ask me. In my case and in many other cases it is not false. 
You keep ignoring the experience and cell size experience of many beekeepers and only push the papers that are in line with your ideas about cell sizes. Not to mention there are numerous sources that measured the natural cell size that is smaller than current 5.4mm foundation cells. 
What you don't like you just ignore huh ? Seen all over the place in these last few months...

P.S. : I see on the list there was similar discussion in 2002. Here we are 8 years later discussing the same  Again the question is ... what was measured. All cells on comb or only worker brood cells. The average can vary. It all depends what was measured. If we take 4.6mm cell, add 6.0mm cell and divide by 2 we get 5.3mm average. If we take 4,6mm cell and 5.2mm cell in worker brood area where bees actually hatched we get 4.9mm average.... ehh. Cell sizes are variable. In my case I don't even have 5.4mm cells in worker brood areas. All are smaller. On the other side it is pretty obvious that on top of 300mm comb there are 6mm cells with honey


----------



## peterloringborst

Barry said:


> You are still on that journey to reaching your goal (if that's your goal).


I don't have a goal, other than to have bees, and _keep them._


----------



## beenovice

peterloringborst said:


> I don't have a goal, other than to have bees, and _keep them._


Conclusion : we have the same goal but different paths. There are many ways. We all keep bees. On foundation, small cell, natural comb. Some treat, some don't. We all have bees. Life is good.
Let's all go pick some of that comb honey from our hives now and eat it while it is still fresh and warm


----------



## peterloringborst

beenovice said:


> Did you even read the first link you posted?


Of course. I am open to all sides of the argument. The theory with the most facts and the least assumptions is the winner. For now. That's science. Get used to it.


----------



## BEES4U

Can we go back in the history of the small cells. Because some one had to convince the manufactures of small cell that they could profit from their new market adventure.
Thanks.
Ernie


----------



## Barry

peterloringborst said:


> have bees, and _keep them._


With that goal come many more decisions you will have to make and directions you will have to choose between. Most all beekeepers can keep bees one way or another. It's the "how" part that defines us more.


----------



## peterloringborst

BEES4U said:


> Can we go back in the history of the small cells. Because some one had to convince the manufactures of small cell that they could profit from their new market adventure.
> Thanks.
> Ernie


Altered cell size

It appears that Mr. Root was also the first to experiment with much larger cells. He writes: “It evidently puzzled the bees.” But it was Monsieur Ursmar Baudoux of Belgium that took the experiment to great lengths in 1896. Roy Grout writes: “By means of stretching foundation, he experimented with various sizes of foundation having 750 cells to the square decimeter, 740, 730, 710, 700 and even 675 cells per square decimeter. This is in contrast to the U. S. standard size which is 857 cells per square decimeter.” 

Early experiments with very small cells were made in order to increase the number of bees raised on a comb, but these were given up in favor making larger bees. Grout states that in actuality, bees can’t really be enlarged more than about 2 per cent by this method. 

_Knowing that varroa do not reproduce in the smaller worker cells of its host Apis cerana_, preferring the larger drone cells, speculation arose that varroa buildup could be reduced by forcing our bees onto foundation of a smaller size. Dr. Erickson experimented with this idea in the early 1990s but gave it up in favor of breeding bees for varroa resistance. 

Others continued the work and came up with some very interesting theories. Chief among these is the conjecture that European honey bees were smaller in the 1800s, prior to the widespread adoption of comb foundation. They claim that the adopted sizes of foundation are unnaturally large and this accounts for the great success that varroa has had in devastating our bees.

I suggest that this an entirely false premise. Early beekeeping books refer to the average size of worker brood cells as about 5 to the inch. Cell size varies considerably but a correct average is remarkably close to 5 per inch. Only later, were far more accurate measurements made. Denwood states that typical foundation of 850 cells per square decimeter would be the equivalent of cells measuring roughly 5.2 mm across. Badoux’s large cell foundation was 700 cells per dm2 or about 5.7 mm. Small cell advocates claim the correct size to be 4.9 mm, or about 950 per dm2. Comb foundation from South Africa runs about 1050 cells or about 4.7 mm, since the African honey bee is smaller than the European varieties.

There is little doubt in my mind that European bees were not smaller in the 1800s than they are now, and it seems unlikely that they were permanently enlarged by the use of foundation. It is more likely that the cells of our honey bees are naturally about 5.3 mm. 

Steve Taber studied natural comb building extensively and concluded that “foundation manufactured for the construction of new combs in hives does not have the correct dimensions. For example, Grout (1963) suggested 857 as a standard for worker comb. Our measurements, converted to square decimeters, were 813.8” which is about 5.3 mm. In other words, the natural size is actually a bit bigger than most foundation. 

But some argue that he was using bees that had been raised on foundation and were already artificially enlarged. To see what the natural size of bee cells is, we would have to go somewhere where bees have never been raised on foundation. That place is Central America. As late as 1979, bees were still kept in hives without frames. The percentage of frame hives ranged from 44% in El Salvador, 15% in Costa Rica, to little or none used in Belize and Panama.

Marla Spivak spent much time in Costa Rica observing the onset of Africanization. She measured the cell size of the European bees before, during and after the arrival. She refers data collected by researchers as early as 1973 indicating European bees in the tropics built cells ranging from 5.0 to 5.4 mm. 

These bees, being kept in box hives for countless years, can hardly said to be affected by manufactured comb foundation. According to Marla Spivak, European bees in Costa Rica in 1984 built comb with cells averaging 5.3 mm. 

Marla Spivak refers to one apiary that she studied in the mountains. There were 9 hives, which the owners filled with swarms. These hives were plain boxes filled with natural comb. The average cell size in each and every hive was 5.3 mm. The first arriving hybrid African swarms built comb around 5.0 mm and subsequent swarms (less hybridized) ranged from 4.7 to 5.0. This phenomenon was observed throughout South and Central America.

Finally, I offer this email from Ahlert Schmidt: “I would like to comment on bee cell size again. In Germany there has been beekeeping on natural combs for over five hundred years using skeps and there are still some apiaries using that technique. So there are bees that never have seen foundations for hundreds of generations. The cell size of combs constructed by these bees is still between 5.3 and 5.4 mm (805 cells per square decimeter) coming close to 5.37 mm which is the average of cell size for normal combs in Germany.” 

Of course, the theory doesn’t matter that much, if the technique would work. But would it? A perfect test came when varroa arrived in South Africa. They already had small cells in all their hives! What happened next is highly instructive. According to Mike Allsopp, varroa mites were found in South Africa in 1997. Many people feared that honey bees, both in managed hives and in the wild, would be drastically reduced or wiped out altogether. 

At the onset, incredible numbers of mites were found in commercial hives. There were averages of 10,000 and maximum counts of 50,000 per colony. The much smaller cells of African bees were simply not a deterrent at all. Typical mite symptoms also appeared including spotty brood patterns, deformed wings, and eventual collapse. Thousands of colonies perished.

Yet by 2005, mite counts had plummeted to negligible numbers in regions that previously had the highest levels of infestation. Evidently, the Savanna honey bee (Apis mellifera scutellata) developed “varroa tolerance” in six to seven years. No effort had been made to breed resistant stock. 

Mike Allsopp states that the most likely explanation for the change is the ability of honey bee workers to remove reproducing mites. This trait became predominant due to natural selection in the wild and managed populations. He states emphatically: “Captive breeding programmes and especially gene selection programmes can never adequately keep up with the changing environment, certainly not to the extent that a ‘live-and-let-die’ approach can.”

Small cell advocates frequently state that the only thing they have changed is the cell size, so that would account for lowered mite levels in the colonies. However, they miss this key point: they have also stopped treating for mites, which means susceptible strains quickly die off and they are left with only bees that can deal with mites. This is corroborated by Mike Allsopp’s thesis. 

It is certainly worthwhile to search for new methods of ridding ourselves of pests. There are many alternatives to dousing our hives with toxic chemicals. As I have also tried to show, some techniques may not work in all areas, and some may not work at all.


----------



## beenovice

peterloringborst said:


> Of course. I am open to all sides of the argument. The theory with the most facts and the least assumptions is the winner. For now. That's science. Get used to it.


I for one didn't assume nothing. I responded to your claim. European bees do in fact build smaller than 5.4 cells and I have a way of proving it. 
You on the other side didn't take into account all the evidence that is presented to you and are sticking to your denial convincing us that what we are seeing and doing is not possible. 
Quite funny actually and you cannot run from it even if you hide behind scientific courtain  Doers do....nayers question and hide behind tons of paper demanding more and more.


You keep ignoring the question. What you take as average ? All the cells on the comb or worker brood cell where brood was hatched ?
You keep quoting and quoting but when I present actual measurments from different part of the world from actual wild colonies you are ignoring it. You kind of lost all credibility to even discuss cell size.


----------



## BEES4U

Can you do me a favor and provide me the cell data of actual measurements of feral colonies around the world?
Thanks,
Ernie


----------



## beenovice

BEES4U said:


> Can you do me a favor and provide me the cell data of actual measurements of feral colonies around the world?
> Thanks,
> Ernie


I already did in this thread...twice. Data taken from over 70 wild colonies in span of 20 years. Conclusions you can read in the article about bee comb. Use google translator or hire a translator. I linked it twice....

I really don't get what some of you are saying ? I have comb in front of me. Two combs actually. One is in the range from 4.6mm to 5.0mm and the other is 4.9mm to 5.1mm. All worker brood comb. I cannot find 5.4mm cells, I cannot find even 5.3 cells. I measure foundation comb and it measures 5.4mm. It is pretty clear to me. I am kind of fed up with this debate. I see what I see, I cannot help it if it is not in line with science ??? :scratch:

Keeping 13 colonies. 10 on natural comb and 3 on foundation. I am on 193m altitude and bees are pure Carniolan bees - the only race allowed here.


----------



## BEES4U

BeeNovice.
Thanks for your information.
I have been following this topic for some time.
Here's the big question?
What is the best cell size to be used for keeping the bees alive and making a profit excluding all other factors?
Ernie


----------



## beenovice

BEES4U said:


> BeeNovice.
> Thanks for your information.
> I have been following this topic for some time.
> Here's the big question?
> What is the best cell size to be used for keeping the bees alive and making a profit excluding all other factors?
> Ernie


I don't know and I never claimed I had the answer. When science will answer that question I will gladly listen. Until science only contradicts with my own observations and only tells me it is not working ( keep in mind it is working for me ) I will be confused. 
I want to believe in scientific studies but I just can't with a measure tape and my comb in my hands and with my colonies alive. I hope that is understandable. Considering scientific studies I should not have any colonies left ? ? ? How is that possible ? 

I do open up the cells and count varroa. I do count natural fall of varroa on my screened bottom board. I do treat if I see they will not make it. I use Apiguard. 
The thing is that I have colonies that survived without treatments even if all said they will be gone in the second season. It's all in the same beeyard ! Somehow they are still alive and produce honey and swarms for sale and I did make profit - most of the profit came from selling colonies ( swarms and nucs ). 
For myself I found a way how to keep colonies without treatment and still survive and make a profit. I actually have no idea how I did it. I just left bees on their own and only keep an eye on them. If I see huge varroa population I don't let bees just die. I am in the middle of hard-core survivalists(let bees die) and hard-core "survivalists"(bees must be alive no matter the cost and chemical ) on the other side. 

There is a message I am seeing from colonies that are on natural comb. They seem more happy with themselves. I cannot explain it. Call it religion, call it faith, call me delusional. It is the way I feel and will mostly keep bees on natural cell but since the demand for colonies is so high in recent years ( huge die-offs ) I will continue to keep some hives conventional way ( frames, foundation ) so I can make a little profit. I am urging other beekeepers to give it a shot at natural comb since I think it is the best for bees. 
At the moment it seems that picking the best from both worlds is the answer. That way you can enjoy bees, keep them alive and make a profit. Natural comb and treat only if needed. For this you have to keep an eye on each colony. Something that I can do with only 13. I don't know how it would look like with 130 or 300....


----------



## mike bispham

peterloringborst said:


> [...] I got a couple of hives. One was a swarm that was living in a box on natural combs.


Wow! What a fantastic sample on which to base a whole system of belief! TWO colonies! (Irony Alert!) I don't know where to start...

Mike


----------



## mike bispham

Here is the bit to focus in on. What works, and why it works, from a qualified researcher:



peterloringborst said:


> [...] A perfect test came when varroa arrived in South Africa. They already had small cells in all their hives! What happened next is highly instructive. According to Mike Allsopp, varroa mites were found in South Africa in 1997. Many people feared that honey bees, both in managed hives and in the wild, would be drastically reduced or wiped out altogether.
> 
> At the onset, incredible numbers of mites were found in commercial hives. There were averages of 10,000 and maximum counts of 50,000 per colony. The much smaller cells of African bees were simply not a deterrent at all. Typical mite symptoms also appeared including spotty brood patterns, deformed wings, and eventual collapse. Thousands of colonies perished.
> 
> Yet by 2005, mite counts had plummeted to negligible numbers in regions that previously had the highest levels of infestation. Evidently, the Savanna honey bee (Apis mellifera scutellata) developed “varroa tolerance” in six to seven years. No effort had been made to breed resistant stock.
> 
> Mike Allsopp states that the most likely explanation for the change is the ability of honey bee workers to remove reproducing mites. This trait became predominant due to natural selection in the wild and managed populations.


The same process of natural selection works all over the world - IF it is not disrupted by beekeepers who treat those bloodlines that should - and must - terminate.

In there is the whole of the explanation you seek Peter. It explains for you why there are natural survivors in some places, and why natural beekeeping is easy in some places, harder in others, and all but impossible elsewhere.

Your own citation supplies the explanation you want. Stop looking, and spend a little time trying to recognise it for what it is. Try to understand the process, the constraints; and see how this explanation fits perfectly with the deeper biological understanding of bee genetics investigated by i.e. marla Spivak.



peterloringborst said:


> Small cell advocates frequently state that the only thing they have changed is the cell size, so that would account for lowered mite levels in the colonies. However, they miss this key point: they have also stopped treating for mites, which means susceptible strains quickly die off and they are left with only bees that can deal with mites. This is corroborated by Mike Allsopp’s thesis.


It would be safe to say this is 'consistent' with Allsop's thesis, but not that it is 'corroborated'. But yes, you are absolutely right. 

If I recall, Allsop also offers the view that it is treatments that prevent this occuring in the devoleped world. That corroborates what it is I have been saying. Treaments prevent the emergence of resistance, and trying to keep bees naturally around treated bees will be hard to impossible.

HERE is the key to the understanding you say you seek. You have everything you need right here to answer your own question. Now, if you really want to know how to keep bees without treatments, keep your focus here - don't dash off on a tangent, WORK THIS UP. 

Mike


----------



## peterloringborst

> Wow! What a fantastic sample on which to base a whole system of belief!


As I have said a hundred times, I have been working on this since the year 2000. I traveled all over NY as a bee inspector. I have watched hundreds of untreated colonies die, and a few untreated colonies survive. 

A friend of mine has over 100 hives, does not treat and his losses are minimal. Another friend, with the same number of untreated hives, lost 80% this winter.

My question is: what is making it work for some and not for others? When this is discovered I will use this information to instruct others. Speculation is fine in its place, but practice is what rules. Right now, three hives is all I can afford. I accept contributions.


----------



## BEES4U

BeeNovice,
The genetic traits of your Carniolans may bear some research!
You may have a strain that's naturally high in the VSH trait.
One of the problems that we have is that there are so many variables and it would be nice if we could cooperatively eliminate the variables one by one.
Thanks for your reply,
Ernie


----------



## beenovice

BEES4U said:


> BeeNovice.....,
> Ernie


I bought package bees and nucs in the beginning from two different beekeepers. It seems that those that came(queens) with packages are doing better than those that came in nucs. Since I leave my bees to swarm now everything is mixed with local bee population but the line from package queens is still doing better with mites, honey and even numbers. Genetic traits from those package queens ( better than queens from nucs I bought ) are in the play here but how can I go and preserve these traits if there are hundreds of hives around and thousands of drones  ....

I was talking with a beekeeper who sold me packages and he had huge die-offs from varroa even though he is treating. Considering that, there must be some other factors involved why his bees simply survive in my backyard. Better forage, natural comb, hives (I use only 25mm thick wood while all others use 19 or 20mm). *I also think that when I let them swarm two times this really gets varroa down*  but I don't have the means and/or knowledge to research all those things.....

The link from Ivan I posted earlier. He is one interesting beekeeper. He measures hive temperatures on regular basis. He was talking about bee intelligence for years and not one of us listened or understood what he was saying. He is into hive temperature and not comb, cell size, etc. He is treatment free for 15 years on foundation and good honey crops. 

As I see it. Where I am from, die-offs are not only from varroa. Some beekeepers have a problem with numbers going into winters. Late in summer there is no nectar to be found and the ones who forget to feed(and took all the honey) go into winter with small clusters. The queen was simply not laying while it was time for winter bees to be born. Carniolan bees are frugal. If there is no honey the queen simply stops. Then.... all summer bees die and only couple of bees are left in the hive. The easiest way to get on with life is to say varroa got them even if I treated. 
I hope I didn't open another can of worms with this last paragraph  I certainly do where I come from.


----------



## mike bispham

peterloringborst said:


> My question is: what is making it work for some and not for others?


A number of factors. Right at the top, genetics. Either your bees have the genetics that confer the right sorts of traits - for 'hygienic' behaviours, and have general strength and vigour, or they don't.

If they come from true natural survivors there is a good chance they will. If they come from good breeders who have worked up resistance (and strength and vigour) there is a good chance they will.

If they come out of a breeder or working apiary that treats systematically, the chances are they won't. Treating has prevented resistance developing, and there is only a small chance of a good result.

This is just the starting point. Now you have to start maintain those genetics by deliberate selection of parents. You must evaluate among several individuals to establish which have the best resistance, strength and vigour. 

If you are in reach of medicating yards, things will be tougher. The drones carrying restant genes in your few colonies will be outnumbered by those carrying few such genes from artificially-supported colonies.

Success will be a matter of moving toward the right genetics (for resistance -mainly 'hygienic' behaviours, but also for broad-spectrum resistance, and broad heath and vigour) by importing and by breeding, and, especially, by not preserving inadequate individuals and allowing them to send their traits into the next generation. 

So what makes it work for some but not for others? 

Choosing the right place. Starting with the right stock. Evaluating and selecting ruthlessly for resistance to varroa. Having enough hives to be able to do this. 

Given fair forage that kind of regime has a chance of success most places. 

Only when you have gone through this process carefully for several generations can you say you have succeeded - or failed. 

There are other things you can do to help yourself. Not packing them too close, not moving them around too much. Why not use natural cell - others swear by it. 

Some people are lucky enough to live around wild bees/distant from treating apiaries. They just have to catch swarms and get on with it. They can even treat weak individuals - the wild bees will take up the strain. Others have to re-create that kind of genetic situation.

These are the things that make the difference. We can see it in the testimonies from those who succeed; we can predict it from an understanding of longstanding essential practice in other fields of organic husbandry; and we can comprehend it with the simple basic tools supplied by biology. All work in perfect tandem.

We know what is going wrong. Systematic medication prevents the emergence of resistance. We know how to fix it. We can use the same knowledge to explain what it is about some localities that makes it easier. And we can see why some beekeepers are getting it right, and others are not.

Mike


----------



## Barry

peterloringborst said:


> A friend of mine has over 100 hives, does not treat and his losses are minimal. Another friend, with the same number of untreated hives, lost 80% this winter.


Look no further, you've got your inside sources. Now go spend time with them both and do some scientific like investigating and see what comes up. You don't have to spend a dime.


----------



## peterloringborst

Here is a measurement of natural comb taken from a hive that I cut out of a box last summer. I just grabbed the first frame in the box, and slapped the ruler on it. I put it near the center because the cells get bigger as you go out. 


Frame

Closeup


----------



## peterloringborst

Barry said:


> Look no further, you've got your inside sources. Now go spend time with them both and do some scientific like investigating and see what comes up. You don't have to spend a dime.


Do you really believe that I _have not _done that? I have been working with these guys for years. They are _asking me_ why it works for some and not for others. 

I think it has to do with the location and/or the management style. Perhaps local stock plays into it. It certainly isn't the cells, because they both use the same type of frames and foundation.


----------



## deknow

i thought you already concluded that it was "luck"?
deknow


----------



## peterloringborst

deknow said:


> i thought you already concluded that it was "luck"?
> deknow


That too.


----------



## mike bispham

peterloringborst said:


> I think it has to do with the location and/or the management style. Perhaps local stock plays into it. It certainly isn't the cells, because they both use the same type of frames and foundation.


You have an opportunity to look for the difference-maker/s in the locations and management styles. Some questions to ask:

What kinds of differences are there in the locations?

Where does the stock originate? Do they raise their own stock, or buy in bred queens? Where do these queens come from?

How much deliberate selection is going on, and what are the criteria?

If selection - i.e. home breeding is going on: 

How many drones from nearby treated apiaries might be around?

Are there likely to be natural survivors contributing to the apiary genetics?

In either case (lots of selective home-breeding or mainly bought queens/bees/natural survivors):

What kind of foundation are they using?

How close do they keep their hives?

How much migratory beekeeping is going on? 

How much natural stores is being left going into winter?

How often are combs renewed?


Any other suggestions?

The difference-maker/s could be one thing, but might equally be several.

Mike


----------



## WLC

Here's one possibility.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=345a3972ff8fcee5f81811b2e0017023


----------



## peterloringborst

deknow said:


> i thought you already concluded that it was "luck"?
> deknow


Naturally, I was being facetious here; luck certainly plays a part. But seriously folks, I have been on this case in earnest since 2000, and especially concerned since 2006 when CCD was first reported. Many people have tried to examine the data for trends. 

The original CCD working group solicited samples from all over the USA and was unable to make a correlation. Schacker, in his book_ Spring Without Bees_, attempted to correlate CCD with Neonicotinoids, but he used an incomplete data set, and deliberately skewed the results to suit his story. 

I talked to folks at the USDA about their data. They have information on drug resistant AFB, nosema ceranae, etc. but the numbers have never been crunched so no picture has ever been assembled regarding trends.

Here at BeeSource there are more than enough people to gather and assemble trends, but most of the responses I have heard are along the lines of "if it works for me, I don't care about why it works. If it doesn't work for you, you must be doing something wrong."

That sort of "I got mine, you deal with yours" attitude is not real beekeeping. Real beekeeping involves gathering and sharing information. I understand why commercial beekeepers would want to keep secrets from each other, but we non-commercial beeks are not competing with each other. We should be cooperating.

In my travels around NYS and my discussions with beeks in other states, several things become apparent. There are very distinct regional effects. I think it is _almost impossible_ to keep bees chemical free in an area where there are large numbers of commercial run hives. This is the type of area where I am located. 

I could move my bees into a remote location, and maybe all my problems would be solved. Except that I am not interested in succeeding with bees in isolation: I belong to a community and I want to figure out what the community can learn working together. Also, I like having bees at my house. 

Several people have written that they keep bees on regular combs in regular hives and do not need to treat. _This is significant._ I also know people who are doing this, so this sort of rules out the need for special hives and special cell size, etc. 

Next, I know two people who have bees in the same exact area, and one experiences 80% loss and the other 20% loss. The difference? Formic acid, applied in the summer, knocked out the mites. So it's pretty clear that major losses are still closely tied to varroa mites. Without varroa mites, the bees do pretty well, regardless.

Commercial beekeepers tend to treat constantly and so have_ chemical resistant mites. _These mites may be especially tough in other ways as well. Conversely, beekeepers in isolated areas may be dealing with a different strain of mites, which gradually dies off, or they achieve some sort of balance in the hives, where the mites don't kill the hives.

Locally adapted strains could play a role. The problem with the various mite resistant stocks is that they perform well under certain circumstances and fail under others. Marla Spivak acknowledges this; I expect Weaver and the USDA Russian breeders would acknowledge this. Obviously, mite resistance is a matter of degree, just like "bullet proof". 

A bullet proof vest won't help against a grenade.


----------



## mike bispham

peterloringborst said:


> Several people have written that they keep bees on regular combs in regular hives and do not need to treat. _This is significant._ I also know people who are doing this, so this sort of rules out the need for special hives and special cell size, etc.


It may well rule out natural cell size as a single cure-all... but it doesn't rule it out as a factor. It may well - as many people attest - be helpful, and might tip the scales in some settings.

But genetics is the main problem. Bees need certain traits to deal with varroa, and they only come from parents with those traits... 

Mike


----------



## Barry

peterloringborst said:


> Do you really believe that I _have not _done that? I have been working with these guys for years.


Great! Share with us your detailed notes of the two apiaries. All those things that are the same and all the differences. Let's lay it out for all to see, like what StevenG is doing and myself and Dennis have done. I would love to have the chance to see the data from each. I think this is a unique situation and a great opportunity for further learning.


----------



## Barry

peterloringborst said:


> That sort of "I got mine, you deal with yours" attitude is not real beekeeping. Real beekeeping involves gathering and sharing information. I understand why commercial beekeepers would want to keep secrets from each other, but we non-commercial beeks are not competing with each other. We should be cooperating.


Oh my, all one has to do is read through the threads here to see that when we non-commercial beeks share our information, it quickly gets shot down for being non-scientific and having no scientific study to support it. Come on Peter, the "I got mine, you deal with yours" attitude only comes about after people get attacked for sharing their anecdotal experiences.


----------



## Barry

peterloringborst said:


> Several people have written that they keep bees on regular combs in regular hives and do not need to treat. _This is significant._ I also know people who are doing this, so this sort of rules out the need for special hives and special cell size, etc.


Some have shared this here as well. However, I find the open sharing of details from these people to be lacking. Often when you dig deeper, it comes out that they have used this or that "soft" treatment or manage in such a way that directly impacts their successful results (split every year, ect.). I wish we could get more input from those that are able to keep bees year after year on "standard" comb without any treatments.


----------



## peterloringborst

Hi Barry

Didn't you and I agree that it would be worthwhile to discuss why scientists and small scale beekeepers can't seem to talk together without alienating each other? I have been listening all along, since I am attempting to bridge that gap. How about this: let's start over. I have not directly insulted too many people for that, have I? I haven't received an acceptance of apology from Dick Marron, yet, so he must still be mad at me. And there a lot of others who won't speak to me, only _yell_. But you and I are still civil, so how about it? We start over, and do more listening (that would be me). 

Pete


----------



## peterloringborst

Barry said:


> Great! Share with us your detailed notes of the two apiaries.


As a former NY Bee inspector there are a lot of things that I have seen that I can't share due to the confidentiality clause. I am sorry, but that's just how it is. However, I think I have made it quite clear that the differences in equipment between most of these beekeepers is minimal. 

I think there is a location effect, and it has to do with proximity to large scale commercial operations. I realize that saying this puts me at risk of antagonizing _them_. I have immense respect for commercial beekeepers and consider their problems to also be my problems. 

I am not in favor of one style or another of beekeeping. I think that everybody _should_ be able to do it their way. What I am trying to do is dispassionately compare what works and what doesn't


----------



## deknow

peterloringborst said:


> That sort of "I got mine, you deal with yours" attitude is not real beekeeping. Real beekeeping involves gathering and sharing information. I understand why commercial beekeepers would want to keep secrets from each other, but we non-commercial beeks are not competing with each other. We should be cooperating.


peter, the real "secret" is that we have no secrets. honestly, what do you think isn't being shared? what do you think is being kept "secret"? Many of us who use no treatments post here regularly on beesource, beemaster, bee-l, etc. there are over 3000 members on the organic list. there are several more local groups (backwards beekeepers in LA comes to mind) who share openly. we've even written a book on the subject that is available at your friendly neighborhood bookstore or online retailer for about $10. there are now at least 2 annual conferences in the U.S. focused on no treatment beekeeping (again, at a very reasonable cost by any measure).

deknow


----------



## Barry

peterloringborst said:


> But you and I are still civil, so how about it?


For sure! There's a lot to be gained when civility controls conversation.


----------



## StevenG

Peter,
Regarding the confidentiality, it seems it would be easy enough for you to encourage those beeks to share their information. The hows, whys, what happened, etc... If they have practices or information that would be valuable for the beekeeping community, and if they have any sense of community at all, they'd be more than happy to share information. At least give them the opportunity to tell you "No, not interested in sharing my story/information with other beeks."
Regards,
Steven


----------



## BWrangler

Hi Guys,

It was a raging snow blizzard outside yesterday. So, I wasn't able to be as productive as I wanted (hoping to get into the beeyard). But I did put together something that might be of interest. Here's a Google Maps image of my beeyard location:










My beeyard, where my most of the testing was done was at the blue asterisk, lower center. It was moved several times. But less than 1/2 mile from the location shown.

The yellow asterisks are permanent hobby yards of 3 to 10 hives. There are probably a couple of hobby beekeepers in Vista West that I'm unaware of. 

The red asterisks are commercial, migratory yards of 26 to 40 hives. The average would be somewhere around 32 to 36 hives.

These are the yards I know of. I've worked for two commercial beekeepers in the area. But I suspect there are a few commercial yards I've missed. They like to tuck their illegal yards out of site. And one of the guys I worked for made sure I didn't know anything about his illegal yards.

And there are a couple of commercial yards a mile south of this image boundary. 

There's a map scale at the bottom. There are about 400 commercial, migratory hives within two miles of my yard, not counting the holding yard.

A little quick and dirty beekeeper guestimation. It looks like there is about 6 to 7 sections of alfalfa or about 3600 to 4200 acres. Not all of it is great bee pasture by any means. Anyway put 400 hives on it and you've got about 8 to 10 hives per acre. Now if it were almonds instead of alfalfa, no pollination problems, eh. 

So you can see I was surrounded. Here's a thought. Maybe the chemical and pesticide fumes from those other beeyards killed the mites in mine. Maybe it's not natural beekeeping at all. ;>)

Nah, I've watched those surrounding commercial yards collapse from 40 hives down to 2 more than once. But my hives survived and thrived without treatments.

The commercial yard extreme center right, near "Mountain View" was where my hives stayed for almost 3 seasons while I was in Florida. You can read about that at:

http://bwrangler.litarium.com/end-in-sight/

I no longer keep my bees in this area. They are located east of town. Somewhat of a disaster that I'm in the process of writing about on my blog. I'll be finding a new yard or three for them shortly. It seems every time I find an out the way place to put them, the landowners follow my track down there and decide it would be a great spot for their new home!

Regards - Dennis
Leaving so PLB can continue talking with Barry. :>) I'm hoping he will reach his goal.
And thanks, Barry for allowing linked images. It's the first time I've used it and it works great.


----------



## peterloringborst

BWrangler said:


> Leaving so PLB can stay civil and continue talking with Barry. I hoping he will reach his goal.


Is this another taunt? I find your map and your experience of great interest and credibility. I hope you continue to contribute. I think we are finally getting down to facts.


----------



## BWrangler

Hi Peter,

I've changed my taunt so I can leave on a civil note.

Regards - Dennis


----------



## WLC

Uh...

Maybe you might want to consider testing for the presence of Serratia m.?

http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=345a3972ff8fcee5f81811b2e0017023



> Serratia marcescens GEI strain was isolated from the gut of the workers of Chinese honey bee Apis cerana and evaluated in the laboratory for the control of Varroa destructor, a parasite of western honey bee A. mellifera. The supernatant and the collected proteins by ammonium sulfate from the bacterial cultures showed a strong miticidal effect on the female mites, with 100% mite mortality in 5 days. Heat (100 °C for 10 min) and proteinase K treatment of the collected proteins destroyed the miticidal activity. The improved miticial activity of this bacterial strain on chitin medium indicated the involvement of chitinases. The expressed chitinases ChiA, ChiB and ChiC1 from S. marcescens GEI by recombinant Escherichia coli showed pathogenicity against the mites in the laboratory.


One of the key ideas behind no-treatment beekeeping is the effect these treatments have on beneficial microbes. Since Apis ceranae bees are already resistant to varroa, then Serratia marcescens looks like it's a key microbe that could confer varroa resistance to Apis Mellifera.

If you are going to look for reasons why certain bee colonies are resistant, this might be an easy target to test for.

I find the other ideas to be a bit too vague.

Peter, do you remember this article?

"Antagonistic interactions between honey bee bacterial symbionts and implications for disease"
Jay D Evans1 and Tamieka-Nicole Armstrong1

They didn't identify Serratia m. .


----------



## mike bispham

peterloringborst said:


> I think there is a location effect, and it has to do with proximity to large scale commercial operations.


Hypothetically speaking, how would that work then?

Mike


----------



## mike bispham

Dennis (if you are still here) how is it the commercial drones don't affect you unduly? Do you allow open mating? 

Mike


----------



## peterloringborst

> I think there is a location effect, and it has to do with proximity to large scale commercial operations.
> 
> Hypothetically speaking, how would that work then?


Pathogen spillover, as well as the large gene pool of commercial grade stock. There is a strong vertical component to virus. E.g., drone to queen as well as queen to offspring. Imagine your precious local stock queen going out and getting hammered by drones from who knows where.

I have compared this in the past to somebody living a very rural lifestyle, vs. the urban lifestyle. Far less chance of getting various communicable diseases, if you don't live in a city or travel much. I could make comparisons but that would be crude.

I work at a University where people are moving in and out of all countries of the world. Just about everybody I know got H1N1 shots. Two counties over, probably nobody bothered (except hypochondriacs and folks "at risk"). So there is definitely a different dynamic.

But, Dennis contends that his hives can "take it". Maybe they can. Or maybe the commercial guys are just not around when his queens are getting mated. My friend in Madison County attributes his success with raising mite resistant bees to just this factor.


----------



## toms1arrow

Wow! The more I read The more I find out I dont no squat about my new bee's ( May 3rd 2010 ) but I'm in it to succeed in having them around for years. So what did I buy when I bought Duragilt from Dadant? Small or Large cell?


----------



## peterloringborst

WLC said:


> One of the key ideas behind no-treatment beekeeping is the effect these treatments have on beneficial microbes.


Bacteria! Can live with 'em, can't live without them!


----------



## peterloringborst

toms1arrow said:


> So what did I buy when I bought Duragilt from Dadant? Small or Large cell?


Medium


----------



## Barry

peterloringborst said:


> Here is a measurement of natural comb taken from a hive that I cut out of a box last summer. I just grabbed the first frame in the box, and slapped the ruler on it.


I moved your ruler to a new spot on your photo and find 5.0 mm size. Taking many measurements gives a better idea of what the bees are building.


----------



## peterloringborst

Barry said:


> I moved your ruler to a new spot on your photo and find 5.0 mm size. Taking many measurements gives a better idea of what the bees are building.


I seem to recall saying that I avoided cells near the edge, as those cells were stretched and were well over 5.5. Not drone cells, either. If you measure vertically they tend to be stretched. We are not looking for the smallest but the average. 

There are several ways to find an average. One is to pull the first comb and measure ten cells in the middle, which I did. Another is to take multiple readings from various spots. But there you get into stretching, drone cells, transitional cells. 

I could take measurements from the center of all nine combs I have, but the placement of the ruler would no doubt be an issue. I chose placing it on a diagonal, as you can see in the other picture. 

But really, the tens of thousands of measurements by Seeley, Taber and Spivak carry a little weight, too. They wrote books on this stuff!


----------



## Rupestris

I find this subject very interesting. 

I agree about the small cells NOT having much influence on mite control and other disease's.
All of those who believed its the small cells that are working to eliminate certain hive troubles, have believed for so long it was just that ...cell size. 

BUT, did not realize it might actually be another factor to why your small cell bees are doing so well with out medications and the like: Which is that some bees are more hygenic then others and that they just happen to have small cells. 
Not only that, but the more hygenic hives are found to be mostly ITALIAN hives. (small cell hive bees.) 


Yes,yes people see the untreated hives are healthy but it just so happens its not cell size. That has been ruled out. 


It has been proven that its hygenic behavior.

The University of Mn bee lab has actually proven this particular point and has discovered this through many trials. Check out Marla Spivak (A long time bee keeper and professor.) and her work on Minnesota hygenic bees. 

By the way I purchased Italian bees based on her research and they are doing fine. Because I could not purchase Michigan hygenic bees (Which the study was based on Italian honey bees and other bees anyways, just more checked for traits desirable in bee health.)

So again, its NOT cell size leading to healthy bees, its actually the extra CLEANING BEHAVIOR that is present. Italians have small cells yes,.. but they are also better cleaners (so to speak) . 

So there is your answer.


----------



## beenovice

peterloringborst said:


> But really, the tens of thousands of measurements by Seeley, Taber and Spivak carry a little weight, too. They wrote books on this stuff!


Of course they do. As do measurements of others. Seeley, Taber and Spivak are not the only ones who made thousands of measurements. Many people did and still measure and their findings are different. But they don't go around saying that Seeley's findings and statements are false. 

You still didn't answer my question for n-th time regarding average sizes. How exactly you get average cell size. Do you take all the cells on comb ( honey, worker brood and drone brood ) and calculate average or you measure worker cells where worker bees actually hatched and calculate average ? It is kind of important you know....

*Rupestris* : what if smaller cells are the trigger for better "cleaning behaviour" ? What ifssss many ifssss.....


----------



## BWrangler

Hi Guys,

As a small time queen rearer, before experiencing small cell, I thought the factors affecting mite tolerance were all genetic. Then I went through a genetic bottle neck right after switching to small cell comb. That forced me to requeen most of my test hives with commercial stock. I found that, with few exceptions, placing any of the commonly available and some not some commonly available bee races on clean, small cell comb, enable the bees to tolerate the mites.

On small cell comb they all cleansed the broodnest by actively detecting and removing mite infested sealed brood. Some were better at it than others. And they all got better at it over time.

But when I put some of the very same bees and queens on clean, large cell sized comb, none of them showed any broodnest cleansing behavior. Read about it here:

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

Concerning queen rearing, before going to small cell I realized the Lusby's breeding criteria would be impossible for me to meet. All those commercial bees come back from the almonds filled with drones and drone brood two brood cycles before any local drones/brood are available. And they don't move them out to the almonds before November. So, it's just a part of beekeeping I have to contend with.

My queen rearing in now the weakest part of my beekeeping. I used to routinely requeen at the end of the second season. But I've found that in an untreated natural hive they can last almost twice that long. So, I don't routinely requeen anything now, as losses are easily made up in the spring. But I plan to change that next year.

I just haven't had any significant problems using available bee stock on natural/small cell. So, I select what I want based on criteria other than mite tolerance.

Before getting my bees on natural comb, bee stock made all the difference. I had bees that were almost mite tolerant and could carry a tremendous mite load before showing any symptoms and collapsing. And I had some that were better raising mites than bees. They would show symptoms and then collapse at mite loads a magnitude below my more tolerant bees. Most of the bees were somewhere in between.

Anyway tomorrow is a bee day for sure. Temperatures and wind should have recovered enough from yesterday's blizzard to allow a detailed look inside my hives. It's the first one of the season. Then it's back to my day job.

Take Care Guys - Dennis


----------



## Barry

BWrangler said:


> I thought the factors affecting mite tolerance were all genetic.
> 
> [snip]
> 
> My queen rearing in now the weakest part of my beekeeping.


My experience as well. Dee always said to take the bees I had and let them adjust (the hard way) to my new way of managing. I just did a split two weeks ago from bees I bought from a local beekeeper two years ago. Looks like I'll be adding some of honeyman's bees to the mix. Doesn't matter to me. I don't ever buy queens. Let the bees do it.


----------



## BWrangler

Hi Guys,

On a final note, I'm setting up ten completely new Lang hives. I haven't put any Langs together since my commercial beekeeping days. And I'd forgotten just how much time and effort they take compared to making a top bar hive. But they're together. They will be using foundationless natural comb frames. And they will have new queens from a commercial source. 

I'll let you guys know how everything goes.

Take Care Guys - Dennis


----------



## Michael Bush

>Several people have written that they keep bees on regular combs in regular hives and do not need to treat. This is significant. I also know people who are doing this, so this sort of rules out the need for special hives and special cell size, etc. 

How many is several? How free of Varroa issues are they? Do they lose a lot of hives to Varroa? A few? None? Most of the smell cell people I know are having no Varroa issues and I know of no one on large cell having no Varria issues. I don't understand how you think "several people...on regular combs" rules out anything. You have not in any way quantified any of the issues. You have not quantified "several people" nor how large or small their issues are. I'm not asking for exact numbers, but ballpark figures would be helpful. I know of many small cell natural cell people succeeding with no issues. There are several thousand on the Organic list and many more that I know of that are not. I know of several, as you say, large cell people who say they are succeeding but still seem to have issues. It seems to me that most of them I talk to are still obsessed with Varroa and still having problems with Varroa. So it doesn't seem like an "apples to apples" comparison by any means.


----------



## roseagle

Follow the money trail to see what motivation there could be from that angle. Many small cell beekeepers are not buying foundation and certainly not chemicals. We all know what big money there is in chemical treatments of all kinds. But what would motivate anyone to advocate small cell i.e. natural comb--- the size being determined by the bees themselves?

It seems to me that anyone staunchly advocating large cell plastic (or purchased wax) foundation could easily be invested on making a profit. Not to mention the arrogant "man-of-science-knows-best" attitude. What about the bees? What do they know? What do they build when we leave them to their ancient art? 

The Man-of-Science has been calling the shots for decades. Are the bees any better off for this? Certainly not. Who can deny that they are in deep trouble? Man-of Science oversized the bees in the first place. It has worked wonderfully for the foundation and chemical business, but it appears to be a disaster, apropos to the bees.


----------



## jonathan

roseagle said:


> Follow the money trail to see what motivation there could be from that angle. Many small cell beekeepers are not buying foundation...


Just what we need. A conspiracy theory involving international wax barons and their evil sidekicks.
They probably have clandestine wax pressing plants in the Columbian jungle


----------



## mike bispham

jonathan said:


> Just what we need. A conspiracy theory involving international wax barons and their evil sidekicks.


There's no need to posit any kind of conspiracy theory in order to understand and explain the relative exposure small cell and natural beekeepers get in relation to the chemical methods. 

Perhaps you don't understand how the 'follow the money' exercise goes. It is a well established method of locating the hidden drivers in economic activity by examining the trading structures and identifying the beneficiaries at each stage. The idea is that in most kinds of trade people are usually motivated by money, and so by looking at who benefits you can expose the hidden structure of the activity.

In the legal world the latin term 'cui bono' 'who benefits' carries the same idea.

In the bee world there is what must be a vast budget - someone estimate it for us - going into advertising chemicals and other treatments. Most of the commercial bee publications are heavily reliant on this money to stay afloat. (The academic publications are not - but that doesn't mean they are always purely motivated by any means) 

Are the commercial publications going to promote methods that earn them nothing? Of course not! 

Will they fill their publications with material that promotes the wares of their advertisers? Of course they will. 

Will they tend to slant articles in ways that are misleading in order to improve their bottom lines? Of course. 

Will they avoid like the plague any suggestion that it is the wares of their paymasters that are at the root of the problem? Of course they will.

No conspiracy, just simple commercial structure acting in its own interest - exactly as you would expect it to. 

On the other side there is very limited exposure. Word of mouth is pretty much all. This vast imbalance is very much part of the problem. Talking about is very much part of what we need to do - in order to find better ways of overcoming it.

Mike


----------



## WLC

What's interesting here is that there is the a real possibility to bioengineer wax foundation itself so that it is not only pesticide free, but can also encourage the growth of bacteria like Serratia marcescens that can produce chitnases that are deadly to mites (but not bees).

So wax foundation can be an ally. You could also argue that smaller cells produce a warmer microclimate and faster bacterial growth as well.


----------



## jonathan

And the pesticide contamination of existing wax foundation should not be ignored.


----------



## camero7

That's the main reason I went to natural cell - foundationless. More work but might be worth it...


----------



## WLC

Let me park this here for Peter.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100525154002.htm


----------



## BWrangler

Hi Guys,

>Somewhat of a disaster that I'm in the process of writing about on my blog. ....

My early spring inspect, last March, was terrible! Out of the nine hives, two came through in good shape. Two were dinks. Three had queen failures. And two died. I combined the dinks and queenless hive coming up with a total of two good hives and a poor hive. That’s about a 70% loss for this yard.

Inspections revealed few mites and no brood disease. There were no signs of dysentery. And all hives had adequate food reserves. Most of it left over from the yellow sweet clover flow.

It’s the worst my hives have done since I suffered the initial losses associated with small cell regression a decade ago.

Since then the hives have progressed. The best hive has three deeps packed with bees. The other two hives have two deeps packed with bees. 

But news from today's inspection isn't good. A queen in one two story hive has failed. And the other two story hive is in the process of superceding their queen.

You can read more about it here:

http://bwrangler.litarium.com/natural-limits/

Once before, I lost most of my hive while regression them to small cell. I went to Arizona and visited with the Lusby's. They spoke of the great resilience of untreated bees. They encouraged me to return home and continue with those bees. I did and I experienced that great resilience for myself.

Looks like I’ll have the chance to do it again. And maybe I’ll learn even more about than I did before.

Regards - Dennis
PhD Bee Loser, but now with the golden shash


----------



## peacekeeperapiaries

mike bispham said:


> Most of the commercial bee publications are heavily reliant on this money to stay afloat. (The academic publications are not - but that doesn't mean they are always purely motivated by any means)
> Mike


Really, I just looked through the Febrary 2010 American Bee Journal and counted 2 small adds, both approx 2x3 inches black and white (promoting oxalic and other acids), and 2 larger half page adds from actual "Chem Companies" such as medivet promoting Fumagilin. I think this publication is hardly "reliant" on the money from these four adds to stay afloat. :scratch:


----------



## mike bispham

peacekeeperapiaries said:


> Really, I just looked through the Febrary 2010 American Bee Journal ...


The ABJ seems to me to be a very honourable publication, and I wouldn't want to include it in any accusation of kowtowing to advertisers. Your post prompted me to have a scan, and a few bits from Jerry Hayes' 'Classroom' caught my eye as stuff relevant to the broader conversation about 'treatment free' bees and genetics:

The Classroom - January 2010
http://www.americanbeejournal.com/site/epage/79431_828.htm

Q Treating with Antibiotics

I enjoyed your presentations at the Louisiana Beekeepers Convention earlier this month. I am a new beekeeper who is blessed with a beekeeping club close to me. However, there exists a large experience and age gap within our club. We are told to give antibiotics twice and year, Fumidil in the fall, etc. 
I've been in the medical field for 16 years. I have seen that the abuse of antibiotics in people contribute to some of the worst resistant bacteria imaginable. I believe this was through indiscretion and ignorance. I believe this could happen with honey bees also. The reason I'm writing you is because your presentation Saturday at the convention was the first time someone had suggested that bees should only be treated when symptomatic. 

I have no real resource within my club and want your input or perhaps some study or publication that could clarify this "medication" dilemma for me. Any help you can spare would be great. Also, thank you for your presence here at our conference. I appreciated your work.

Brent Ingvardsen
Stonewall, Louisiana

A
Good Morning Brent. Thank you for the compliment. I am glad that you are a new beekeeper and it is good that you have the expertise of members of a beekeeping club close to you. Like many organisms, honey bees can take a lot of stress and abuse that does not kill them, similar to humans and our livestock that are exposed to lots of chemicals that are purposely ingested, applied or inhaled. As you know in the medical field, antibiotics are prescribed freely and taken freely and many times incorrectly which has led to MRSA and other really scary stuff. This will only get worse as time passes and practices do not change dramatically from either the medical practitioner side or the patient side. 

Production livestock are fed a diet that routinely contains antibiotics to lower infection levels in these animals that are crowded together in stressful and unhealthy conditions. None of this will change soon since food production for the lowest cost per unit output is the goal. E. coli and other organisms' resistance to antibiotics have been documented. As long as the ultimate product does not immediately kill the consumer or make him/her sick, it is considered to be all right.

Honey bees are just as tough as a cow or a chicken. However, the real question should be: Are they healthy and thriving or are they just OK? We have antibiotic resistance in bacterial diseases in honey bees. The most significant and prominent is Paenibacillus larvae, the causative organism of American Foulbrood (AFB). A couple of reasons for this are: 1) Feeding antibiotics inappropriately and 2) applying them inappropriately. To highlight, (1) why feed antibiotics when there is not a disease? My example at the meeting was when I asked, "Is anyone taking antibiotics now because they are afraid of getting strep throat in the future." No hands went up from the audience. And in regards to: 2) Not following label directions as a factor in antibiotic resistance, I believe antibiotics are designed to kill all sensitive organisms, both good and bad, if applied properly in multiple doses over X period of time. 

This is similar to when your doctor prescribes antibiotics for you to take over a 10- to 14-day period so all the bad organisms are killed. If you don't follow the instructions, then you are promoting bacterial resistance because some of the bad organisms are genetically hardier and they stay alive after the first or second exposure to the antibiotic. If you quit taking the antibiotic after a few days because you are feeling better, you have then become an evolutionary selective agent who has selected for organisms that are somewhat immune to a partial treatment. When this happens over a large population, over and over again, then at some point in time you have selected for organisms that are entirely resistant to this antibiotic and the disease cannot be controlled easily, i.e. MRSA or flesh-eating bacteria found in all hospitals now. 

The same thing happens with honey-bee diseases such as AFB. The beekeeper may not complete treatments using labeled products or he may use antibiotics in "food patties" for disease prevention when there is no active disease, thereby selecting for those organisms that have some natural resistance. These resistant bacteria breed and then you develop an organism over time that requires a different stronger antibiotic. In the beekeeping industry we have gone from Terramycin to now Tylosin and already there is some noted AFB resistance to Tylosin because of the reasons cited above.
Now let's take a quick look at what honey bees eat for protein, lipids, vitamins and minerals. It is not pollen. It is beebread, which is a fermented product that is created by honey bees adding bacteria, yeasts etc., to pollen to break apart the pollen grains sealed in silica (glass) to release and pre-digest this vital nutrition enclosed. If you have an agricultural background, stored bee pollen is kind of like pollen silage. Or, for you or I, it might be compared to a fermented food like yogurt, kefir, sauerkraut, sour cream, etc. Adding antibiotics kills both good and bad bacteria in a honey-bee diet. Antibiotics even kill the good bacteria that honey bees need to make beebread in order to obtain full nutrition. Thus, unknowingly, the beekeeper may have further stressed and compromised the health of the colony.
Antibiotics are extremely valuable tools for human and animal health. However, any tool is not the right tool. A hammer is not a screwdriver. A crescent wrench is not socket wrench. We have been abusing antibiotics and are now suffering the consequences personally and in our animals. We are relying on our advancements in technology to step up and save us. I hope that they can continue to do so. Sorry to drone on so long.

............

Q
IS IT VSH or VHS or DVD?

Dear Mr. Hayes, 
Please give us some detailed information about the Minnesota Hygienic stock and the VSH (Varroa-selective Hygienic) stock developed at the USDA lab.

Thanks, 
Marcel LeBlanc
Houston, TX

A
The difference is VSH (Varroa Sensitive Hygiene) is a genetic trait of the honey bee that allows it to recognize capped cells with mite-infested pupae. The bees in a communal way get together and cut through the cap, drag out the infested pupa and the mites and dump them outside as trash.
Minnesota Hygienic Bees have the genetic trait that is one of a high degree of hygienic behavior that targets diseases like American foulbrood and chalkbrood. So, VSH targets "varroa mites" and Minnesota Hygienic target "diseases". Theoretically, one could have both traits simultaneously from 1% to 100% and everything in between. Honey bees have survived for millions of years by having a wide selection of genes for different situations and scenarios. Having a hyper-trait may adversely affect other traits, so everything is a trade off.

Marcel answers:
Jerry, thanks for the reply, but that is not what I have heard. You haven't helped me!

Classroom Readers: I do not know everything, but I generally do know who knows, so I handed this one off to Dr. Jeff Harris at the USDA/ARS Bee Breeding Lab in Baton Rouge to see if he could help me out.

Thanks Jeff

Reply from Jeff Harris

Hello Jerry, I can understand the reader's problem with accepting that there are differences because we are not really sure ourselves as to how or why these two types of honey bees are different. So, I'll try to say what we know as briefly as possible:

It seems likely that hygienic removal of varroa-infested pupae (or Varroa-Sensitive Hygiene) is really the same behavior or a subset of general hygienic behavior that is found in the Minnesota Hygienics. The difference is in selective breeding methods that were used to obtain the two types of bees. Marla Spivak selected for improved performance in removal of freeze-killed brood. The VSH team selected initially for bees that reduced the reproductive abilities of mites. It was only later that we discovered that this disruption of mite reproduction was caused by VSH activity.

As with MN Hygienics, bees with high levels of the VSH trait are also very hygienic towards freeze-killed brood, and our experience suggests that they are also good at controlling chalkbrood, American foulbrood, small hive beetles and wax moths (we just have not published these kinds of data). So, what are the differences between MN Hygienics and VSH bees? The biggest difference is that the VSH bees remove many more mite-infested pupae per unit time. They can uncap and identify 100s of mite-infested pupae in just a few hours. The MN hygienic bees find varroa-infested pupae at a much lower rate. In pure VSH colonies, varroa mite populations decline. In pure MN Hygienics, mite populations continue to grow, but at a rate slower that is significantly slower than in non-hygienic controls. So, it is quite possible that both bees are utilizing the same mechanisms to find mite-infested pupae (in fact, it seems likely), the difference may only be in degree. However, there is also evidence that the genetics controlling general hygiene is different than the genetics controlling VSH behavior. I'll just leave it at that for now. I hope this helps.

Sincerely,
Dr. Jeff Harris 
USDA/ARS Bee Breeding Lab 
Baton Rouge, LA

...............

Q Sanitized For Your Safety

Jerry, what is the practice of sanitization when the backyard sideliner and the commercial beekeeper find hives with CCD?

A [...]

I think the easiest and most logical choice is to replace comb every 2-3 years-comb rotation. Clean comb is the key. Being exposed to "stuff' 24/7/365, if eliminated, can reduce stress and premature colony failure.


----------



## jonathan

mike bispham said:


> The ABJ seems to me to be a very honourable publication, and I wouldn't want to include it in any accusation of kowtowing to advertisers.





> Will they fill their publications with material that promotes the wares of their advertisers? Of course they will.
> 
> Will they tend to slant articles in ways that are misleading in order to improve their bottom lines? Of course.
> 
> Will they avoid like the plague any suggestion that it is the wares of their paymasters that are at the root of the problem? Of course they will.


So which ones were you thinking of?


----------



## mike bispham

jonathan said:


> So which ones were you thinking of?


Sigh. Anything to obstruct discussion of how to manage bees in a sustainable way.

None of those, of course - that is implicit in what I wrote. 

Are you going to tell us how you evaluate your bees for selection purposes?

Mike


----------



## jonathan

mike bispham said:


> Sigh. Anything to obstruct discussion of how to manage bees in a sustainable way.


You made a ridiculous allegation.
I asked you to back it up.
You couldn't.



> Are you going to tell us how you evaluate your bees for selection purposes?


Nice of you to ask although this is a small cell thread.
In an attempt to keep vaguely on-topic, I would point out that I keep my bees on large cell foundation although I let them draw some natural comb which is invariably drone comb. I don't feel strongly about small cell one way or the other.
I keep detailed written records for each colony.
I keep native type bees (native to uk and Ireland) so I select for Amm purity using programmes like Drawwing coupled with the physical appearance and characteristics of the bee, such as temperament, runniness on the comb, following behaviour, swarminess, honey production etc. I monitor for varroa. Just the usual. 
You asked me that question elsewhere about a year ago I remember giving a similar answer.
Groundhog day again.
I am currently grafting from my best colony into a queenright cell raiser colony and have ten sealed queen cells due to hatch next week. I hope to keep this process going all summer.
The plan is to supply nucs with good queens to the new beekeepers in my local beekeeper association. I have linked up with a few people from BIBBA (a UK and Ireland bee improvement group)
I encourage a couple of my best colonies to produce extra drones by putting in shallows between the deeps for them to draw comb below. I distribute this drone brood to other colonies which I don't want to make drones.
All my colonies 12/12 survived winter and are building up nicely thanks.
The year before it was 9/10.
This is beekeeping Mike. Bee breeding. Selection. You need bees if you want to select. You can't select a better bee by posting over and over again on bee forums.


----------



## mike bispham

jonathan said:


> You made a ridiculous allegation.
> I asked you to back it up.
> You couldn't.


For the record, you didn't. You offered a counterexample to an absolute claim (which I hadn't made, saying 'most', not 'all'). Despite it being a 'straw man' I accepted your counterexample quite happily.



jonathan said:


> I keep native type bees (native to uk and Ireland) so I select for Amm purity using programmes like Drawwing coupled with the physical appearance and characteristics of the bee, such as temperament, runniness on the comb, following behaviour, swarminess, honey production etc. I monitor for varroa. Just the usual.


A Amm theorist approach? The native bee will be best, resistance to varroa is a secondary concern, yes? 



jonathan said:


> The plan is to supply nucs with good queens to the new beekeepers in my local beekeeper association.


On what sort of basis do you make the claim 'good'

All my colonies 12/12 survived winter and are building up nicely thanks.
[/quote]

Well done. What sort of treatments did you make? How many do you think would have survived without these treatments? 

Mike


----------



## jonathan

> Well done. What sort of treatments did you make? How many do you think would have survived without these treatments?


-Thymol in September and sometimes Oxalic in December. That's all.
I feed sugar syrup if it rains for weeks in late summer which it often does here.
I admire the conviction of those who don't treat but for every Michael Bush I reckon there are many failures who don't share their losses and setbacks in public.
More critical to winter/spring survival is good pre winter feeding, pollen stores and insulation in my opinion. Colonies also have to be a reasonable size or they will not have the numbers to build up in spring.
I would have lost at least 3 or 4 in the spring if I had not added emerging brood from stronger colonies to keep numbers up but that's not a varroa problem, rather a function of overwintering several late season nucs which were just a bit light on numbers going into winter.
That's where the 'good husbandry' comes in to coin a phrase.
Everything should have its chance as you said somewhere in an earlier post.

For me a good bee is a bee which has adapted to local conditions, climate forage etc, over many generations.
Local bees are more likely to be adapted to local conditions than imports.


----------



## peacekeeperapiaries

jonathan said:


> -I admire the conviction of those who don't treat but for every Michael Bush I reckon there are many failures who don't share their losses and setbacks in public.


This is a true statement and one which I agree with. I know several of THOSE people you speak of. I applaud MB for his style and methods of beekeeping and have NO DOUBT that his methods as explained are true accounts of how he keeps bees. But that does not mean it will work for me or many other people based on many many factors. For some it works for some it has failed, its the lack of reported failures not the successes that skew any discussion on this topic.

Sounds like you have some pretty good methods and breeding experience yourself Johnathan, keep up the good work. We are steering our operation to a very similar method and footprint as you are using in regards to breeding, and minimal treatment, but sometimes as you pointed out the bees need a little help "husbandry" I think its called.


----------



## Barry

peacekeeperapiaries said:


> This is a true statement and one which I agree with. I know several of THOSE people you speak of.


I'm not so sure it's true, but anyway, if it is, why do they keep silent?


----------



## beemandan

Barry said:


> I'm not so sure it's true, but anyway, if it is, why do they keep silent?


I've hardly kept quiet. Just tired of repeating myself.....plus pretty busy pulling honey supers. In my case it did not work (small cell)....but my conventional cell hives are thriving.


----------



## peacekeeperapiaries

Barry said:


> I'm not so sure it's true, but anyway, if it is, why do they keep silent?


Understand I'm no throwing stones at peoples choices, how they wanted to keep bees and how they live their lives are their business. Without a long drawn out summary two were "organically" inclined and tried for two years to keep their bees alive...in the end despite all their attempts, reading, and calls for help their bees died (two hives on small cell ate up with mites and beetles). However they still claim "chem/treatment free" suits their lifestyle. Both now have new hives and offer plenty of advice to other "organic gardners" (in a club) on the keeping of "treament free" bees however in passing on their knowledge fail to mention that this method failed them. The other beek I am aware of decided to catch swarms from "feral colonies" swearing they had survived in the wild for years therefore required no treatments, 4 of his 6 are dead, again mites according to him (he couldnt understand why they got mites). The other 2 are alive but IMO wont make a honey crop this year and will be dead before winter is over for lack of stores. He also asserts that "treatment free" is the way to go and those bees that died were just weak ones. His methods are successful for him when speaking to other people, but he also fails to mention his losses. As I said it works for some, but not for all, their method and what they believe is "treatment free", thats what they believe, thats what they preach, but its hard to preach about their methods and beliefs that have failed them, much easier to point to new bees in the yard and say "look its working" we have treatment free bees. There is one more but I will spare you the story but his 6 hives are dead also, but the one he let me help him with already has some surplus honey...he is happy about that. Thats the truth, take it or leave it. My conventional cell hives produced over 3000lbs of Orange Blossom Honey in 4 weeks, the other 800 or so will be extracted this weekend....my organic friends with dead bees will be eating plain toast this year


----------



## bigbearomaha

> His methods are successful for him when speaking to other people, but he also fails to mention his losses


'his' losses huh? Well, as long as it's his losses and not the bees losses.

Does anyone really think that every feral, untreated swarm that is issued survives? That there are no 'natural' losses?

The that would be like saying every child was born healthy and survives fine.

Every town or city that is established thrives and grows.

It's ridiculous to propose that losses incurred by managed hives are 'bad' losses and that losses 'should not' occur within the managed hive system.

Not every swarm issued 'naturally' goes on to establish itself or survive. To expect every hive that is managed by people to not suffer losses is ridiculous and indicative of the vanity of people.

I would also like to point out that "animal husbandry" is a practice of responsibility by people who remove animals from their natural environment and instead relocate those animals to live in a location and manner which does not allow them to do for themselves. They cannot follow their food of choice, be it plant or prey, and engage in those behaviors they would had people not relocated and re-purposed them for.

Because people make those changes for those animals, it is incumbent on the people to provide food, shelter, and any other assistance/direction as the animal is no longer able to do such for themselves.

For people who wish to use 'natural' techniques, such as no treatment or using foundation-less comb, etc.. they have made the decision that they only imposition they are making on the bees is in location of the nest and intruding upon said nest for collection and observation purposes. Otherwise (as if that weren't enough) the bees are allowed if not encouraged to live and behave as if they were feral or in a 'natural' environment. Therefore, 'husbandry' techniques really do not apply.

If one wants to drug the bees they work with because they really think it will be helpful to them, knock yourself out, do what you think is right. If one chooses to let the bees bee and whatever happens happens, again, so bee it.

These are choices every beek must make for themselves. depending on locality, geography, biology and philosophical approach. Anything else is just someone's opinion's, like the proverbial bellybuttons and rear ends.

Big Bear


----------



## BWrangler

Hi Guys,

Just a little more info on my hive loss. Two queens were one year old. One queen was three years old. Five were going on four years. One was starting it's 5th season. 

The three year old queen survived. A one year old queen is being superceded. The rest were lost.


----------



## beenovice

peacekeeperapiaries said:


> Understand I'm no throwing stones at peoples choices...


I see a lot of talk about loses of natural guys. I see pretty much the same pattern of loses with conventional guys. Some who treat loose most of their hives also but I guess some of you feel better if you talk about 2 or 3 organic guys and how they lost their bees. Go figure. 

There are huge loses of bees all around the world. Most of lost bees are the ones who actually were treated against diseases. In my opinion most of the loses are due to management and external factors ( poor forage and/or contaminated forage - slow kill ) and have nothing to do with varroa. 
Some beekeepers just don't get it that if you take all the honey you must feed them afterwards. If you don't feed them when winter bees are born you will loose your hives. Once you don't have enough winter bees and colony collapses and you find some varroa you will think that varroa got them. 

So all in all. Maybe those bees didn't die because they were not treated but management has something to do with it. 
If you leave your bees without stores after you harvest the honey the queen will shut down ( some more than the others ) and there you go....not enough bees to go into winter. Population will decrease in unnatural way and varroa will take over. But is it really a varroa problem then ? 
Even those who treat will experience the same kind of loss but since they treated month earlier there will be no or little varroa present and they will scratch their head what happened........well some actually know and admit they made a mistake. I know of couple such conventional beekeepers. 

In my opinion, varroa is only a symptom and not a "disease". I may be wrong but I don't have problems with varroa but I do have a problem with nectar sources in late summer. If I take it all from them the queen just shuts down so I don't take all the honey from Black Locust and even feed them if I see they have low stores. In every moment the colony must have at least 10-15kg of honey. 
For now it is working for me but I leave my bees alone, let them swarm(this is huge in fight agains varroa! that some still don't realize) and don't harvest all the honey. So you see, there are other things I do to fight this varroa thingie...not just natural cell. 
I threw bunch of stuff into this post. Hope it is understandable ... it is 3:40am here  I will explain if there are issues with understanding...


----------



## peacekeeperapiaries

Big Bear yes some people think because they caught a swarm it should survive, they operate on their beliefs and what they have been told and read. Yes some people THINK every swarm they catch came from a colony that has survived 5 years in a tree without treatments, when actually it came from their next door neighbors 10frame lang (last years package). 

Look I really dont care if people chose to treat bees or rear them naturally. I really dont care if you raise bees on small cell, foundation, or foundationless. For those that are on small cell and/or dont treat and can maintain colony health and LONGEVITY, God bless you keep doing what you are doing, SO FAR it has not worked for me, and I have tried. I'm not arguing that treatements are better for bees, I'm telling you that my hives wont survive without treatment at this point and therefore the many thousands of dollars I have invested in my operation will go down the drain. What I am tired of is people like Mike Bispham telling me that by treating I am the demise of the honeybee, while he cant keep one colony alive. I'm also tired of new beeks asking legitimate questions about treatments on this forum and they get the 3rd degree from the "no treatment" crowd and very few actual answers to their questions. If I choose to drive a Ford F350 and you like Volkswagons so be it, but when I ask a question about a Powerstroke problem i'd really appreciate not hearing how great your VW Passat is and how much better it is than my Ford. Thats my point in all this, I will continue to strive to be treatment free because that is whats best and would increase my profit margin, I will continue to pass on my best advice to people asking questions whether they are treatment free or not, and in return until the eventual goal of no treatment beekeeping is reached I would appreciate it if I didnt continually hear from a select few how I am driving the honeybee to extinction with feeding, treatments, and proper management.


----------



## mike bispham

peacekeeperapiaries said:


> I'm not arguing that treatements are better for bees, I'm telling you that my hives wont survive without treatment at this point and therefore the many thousands of dollars I have invested in my operation will go down the drain.
> 
> What I am tired of is people like Mike Bispham telling me that by treating I am the demise of the honeybee, while he can't keep one colony alive.


With respect, peacekeeperapiaries, I do understand that people like yourself are in a tricky place. I also know, as somebody who has been self-employed for thirty five years or so, that that is the nature of business. When you chose to make a living in a risky and competitive industry, you can't complain when you have to make hard choices, or find your livelihood under threat. That's the way of the world. I'm not sure I understand the reasoning that says that someone who is not currently practicing beekeeping can have nothing to say on the topic. And it rather ignores the many years of work I've put in trying to understand the real underlying causes of problems in bee health. 

Your last sentence - the one with my name in it - doesn't scan, but I will assume you meant to say something like: "...by treating I am _contributing to_ the demise of the honeybee"

That is unfortunately a fact - that we both know. I imagine it makes you uncomfortable - but that really isn't my fault. And I understand that reading my posts must remind you of it, and make you uncomfortable repeatedly, but that isn't a good enough reason for me to stop writing. So all I can do is ask you to try to separate the specific from the general. I can't show you what to do, and I'm not trying to tell individual beekeepers like yourself what to do. I am asking for broad recognition of the simple logical and scientific fact: all the while bees are treated and then allowed to reproduce, the next generation will be more vulnerable that it would have been. Add up the number of times this is happening, and you have a clear indication of what is going wrong. 

I know this must be tough to hear for someone in your position, but it is a fact. Shooting the messenger won't change that. 

I can see from your post that you understand this. But a great many people don't, and so its important that this conversation continues. It benefits no-one that people operate in ignorance of the damage they are doing.

I generally only have something to say where and when I see people misunderstanding, or misrepresenting the facts. It is important that a conversation about the ways bees locate health occurs among beekeepers, and it is useless if that conversation is based on inaccuracies, or half-truths, or misreadings of scientific work and so on. A great deal of the most recent research, and the general feeling in the community, is that systematic treatment is a huge problem. This is a legitimate topic for beesource. If it was being held in a competent and constructive manner here, I'd go away - believe me. I'm only here because it isn't.



peacekeeperapiaries said:


> I'm also tired of new beeks asking legitimate questions about treatments on this forum and they get the 3rd degree from the "no treatment" crowd and very few actual answers to their questions.


And I'm tired of new beeks being told: the only correct way to keep bees is to try to keep each and every individual alive by all means possible. This attitude is appropriate toward people and pets, and in livestock where breeding is controlled, but utterly inappropriate toward livestock where reproduction is uncontrolled and uncontrollable. It is a central part, again, of the problem. Here in the UK there is a centrally-driven policy of encouraging new beekeepers, and the methods taught are almost entirely those that will best guarentee the continuing sickness of bees. It is sheer madness.



peacekeeperapiaries said:


> If I choose to drive a Ford F350 and you like Volkswagons so be it, but when I ask a question about a Powerstroke problem i'd really appreciate not hearing how great your VW Passat is and how much better it is than my Ford. [...] I would appreciate it if I didnt continually hear from a select few how I am driving the honeybee to extinction with feeding, treatments, and proper management.


I don't know what benefit there is in exaggerating the claims made by people like me. I don't think the honeybee is in too much danger of extinction - though certainly any increase in large-scale systematic treatments presses in that direction, rather than the direction of a return to broad health. The choice is more between a lame bee-industry and a healthy one.

One of the key points under discussion here is what it is that small-cellers do that makes a difference. It is the view of many of us - including Peter - who started the thread for this very purpose - that one of the most important difference-makers is that small-cellers 'take their losses' and do not return to treating. That method, and their success, has supplied the best lead we have to the way out of the mess caused by systematic treatments. That means that what your 'proper managements' is is itself under discussion - its one of the things we have to talk about. You can't, here, simply assume that there is a 'proper managment' because what that is - what 'husbandry' invloves - it is something we disagree about, and are here to talk through.

If you can't separate in your mind a discussion held in general terms from your own situation, I respectfully suggest you stay off threads with headings like 'Re: Small Cells Debunked by World Renowned Bee Researcher'. This little backwater is one of the few places where the ins and outs of the factors affecting health in bees can be explored in general terms. There are plenty of other threads where you can talk about treatments in any way you please, and I, at least, won't pester you. 

But I'd rather you stayed here and helped us find ways of talking about something that affects us all in ways that allow the facts to form the basis of discussion, while acknowledging that those same facts create huge difficulties for some individuals. We shouldn't expect it to be all smooth going.

Mike


----------



## jonathan

peacekeeperapiaries said:


> He also asserts that "treatment free" is the way to go and those bees that died were just weak ones. His methods are successful for him when speaking to other people, but he also fails to mention his losses.


For a lot of the natural beekeeping people it has become like a religion. There is no point in arguing as it has become an unshakable belief system rather than something based on evidence. Look at the language of some of the posters. They state over and over again that certain statements are 'facts' which cannot be challenged. It's the language of the self styled guru rather the language of science. Many people are capable of holding a prejudice irrespective of evidence to the contrary. I'm not thinking of anyone in particular here but I see these type of statements all over the various beekeeping forums. Whatever it is, it's not a scientific approach.



mike bispham said:


> A great deal of the most recent research, and the general feeling in the community, is that systematic treatment is a huge problem. This is a legitimate topic for beesource.


Yes but there is a big difference between chucking chemicals at a colony whether needed or not and adopting a light touch to save a colony which is viable with proper management.
For example, I would not neglect to feed a colony, if I knew it had insufficient stores for winter or any other time of the year.
A colony low on stores get stressed and is much more susceptible to viral diseases or nosema. 
At a hobby level, varroa can be controlled to some extent by drone brood culling, mite trapping with bait combs, or shook swarming which does not involve any chemical treatment at all.
A lot of good genetics can be lost through bad management/poor husbandry.



mike bispham said:


> Here in the UK there is a centrally-driven policy of encouraging new beekeepers,...


What's that then? Where is it being 'centrally driven' from? The British Beekeepers Association promote beekeeping, that's hardly surprising, and the Coop charitable arm is encouraging beekeeping along with an anti pesticide campaign, but I am curious about this 'centrally driven' concept. 



beenovice said:


> For now it is working for me but I leave my bees alone, let them swarm(this is huge in fight agains varroa! that some still don't realize)


80% of the mites are under cappings on average,. If a swarm leaves with half the bees it leaves with approximately 10% of the varroa load of the colony. This is probably helpful for the swarm but must place a great burden on the remaining bees in the original colony. I would hazard a guess that swarming confers an advantage to the swarm and a disadvantage to the remaining bees in the fight against varroa.


----------



## mike bispham

jonathan said:


> For a lot of the natural beekeeping people it ("treatment free" is the way to go ) has become like a religion. There is no point in arguing as it has become an unshakable belief system rather than something based on facts or evidence.


What is unshakeable is the simple fact that without constant selection of the right kind there will be continuing vulnerability, continuing sickness. Medication is a trap, a fatal addiction. This is based in upon science, which is itself based on evidence. Its as good a fact as any.

Accepting that fact, and asking constructive questions like 'where do we go from there' and 'how does this fit with the many different kinds of evidence', and what are the available/possible managment options and so on forms the general starting point for those who want to explore the options.

I wrote: "A great deal of the most recent research, and the general feeling in the community, is that systematic treatment is a huge problem. This is a legitimate topic for beesource. "



jonathan said:


> Yes but there is a big difference between chucking chemicals at a colony whether needed or not and adopting a light touch to save a colony which is viable with proper management.


Can I assume that 'yes' includes the legimitate topic part? 

You move on to speak about a specific item of management - the difference between heavy and light use. Sure - there is a difference. But talking more about what the differences are, and why they matter, is again, a topic we can, and should be discussing. 

Your assumption that there is a single 'proper' system of management is, in my view, mistaken. Again, what is appropriate management to whom, and why, are topics that are under discussion here. There is a well-accepted recognition (within those interested in moving firmly away from treatments and towards selection as the primary management tool) that there is no 'one-size fits all' solution. That makes things more too complicated for one-size-fits-all'; and so we have to explore the factors that make a difference, the various contraints in play, and come to have a good understanding of the mechanisms of health-location, in order to be able to design strategies that suit all needs. 



jonathan said:


> For example, I would not neglect to feed a colony, if I knew it had insufficient stores for winter or any other time of the year. A colony low on stores get stressed and is much more susceptible to viral diseases or nosema.


Fine - that would suit your aims. It might not always suit others - those, for example, who were aiming at developing a fully self-sufficient apiary. 



jonathan said:


> At a hobby level, varroa can be controlled to some extent by drone brood culling or shook swarming which does not involve any chemical treatment.


Sure, but the longer-term effect is that the future bees tend to become dependent upon those actions. There is really little difference between all sorts of treatments and manipulations in terms of the effect they have. they amount to changes in the environment to which the bees will adjust - and if/when when removed in the future, those bees will suffer.

The most noticible effect of all sorts of treatments is that the resultant apiary genetics tend to suppress any local feral bee populations. That, many of us think, is an important loss, since the natural selection that occurs among the wild/feral bees is highly beneficial to apiary bees. 



jonathan said:


> A lot of good genetics can be lost through bad management/poor husbandry.


It is far more the case that a lot of unwanted and damaging bloodlines are being preserved through bad management/poor husbandry. All breeders in all field of organic husbandry agree: the weak must not be allowed to contribute to the next generation. Bee husbandry cannot escape the rule.

That is not to say that treatments have no place - only that in general terms it should be recognized that among such preserved individuals, unless there is urgent selection toward the stronger/more resistant, the next generation will be weaker than necessary. That entails allowing the weaker bloodlines to terminate. 

It seems to me - and I may be wrong about this - that your position is that in the UK Amm is the race best placed to form good stock, and that the best thing to do is breed toward Amm characters, making resistance to varroa a secondary consideration. Your own management is geared toward that specific end. Is that right?

Mike


----------



## jonathan

mike bispham said:


> Here in the UK there is a centrally-driven policy of encouraging new beekeepers,...


I'm still curious about this. Whatever did you mean.





> Quote:Originally Posted by jonathan
> For example, I would not neglect to feed a colony, if I knew it had insufficient stores for winter or any other time of the year. A colony low on stores get stressed and is much more susceptible to viral diseases or nosema.





mike bispham said:


> Fine - that would suit your aims. It might not always suit others - those, for example, who were aiming at developing a fully self-sufficient apiary.


So in a year with bad weather and/or poor forage, you lose the lot.
I would feed.
That's an easy stance to take when you are not an active beekeeper and is frankly poor advice to those who do keep bees.



mike bispham said:


> There is really little difference between all sorts of treatments and manipulations in terms of the effect they have. they amount to changes in the environment to which the bees will adjust - and if/when when removed in the future, those bees will suffer.


That displays a misunderstanding of how genetics works and the way recessive genes work.
Your view of this is simplistic and inaccurate. There's no point in even going there as many posters, myself included, have tried hard to explain genetic concepts important in bee breeding in simple layman's terms to no avail. Think diploid drones, additive genes, csd locus etc etc.



mike bispham said:


> The most noticible effect of all sorts of treatments is that the resultant apiary genetics tend to suppress any local feral bee populations.


What was the reference for that again?



mike bispham said:


> It seems to me - and I may be wrong about this - that your position is that in the UK Amm is the race best placed to form good stock, and that the best thing to do is breed toward Amm characters, making resistance to varroa a secondary consideration. Your own management is geared toward that specific end. Is that right?


I don't know if AMM is the race best placed to form good stock but it is the bee native to the British isles and Western Europe so it is likely to have the genetics best adapted to the habitat, certainly in the colder and wetter areas such as where I live. 

varroa is not the only issue. Other diseases and issues affect bees as well and bees should be manageable and productive.


----------



## mike bispham

jonathan said:


> That displays a misunderstanding of how genetics works and the way recessive genes work. Your view of this is simplistic and inaccurate. There's no point in even going there as many posters, myself included, have tried hard to explain genetic concepts important in bee breeding in simple layman's terms to no avail. Think diploid drones, additive genes, csd locus etc etc.


As we all know, you don't have to get into deep technical detail in order to understand how important selection is, or how to go about it. People have been doing it for tens of thousands of years. 

Some people get so absorbed in these details that they lose sight of the basic essentials. (That is if they understood them in the first place - which seems unlikely) They can't see the wood for the trees, and think that by examining each tree with a microscope they'll learn something about the shape of the wood. 

The basic mechanisms of natural selection, and the way this is used by stockholders the world over is all you need to know. Of course, once you know that - and recognise its role as a foundation of bee biology - more detail can be useful. But 'knowing' the detail without the foundation is worse than useless.

The main point - which you repeatedly fail to acknowledge - is that if selection does not happen, there _can be_ no genetic improvement, and there is every likelyhood of worsening health. 

Working from that simple understanding you can start to select with simple guidance from people like Ericksen or Marla Spivak, and improve as you go. 



jonathan said:


> What was the reference for that again? (treated apiary bees make life hard for surrounding wild bees)
> 
> Simple logic from first principles. What do you think the effect of treatment-dependent drones on wild populations will be? Give your reasons.
> 
> 
> 
> jonathan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Other diseases and issues affect bees as well...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, and these too must be firmly selected against.
> 
> 
> jonathan said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... and bees should be manageable and productive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where the balance between freedom from the need to treat and other traits desired by beekeepers lies, is again something that different people have different views about. It depend on the situation and goals. And moving toward the goals is as much art as science.
> 
> Mike
Click to expand...


----------



## jonathan

> The main point - which you repeatedly fail to acknowledge - is that if selection does not happen, there _can be_ no genetic improvement, and there is every likelyhood of worsening health.


The first part of that is probably true. The second part is probably not true due to the nature of how recessive genes work. If you are making these claims you need to reference them. Everyone knows what you think by this stage but you need to back it up.



> As we all know, you don't have to get into deep technical detail in order to understand how important selection is, or how to go about it. People have been doing it for tens of thousands of years.





> Working from that simple understanding you can start to select...


I'm not talking about technical; detail. I am talking about the 'simple understanding' you have which is quite inaccurate at times.



> Originally Posted by mike bispham
> The most noticible effect of all sorts of treatments is that the resultant apiary genetics tend to suppress any local feral bee populations.


LOL.
You made that up and you think you can get away with asking me back a question instead of giving a reference.



The 'most noticible effect' indeed!

PS. Still curious about this:



> Quote:Originally Posted by mike bispham
> Here in the UK there is a centrally-driven policy of encouraging new beekeepers,...


----------



## mike bispham

jonathan said:


> "The main point - which you repeatedly fail to acknowledge - is that if selection does not happen, there _can be_ no genetic improvement, and there is every likelyhood of worsening health. "
> 
> The first part of that is probably true. The second part is probably not true due to the nature of how recessive genes work. If you are making these claims you need to reference them. Everyone knows what you think by this stage but you need to back it up.


The second part is is true in virtue of the fact that the predators are constantly improving their position.

This is an example of what I mean by having the basics in place. All organic life undergoes a constant process of change and shift, as new predators arrive, and as existing ones improve due to their own natural selection for the fittest strains. The prey _must_ therefore respond to these changes in order simply to remain as healthy. 

Its like the business of a shark needing to swim simply to avoid sinking (I don't know if that's true btw) All species must be subjected to health selection in order to mainatain defences in the constant 'arms race' against predators.

This is part of the _foundational_ understanding that makes natural selection one of the deepest principles of biology. 

Beside that fundamental flaw in your reasoning, the notion that the " nature of how recessive genes work" acts against my position is a nonsense. It is a detail of the mechanism by which selection for the fittest strains takes place. Nothing more.

I cannot 'back up' my position more firmly than through basic biology. The fact that my position is fully aligned with the work of all _qualified_ researchers and breeders should indicate to you that there is no disjunction.

This is simply fundamental stuff Jonathan. It isn't made explicit in scientific papers about specific bee problems because the people reading them are assumed to have learned it at the very beginning of their training - it would be entirely superfluous. 



jonathan said:


> I'm not talking about technical; detail. I am talking about the 'simple understanding' you have which is quite inaccurate at times.


If you want to be specific, and tell me what is inaccurate, and why, go ahead. Until then this is hot air from someone with a shaky grasp of basic biology, and, it seems, misconceptions about the hierarchical structure of scientific knowledge.



jonathan said:


> You made that up (that treatment-dependent apiary drones will adversly affect the surrounding wild population) and you think you can get away with asking me back a question instead of giving a reference.


I'm trying to encourage you to think it through for yourself. Nothing else I can do will have quite the same effect as you re-examining your own position. And I don't have a reference. I've got a feeling this came up - as a side-issue- in a paper we looked at recently, and if I come across it again I'll show you. But again, it is so basic that no qualified person would think it worthy of mention. The logic is too straightforward. It is simply intuitive to anyone with even the slightest understanding of breeding in other fields.

Try looking at it this way: beekeepers often fret about incoming genetics from other apiaries, and from wild/feral bees. (Do you need a reference for that?) If wild/feral bees could fret, they'd feel the same way about incoming genetics from apiaries. The last thing any wild bee would want is genes that make bees that require treatment simply to stay alive. Because (I'll spell it out for you) they can't treat themselves. So, guess what, they'll die in greater numbers than they would have otherwise done.

Is that really so incomprehensible? Before you challenge it again, try going away and just thinking it through will you? Think for yourself rather than automatically demanding references for basic material or simple logical steps. This stuff isn't hard. 



jonathan said:


> "PS. Still curious about this:


There was a noticable push a year or so ago to increase the number of people entering the 'craft'. Various rationales were offered - beekeeping is dying out, there will soon be no-one to teach newcomers/there is lots of demand/the world will end without bees etc etc. Probably a lot of it was coming from people with products to push - there was a fancy plastic beehive, and there was concerted effort to encourage, for example, city beekeepers, and calls for courses. One of the main features was that people would start off with just one or two hives, and learn their craft on them. This would involve them learning how to keep one or two colonies alive at all costs. And the methods to be taught were the standard modern 'husbandry' technics of diagnose and treat. I'm sure you don't need to be told of the kind of objections I'd have for all this.

That's about as far as I can go with that, without spending time digging up old articles - and I'm not going to allocate time for that. A minute on google turns up no obvious evidence, and I'm inclined to hope my little campaign against it made a difference.

Mike


----------



## bigbearomaha

Hey Peace, Iwasn't trying to pick on you so much as that type of comment, which I have heard so many times. It really irks me when in the year 2010, people still haven't moved beyond the idea that one living being, trying to 'own' another is rather wrong.

As I went on to state, There are way too many comments left by folks that instead of communicating their own opinion and their own experience, they make every effort to push their ideas as authoritative, trying to place judgment on the methods and ideals that others use.

AS to the notion someone else put out that the folks using 'natural' methods acting as though it were a religion, one could make the same comment about those pushing science as anything more than a tool or method of operation.

science and nature do not exist independently of one another.

As a matter of fact, science only exists in the minds of humans as a method of study and research. Nature does indeed exist and we people are a part of it. We must learn to live with it instead of constantly trying to subjugate it. (not that we really can, but the ongoing effort of those who place an unrealistic value on science would have you think we can and should.) 

My only point here is that if one decides to treat, then do it and keep going. Share your experiences and be happy if it works for you. if someone wants to not treat and use 'natural' methods, then do it and keep going. Share your experiences and be happy if it works for you.

A lot of folks need to let go of the judgmental stuff and quit trying to force their methods on others.

Big Bear


----------



## jonathan

mike bispham said:


> But again, it is so basic that no qualified person would think it worthy of mention.


I can just imagine the bibliography section of your thesis with the above statement instead of the usual list of references.

Seriously Mike, you are failing to understand how genetics works in a population, especially the concept of recessive genes.
They don't just go away you know even after generations of selecting against a trait.
You need to study this properly, probably on a taught course.
There are things you can only take up to a certain point with google and Wiki.

And you still didn't explain what you meant by 'centrally driven policy' You just answered a question you made up youself which was never asked.


----------



## Barry

peacekeeperapiaries said:


> Thats my point in all this, I will continue to strive to be treatment free because that is whats best and would increase my profit margin, I will continue to pass on my best advice to people asking questions whether they are treatment free or not, and in return until the eventual goal of no treatment beekeeping is reached I would appreciate it if I didnt continually hear from a select few how I am driving the honeybee to extinction with feeding, treatments, and proper management.


I hope I never come across in a way that doesn't allow room for our differences. If those who haven't had success going treatment free don't feel free to say so and share their experience without getting read the riot act, that is a problem. We get nowhere if we simply judge others. Simply sharing our own experience and successes and failures is the best way to learn. I appreciate Dennis being transparent and sharing his sad news. No one has all the right answers or the perfect management technique. Again, if we would all focus more on sharing our own experiences and less on critiquing others, we would be better off.


----------



## Barry

mike bispham said:


> I know this must be tough to hear for someone in your position, but it is a fact. Shooting the messenger won't change that.


In the same vein Mike, someone who only shoots an "ideal" message without having room for "less than ideal" realities that real people live, must be tough to hear for someone in your position. People look at those who "pound the pulpit" to see how they live out their own message. Without empathy, a message seldom is heard.


----------



## roseagle

I am a relatively new beekeeper, now in my third year. I attended a treatment free conference last year, and will be attending again this year, because on the face of it, this is what makes sense to me. 

I would like to go on record here as saying I asked Dee Lusby directly, face to face, what I should do in terms of treatments while my bees were transitioning to small cell. Her reply was that you do what you have to, to keep them going in the interim period. With that in mind, I did sugar rolls last year, and decided to use the thymol treatment. I treated each hive once, at different times, based on the results of the mite count. Both of the hives survived the winter, although one was re-queened really late --September-- helped by a frame of brood, and surprised me by surviving at all. I have needed to help them along with extra brood, and this year again they lost that queen, so I helped them again with fresh brood. Both of these hives are on part standard foundation, and part, natural comb (foundationless frames). They are in transition. 

I am fortunate to have a hive of carniolans from a commercial beek that is really strong and has kept this weak hive going. The weak hive, by the way, was a replacement for one that died my first winter with them. That hive now has what I think is chalkbrood [I posted photos here a few days back, under pests, lots of people have looked, but no one has ventured an opinion yet. Perhaps someone reading this will??] Anyway, i have vented the lids on all my hives, as it is very hot here, now, and i have decided to allow that hive to crash, if that is what it is going to do. Short of supplying fresh brood, which they don't appear to need, or honey, which they may need, I am not going to treat-- although I understand that there is no treatment anyway, which keeps that simple. 

Beyond that I have now added four new hives, one of which is a swarm that I caught about three weeks ago and installed in a lang with mostly foundationless frames, which they have filled completely, and some drawn comb on plastic foundation, which they seem to be avoiding. They are doing great. 

The other three new hives were purchased from Sam Comfort. They were overwintered in New York, and I live in PA, so the climate and terrain are similar. These three are top bar hives. Sam has kept track of the lines, so I know that one of my queens is descended from Michael Bush's bees, another from Kirk Webster's (russian origin) , and the third is from a survivor hive of russians, which were in an abandoned hive for five years in New York state. I mention these because I am fairly confident that I have good stock to begin with here. So having taken on this responsibility for them, which I in no way take lightly, I am venturing to see if I can have great success, or if i will totally mess up! I will be happy to report the results here, although I barely have to time to write this now!

In the meantime, I am planning to make a split of my carniolans, now five boxes strong, this weekend. This will be my first time splitting in the three years I have had this hive. They swarmed once, last year. 

I would also like to add here that I took no honey from my hives last year. The weather was wet all summer and I had to feed heavily. They kept all the stores, more than enough to get through the winter. Also, as the season has been good so far, I have not fed sugar once this year, and plan not to, unless the weather conditions demand it. This, as I understand it, is part of not treating-- not swapping honey for white sugar syrup. 

Even when I do feed, I have broken the rules and fed sucanat, a dark brown syrup made from dried whole cane juice. I know, that is supposedly a no-no. But I wouldn't feed white sugar to my kid, so why give it to bees? This I started from day one. I gave the bees in each of my new nucs two jars to choose from, one with organic white sugar, and the other with the dark brown, molasses-colored syrup. When I returned, both hives had downed the dark stuff. Okay, I thought, bees choice! I do not feed this late in the season, though, when the weather is cold and they can't go out on a cleansing flight. 

I'll throw in here, for interest, that we had a swarm take up residence in a tree here, last summer. That hive did not make it. I was doing open feeding, so they did have that chance to make some stores.  i see now that there is an entry that a squirrel was spotted using in that same tree. Maybe that is part of why they didn't make it? 

i was motivated to contribute this post here, because I read the comments about those who try small cell and don't succeed and don't talk. I am still in the early stages of this, as it takes a few years to regress. I thought I would be "up front" now about my attempts, and then keep you posted as to the results, up or down. 

Good day all.
roseagle


----------



## DRUR

Barry said:


> I hope I never come across in a way that doesn't allow room for our differences.


You haven't Barry, and I agree Barry; but I wonder how much allowances for our differences occurs when one starts a thread titled "Small Cells *Debunked*...", and later refers to successes on small cell a *"myth"*? That river runs two ways.



Barry said:


> If those who haven't had success going treatment free don't feel free to say so and share their experience without getting read the riot act, that is a problem.


Actually, Barry I believe the opposite is what happens by some of those who do treat, even to the point of indirectly calling those of us who are succeeding liars. And also, Barry just because small cells don't work for some, doesn't neccessarily mean that it was the result of 'not treating' on small cell. Other environmental factors often come into play [see my response below with regard to Dennis].



Barry said:


> I appreciate Dennis being transparent and sharing his sad news. No one has all the right answers or the perfect management technique.


I agree, and those of us who have had failures should responsibly share those failures, which I feel I have with regard to my swarming problems. I also, appreciate those who treat admitting their massive losses also, as opposed to some who insuate that massive bee losses accross the nation are fictitious.



Barry said:


> No one has all the right answers or the perfect management technique.


And that would include the commercial beeks. Just because one is not currently a commercial beek, nor has been in the past, does not mean that his knowledge and opinion does not rise to the level of others. What really matters is picking oneself up and moving on after a failure, whether that failure be from a commercial beek or so-called hobbyist. For instance the false limitations used to define a 'commercial beek' as one who does not have an outside job even though he is running a 100+ colonies. When I kept bees during the 70's-80's one of my mentors Buckshot Johnston worked for Lone Star Gas full time, kept between 200-300 colonies of bees of his own and helped Woodworth's winter thousands of colonies in this area. But I guess his opinion is to be less valued because he worked an outside job. Last spring when I considered getting back into beekeeping, I conversed with a migratory commercial beek who had had 600-700 colonies [as I can recall] wiped out. He now runs MHQ, but still treats, but much less and only when a problem appears. He had re-built up [without government help] to 200 colonies in 2008 and to 400 colonies in 2009. It was a husband and wife [wife actually retailed the honey at farmers market] operation and he hired high school boys to help during the harvest and extracting. I was impressed with his tenacity, with the way he rolled with the punches, and often think and pray for his continued success.



Barry said:


> Again, if we would all focus more on sharing our own experiences and less on critiquing others, we would be better off.


And I think the small cell advocates generally do this; but then we get caught up in the hype in an overly defensive way when our positions is ridiculed by alluding to it as being 'debunked' and as a 'myth' etc. etc.

The bottom line is Barry, that some of those who treat, completely discount those of us who are having success without treating as a myth when we know for a fact that it is true. Now with regards to Dennis' losses, I don't read into those losses as resulting from a failure to treat; although it could have been, but I mean a queen that has survived 3,4, and 5 years without treatment suddenly dies. Just seems to me that reasonably other factors are involved with his loss.

Kindest Regards
Danny Unger


----------



## Barry

DRUR said:


> That river runs two ways.


It does, but see what happens as a result. 345 posts later, where are we in relation to the first one? At some point, it's better to let the river keep running the way it is and find a new river to enjoy. 



> The bottom line is Barry, that some of those who treat, completely discount those of us who are having success without treating as a myth when we know for a fact that it is true.


This is what allows me to only push so far. I have success in my own bee yard. No amount of nay say will change that. I don't want to lose friends or alienate other beekeepers over this. On both sides, what is accomplished by pushing to the extreme? Just because the thread starts out with a very provocative title shouldn't mean we post in like manner. It was meant to get a rise, and a rise it got. Too bad.


----------



## peacekeeperapiaries

Barry, thank you for your posts and insight. No you dont come across that way, at least not IMO, but there are others that do and it is very common especially in the common forums where a lot of questions are asked especially by beginners and fairly new beeks in regards to treatment, manipulation, inspections, breeding, and mites/diseases. I would love the answer to most problems TRULY be "go get better genetic lines", or "you need to get hygenic bees", or "mites wont grow in small cell", or "go foundationless, clean natural comb solves everything"....I could go on and on with the standard rhetoric...but alas for most they are not the "solve all", fix problem right now, or answer to the questions being posed. There is room for both side of the fence to offer opinions and allow people to make INFORMED decisions.
I agree with DRUR that this problem does lie on both sides of the fence, I have seen it from both sides, and I also agree that sharing the successes and FAILURES from both sides only makes sense. MOST IMPORTANTLY i agree that on either side pushing the extreme or beating on the pulpit does not help anything. I do appreciate both sides and continue to look not only at this particular thread but many others for answers that assist myself and others in solving the complex problems we face.


----------



## mike bispham

jonathan said:


> I can just imagine the bibliography section of your thesis with the above statement (to the effect: 'artificially-maintained bees undermine local wild bees' - with logical case presented, and fullish explanation made) instead of the usual list of references.


If you are writing a serious paper then you reference those works that you have used as evidence. You assume in your readership a level of expertise appropriate to the field (which generally speaking is Phd level). You do not try to fill gaps in their education! If, for example, you do a bit of simple math you don't reference an arithmetic primer! More seriously, if you make a statistical analysis, you don't add to your bibliography books on learning statistics - unless you have made a references in your text to a particular book in the text.

The bibliography is there to take the reader to the studies refrerred to in the argument, not to offer guidance to education! 

The piece I have published to the web entitled _Failure to Select: The Cause of Weakness in Bees:_ Denial of the Mechanisms of Natural Selection as the Main Cause of Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD): A Diagnosis
(http://www.suttonjoinery.co.uk/CCD/thesis.htm) was written specifically to try to explain how the several factors at work interact. It contains no specific references, the reasoning flowing from first principles that I link as as I go. It is not the sort of thing that would ever find a home in a scientific journal, nor was it designed to be. 

Now, if you want to take issue with the notion that treating apiary bees undermines local feral bees, show where my reasoning goes wrong. It shouldn't be hard.



jonathan said:


> Seriously Mike, you are failing to understand how genetics works in a population, especially the concept of recessive genes.


This is a constant refrain of yours, yet despite numerous requests for specifics you don't explain just how it is you think I am going wrong. And so, as I've said, it amounts to simply hot air: ya boo, you're wrong. Until you show how I am going wrong, you ahve achieved nothing. I invite you: take a statement from here, or from my website, and demonstrate for us how it is wrong.



jonathan said:


> They don't just go away you know even after generations of selecting against a trait.


Of course not. But you can establish particular recessive genes in a given locality by eliminating their dominant alternatives in the local population. That is; you establish in the population only individuals that carry the wanted, recessive gene. If neither parent has the unwanted, dominant gene, it cannot be expressed!

It isn't easy - and the last thing you want when trying to do so is the unwanted, crippling dominant genes being held and distributed in the locality. In simplistic terms; the only place they can come from is the artificially-maintained individuals (those wild bees that had them will have died out). That is one of the main reasons why it is important to allow the unfit bloodlines - those carrying the unwanted dominant genes - to self-terminate. 

The unwanted, dominant genes are bound to remain in small numbers, and to tend to increase in the population, setting back resistance. That is why it is critical to keep monitoring and keep selecting hard against them. At he same time nature will be doing a parallel job in the wild population.

Again: while knowledge of things like the role of particular genes, and their nature viz dominance and recession are interesting, and of use to professional breeders, ordinary beekeepers can can go a long way without any such knowledge. Simply ensuring that unsucessful individuals are kept out of the breeding pool, and that the genes of the most sucessful individuals are pressed forward, to increase their numbers in the next generation, is enough to raise resistance - to whatever. All that requires is a method of evaluation (the freeze test for example - but mite monitoring and good judgement might be enough) and systematic selective reproduction.

Keeping alive unsuccessful individuals and allowing them to send their genes into the next generation undermines the process at a stroke. In the context where recessive genes are desirable (and we have that context for some behaviours) the undesirable dominant genes over-ride the wanted recessive genes every time. That is what makes treatments so pernicious. 

Mike


----------



## mike bispham

jonathan said:


> And you still didn't explain what you meant by 'centrally driven policy' You just answered a question you made up youself which was never asked.


The BBA were, and it seems, remain part of what was last year a very visible drive to enlist new beekeepers. Here are some examples:

http://www.adoptabeehive.co.uk/

Ten Thing to do to Help Honey Bees

19th June 2009

Dr Ivor Davis, Master Beekeeper and trustee of the British Beekeepers Association suggests ten things which everyone can do to help preserve our honey bees.

Honey bees across the world are under threat because of virulent viruses transferred by the varroa mite. Nearly all colonies in the wild have died out and without beekeepers to care for them honey bees could disappear in a few years.


"4. Join the beekeepers 
Beekeeping is an enjoyable, fascinating and interesting hobby – and you get to eat your own honey too. Local beekeeping associations run courses every year to help new people to take up beekeeping, find the equipment they need and a colony of bees. Programmes allow 
enthusiasts to become Master Beekeepers. For information visit the British Beekeepers’ Association (BBKA) web site www.britishbee.org.uk "

http://www.bbc.co.uk/berkshire/features/honeybees.pdf

The object of the BBKA is to promote and further the craft of beekeeping and to advance the education of the public in the importance of bees in the environment. http://www.britishbee.org.uk/

If the BBA cannot be considered 'central' to the UK beekeeping industry then I'll have to retract. 

Mike


----------



## jonathan

> Here in the UK there is a centrally-driven policy of encouraging new beekeepers


And to justify that statement you quote a few lines from a beekeeping Charity website.
Really Mike, what do you really expect a beekeeping charity to do?

You will be knocking me down with the news that the Dogs Trust promotes dog welfare issues next.

last time I looked the bbka was not the Government. It's a charity Mike - a beekeeping charity. Where's this 'centrally driven policy encouraging new beekeepers'

When you make a claim you have to be prepared to back it up.


----------



## dickm

Something bothers me about genetics. In the process of meosis, when the strands of DNA are created from the four polar bodies; when two of those are sidelined and the remaining 2 make up the egg....what's the statistical likelihood that any two eggs are the same?
(Have I impressed you? This is as far as I got in a good book on the subject)

To Peter Loring
I just became aware of this post:
>>>I have not directly insulted too many people for that, have I? I haven't received an acceptance of apology from Dick Marron, yet, so he must still be mad at me.<<<<

I had a flash of anger ;>( but decided you probably didn't realize who you were talking to :>). (Karate Black belt). I accepted your apology immediately. I guess it didn't get to the net. I have learned a lot following you around. You are a great source for me.
BTW you were quite wrong on other things that day.

dickm


----------



## jonathan

Apparently recombination of genetic material in the honeybee during meiosis is very high.



> Linkage mapping in the honey bee (Apis mellifera) showed that this species has an unusually high meiotic recombination rate, on the order of 10-fold higher than that of Drosophila and other genetic model systems (Supplemental Table 1; Hunt and Page Jr. 1995; Solignac et al. 2004). The genome-wide recombination rate of the bee is several-fold higher than that reported for any other higher eukaryote, but in the range of some fungi.


There was also a very interesting paragraph in the discussion:


> These studies could provide further evidence that the efficacy of selection is limited even in the presence of a high recombination rate. Recent advances in evolutionary theories on recombination have predicted that genetic drift is a key force that broadens conditions for the evolution of higher recombination (Otto and Lenormand 2002; Barton and Otto 2005). Recombination improves the efficacy of selection in the presence of genetic drift. The magnitude of genetic drift is dependent on the effective size of a population. The honey bee has a small breeding population and an increased recombination rate, consistent with theoretical expectations. The number of colonies that contribute to the pool of males available to mate with honey bee queens is estimated to be no more than 238 (Baudry et al. 1998), resulting in an estimated effective population size of ∼500. Even if the estimate does not represent the effective population size of the bee, but rather the size of the local population (deme), this would suggest a highly spatially structured population, which also influences recombination (Barton and Otto 2005). Alternatively or in addition, selective forces could operate stronger under social complexity. Higher levels of genetic variation and genetic associations could slow the spread of parasites and pathogens in colonies or provide the basis for more task specialization, leading to an increase in colony performance and fitness (Gadau et al. 2000).


http://genome.cshlp.org/content/16/11/1339.full


----------



## mike bispham

dickm said:


> Something bothers me about genetics. In the process of meosis, when the strands of DNA are created from the four polar bodies; when two of those are sidelined and the remaining 2 make up the egg....what's the statistical likelihood that any two eggs are the same?
> (Have I impressed you? This is as far as I got in a good book on the subject)


Hi Dick,

(Bearing in mind I'm no expert) I was going to offer, according to my understanding, zilch, a snowflake job. This is the how/why and definition of 'individual.' No two the same. But then I looked at wiki...

"Meiosis results in a random segregation of the genes contributed from each parent. Each parent organism generally has the same genetic make-up, but differs for a fraction of their genes. Therefore, each gamete produced by a person will be genetically different from the others from that person, as well as from the gametes produced by another person. When gametes first fuse at fertilisation, the chromosomes donated by the parents are combined, and, in humans, this means that (2²²)² = 17.6x10 (to the)12 chromosomally different zygotes are possible for the non-sex chromosomes, even assuming no chromosomal crossover. If crossover occurs once, then on average (4²²)² = 309x1024 genetically different zygotes are possible"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertilization#Humans

So the answer to your question would be the statistical likelyhood of two individuals being the same are 1 in 17,600,000,000,000. This is all for humans however, and bees are different. Can anyone apply that formula to the bee genetic setup?

As I understand it the only time you get non-unique 'individuals' is when a fertilized egg splits in two and both develop - the result being identical twins as they share the same dna. Interestingly plant shoots and cuttings are effectively (genetically) identical. 

Mike


----------



## mike bispham

Not too sure how this helps, but it might be worth pointing out that the second paragraph displays a level of uncertainty about the meaning of the first. 

"These studies could provide further evidence that the efficacy of selection is limited ..."

Does 'selection' here refer to natural selection or husbandry? Or both?

[...] "this would suggest a highly spatially structured population, which also influences recombination (Barton and Otto 2005)." 

"Alternatively or in addition, selective forces could operate stronger under social complexity. Higher levels of genetic variation and genetic associations could slow the spread of parasites and pathogens in colonies or provide the basis for more task specialization, leading to an increase in colony performance and fitness (Gadau et al. 2000). "

Clearly this is relevant to the expert understanding of the mechanisms by which bees gain and maintain fitness in the face of the ever-changing environment, but its hard to see - at the moment - how these rather tentative offerings contribute to, or impact upon, the efforts of ordinary beekeepers to select effectively for a strong next generation. Could you elaborate?

Mike


----------



## jonathan

mike bispham said:


> it might be worth pointing out that the second paragraph displays a level of uncertainty about the meaning of the first.
> 
> "These studies could provide further evidence that the efficacy of selection is limited ..."


That doesn't refer to the first paragraph if you check the discussion of the full article , it refers to studies which have not been carried out yet, thus 'could' as the outcome is uncertain.

As I see it, the main implication is that the relatively high levels of recombination during meiosis is something out of your control, so you might select for one thing and get another. Obviously that can happen anyway, but with higher than average recombination the likelihood is increased.

Another interesting observation ties in with the Zayed et al paper I linked to in an earlier post. (the paper which amongst other things suggested that haplodiploid species can be more prone to extinction due to the quirks of their genetics and sex determination at the csd locus.)

The Beye et al paper linked to above suggests that as a honeybee virgin queen has a relatively limited deme to mate with. (drones from an average of 238 colonies) The higher than average recombination in the genome could have evolved to counteract this.


----------



## JPK

Why don't you folks agree to disagree and shut down this thread already.

While there have been a few noteworthy posts the majority of this entire thread is just a couple of folks bickering.

Don't you folks realize that you're none of you are going to convince anyone of the "superiority" of your argument when you either don't keep bees or have a vested financial interest in a particular position due to the fact that you're employed/funded by State/Federal Agencies with a clear/stated/vested interest in a particular outcome?


----------



## dickm

JPK says:
>>>>
Why don't you folks agree to disagree and shut down this thread already.
>>>>>>

Perhaps a good idea. Barry, can these last posts be moved to something labled "Genetics" ?



>>>>>While there have been a few noteworthy posts the majority of this entire thread is just a couple of folks bickering.
>>>>>>>>

There's a lot of good meat in this thread. Suggest you stop reading it.

Dickm


----------



## WLC

Jonathan:

It's not just the csd /diploid drone issue. There's also the more recent issue of virus related inserts into the bee genome and the resulting reduction in viable haploid drones. Haploid drone eggs/larvae with lethal mutations won't be viable.

That being said, I have yet to hear a scientifically validated reason for why small cell is an effective means of mite mitigation. Is it the hygienic trait, S. marcescans, or something else?


----------



## mike bispham

Not really wanting to continue this discussion, as in my view it hasn't been shown to offer any insights of much use to ordinary beekeepers and their discussion of natural beekeeping... but....



jonathan said:


> As I see it, the main implication is that the relatively high levels of recombination during meiosis is something out of your control, so you might select for one thing and get another. Obviously that can happen anyway, but with higher than average recombination the likelihood is increased.


Yes, I suppose so, but ... so what...? Stop trying to select and just go down the medication route? Leave selection to expert bee breeders...? Just what is your point - what are you trying to tell us with this material? How do these findings (and the speculative extensions) impact on the discussion of natural celling and natural non-treatment and/or selective beekeeping? Not wishing to be rude, but this is starting to look like the familiar 'blind 'em with science' game. 

I'm interested in this stuff, and would like to learn more, but I agree with others - it belongs on its own thread. Why not start one, and let us know where it is? 

Mike


----------



## mike bispham

JPK said:


> Don't you folks realize that you're none of you are going to convince anyone of the "superiority" of your argument when you either don't keep bees or have a vested financial interest in a particular position due to the fact that you're employed/funded by State/Federal Agencies with a clear/stated/vested interest in a particular outcome?


I'm curious: how would having a vested interest make an argument more convincing? It would normally be thought to indicate the need for increased scepticism.

Mike


----------



## mike bispham

I've attemped to revive the thread In An Ideal Beekeepers World by extracting and commenting on the aims and methods of the EU COLOSS project that Peter used to start it. 

http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?p=544102#post544102

Mike


----------



## JPK

mike bispham said:


> I'm curious: how would having a vested interest make an argument more convincing? It would normally be thought to indicate the need for increased scepticism.
> 
> Mike


Mike, you totally miss the point....its not about being more convincing but rather undermining integrity.


----------



## WLC

On average, there are 5.7 recombination events/chromosome pair/meiosis in the honey bee genome.


----------

