# 4.8mm cells vs 5.4mm cells



## Bizzybee (Jan 29, 2006)

Oh my! You are providing fodder for a fight! 

That was the intent with large cell. Big bees, Big crops. Everybody was fat dumb and happy until the mites came along and in comes the small cell scene.

Search the forums for small cell. You'll find enough to read for the next few weeks. Every question you can think of and then some has been hashed over from about every conceivable angle I would venture to guess. 

Enjoy!!


----------



## tecumseh (Apr 26, 2005)

early research (long before the mite became a concern) suggested that 1) the larger bees with longer tongues would produce more honey. also the larger queens were 2) KNOWN to be much more prolific in producing eggs which would have fed back into #1.

I suspect (don't absolutely know) that much (but not all) of the early selection was (as it was in a lot of agriculture) about selecting for size.... with size suggesting something was more prolific or robust. when techniques to measure were quite crude (relative to todays methods) it is easy to see why benefits could have been associated with crude physical measurements that were more inferred that actual in regards to results.


----------



## Jim 134 (Dec 1, 2007)

little55 said:


> I have been doing some research on natural sized comb for the benefits of mite reduction and other reasons as well, but I can't seem to find anything on the benefits of using larger sized cells(5.2-5.4). My question here is what is the purpose of larger cells.I know the bees are larger does it help each bee be able to bring more necter back to the hive ect.. If that were the case you would think that more bees would be produced in the same amount of time with smaller size cells and that would tip the scales toward small cells because of less mites and disease.This may seem elementary to some but I would appreciate the info.




The same reason for make big cells over 50-75 years a go. More necter



BEE HAPPY Jim 134


----------



## Bud Dingler (Feb 8, 2008)

*contrary to popular belief*

there is no published and validated research from any universities that small cell has any positive effect on mite loads. 

in fact a recent research paper from Jennifer Berry showed an increase in mite loads with small cell

finding "articles" with no scientific references to back it up expounding on the so called benefits of small cells are everywhere. buyer beware!


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

little55 said:


> I have been doing some research on *natural* sized comb for the benefits of mite reduction


First things first. Are you referring to natural sized cell or small cell? Only on rare occasions are they the same. As part of Berry's small cell study samples from over 150 'natural' brood nests were measured. Less than 1% were smaller than 5mm. If my memory serves me the average was between 5.1 and 5.2mm.


----------



## little55 (Aug 6, 2008)

I was more or less referring to natural size comb.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

little55 >I have been doing some research on natural sized comb for the benefits of mite reduction 
little55 >I was more or less referring to natural size comb. 

I'm not aware of anyone who claims that natural sized cells reduce mite loads.


----------



## drobbins (Jun 1, 2005)

have you read Dennis' website?

http://bwrangler.litarium.com/

lot's of good stuff

Dave


----------



## Rob Renneker (Aug 7, 2006)

I am very open minded to small cell and would consider going to it if it would mean a healthier hive and less treatments. I have never worked with small cell and am still listening to other peoples experiences. Referring back to the original question, I recently read in "Bee Sex Essentials" (by Larry Connor...p.74) that "large queens produce more ovarioles (egg producing structures) and as a result can lay more eggs in the same time period as a smaller queen of the same stock". He goes on to say that more eggs produce larger colonies, collect more nectar, and pollinate more flowers. This sounds like it makes sense to me, anyway.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Bud Dingler said:


> there is no published and validated research from any universities that small cell has any positive effect on mite loads.


While true, please keep in mind that there are loads of published papers that show the negative effects varroa is having on bees on "large" cell.


----------



## Bud Dingler (Feb 8, 2008)

*no scientific proof*

Why would all of the top bee researchers (Spivak, Delphanie, Ellis, Seeley , many others etc) ignore small cell? 

Maybe cause there is absolutely no scientific basis for it? Why also are the huge commercial outfits also not using small cell? 

*Someone please list a scientist or University researcher, anyone with some credentials and does real bee research that will stand behind small cell.* 

Aah let me guess - its either a conspiracy or these educators and industry leaders are all fools? This is such an embarrassing topic that comes up over and over again. I feel sorry for the beginner who gets suck into the black hole called small cell. 

Seriously folks ignore the well meaning folks here pitching small cell. If you want to run without treatments run a VSH or Russian strain. Regressing bees and the rest of that nonsense is well nonsense. 

We have a name for people who use non-scientifically proven methods like small cell, mineral oil fogging, vinegar vaporizing etc. Its called faith based beekeeping, since faith is the only thing that makes it work!!!!!!!

Here is a dose of reality

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3081789258595842918


----------



## AR Beekeeper (Sep 25, 2008)

I have had 20 colonies on small cell for 2 years and it is my opinion that putting them on 4.9 is as unnatural as putting them on very large cells (above 5.4). When left to draw comb on starter sticks they draw 5.0 to 5.2 in the center of the brood nest.

The varroa numbers are as high or higher on 4.9 as on Pierco 5.2. The colony health is equal on all sizes of cells (4.9, 5.2, 5.4) if all colonies are drawing new comb. The first year all colonies superseded their queens twice while being regressed and the queens were very reluctent to lay in the 5.1 to 4.9 cells. 

One thing I have noticed is the colonies that draw 4.9 comb with the least poor comb have had the lowest varroa counts. I have 4 of the 20 colonies headed by sister queens that fall in this group. I credit the queen's vsh genetics for this performance, not the cell size. Selecting for genetics, clean comb and a lot of tender loving care could be why small cell seems to work so well.

I will continue with 4.9 cell for another year before starting to change back to 5.2mm. The past 2 years have been a lot of fun learning new things about bees, but I would not have wanted to do it without experience with "regular" beekeeping. Had I not have had experience and known how to approach problems, I would have been very frustrated at times.

Hobby beekeeping is supposed to be fun. I encourage beginning beekeepers to try new things and to learn new techniques but I think it is easier to do after you are well grounded in standard beekeeping practices.

Well, like Forest Gump said "That's all I have to say about that."


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Bud Dingler said:


> Why would all of the top bee researchers (Spivak, Delphanie, Ellis, Seeley , many others etc) ignore small cell?


Cause it's a hot potato?



> Maybe cause there is absolutely no scientific basis for it?


That would be reasonable since the top bee researchers ignore it.



> Why also are the huge commercial outfits also not using small cell?


I didn't pick up from the original poster that he/she was interested in commercial beekeeping. Not sure what the connection is for you bringing in the commercial side.



> Seriously folks ignore the well meaning folks here pitching small cell. If you want to run without treatments run a VSH or Russian strain. Regressing bees and the rest of that nonsense is well nonsense.


Seriously folks, ignore the well meaning folks here bashing small cell. More often than not, they have never tried it themselves and have no personal experience to base their comments on.



> Here is a dose of reality


Here is another dose of reality

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


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Barry said:


> 7
> That would be reasonable since the top bee researchers ignore it.


So, Keith Delaplane and Jennifer Berry don't qualify as 'top bee researchers'?
Amanda Ellis?


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

A) The list of researchers Bud listed claiming to ignore small cell is false
B) No researcher to date has done a "whole hive" study of SC to determine why those using it are not needing to treat their bees for mites.

Take your pick.

The Berry study counted mites. How does this prove or disprove SC? The evidence is there with many beekeepers who are using SC. I know for myself that the times I saw mites on my bees once I was fully established on SC dropped enormously. But so what. It's not about mites, it's about . . . oh forget it, I'm just repeating myself again and have sworn to let others fight this one. I don't need to.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Barry said:


> oh forget it, I'm just repeating myself again and have sworn to let others fight this one. I don't need to.


I've said the same thing...only from the other side of the debate. And I still find myself 'sucked in' from time to time.
Although you scoff at Berry's study, its hard to say she is ignoring small cell just because she didn't design her study to your satisfaction.
And that's all I'm going to say on the subject....for today.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Sounds fair. We can debate a bit more tomorrow.


----------



## Bizzybee (Jan 29, 2006)

I tried to warn you little55! You see what you done gone and started!!


----------



## Bud Dingler (Feb 8, 2008)

*Its the slow season*

"I tried to warn you little55! You see what you done gone and started!"

Thats when we get to rehash the old!!!!

I come from an R&D background and I find that common folk have a lack of appreciation for researchers and science, even a disdain in some cases. 

I'll go with the science before anecdotal reports from hobby beeks. 

Barry my point about commercial beeks is they are a rough bunch and if something works (legal or not) and is cheap they will run with it. Its just another nail in the coffin for SC when the big boys have no time for nonsense like SC. 

To the beginners who are reading this - one sure fire way to beat the mites is to run a dink colony. Since the mites are parasites the boomer colonies are the ones that succumb first. A colony struggling to "regress" is in itself a dink and unlikely to be a mite haven, so this Sc may have nothing to do with it. 

Running VSH or Russian on small cell too is a waste of time since we have numerous sceintific reports which validate the fact that these genetics can survive with no treatments. 

Take an Italian strain with no mn hygenic or VSH genetics and run them on SC for a real test. 

In the commercial world 100 pound plus crops are the norm. 

*Let me through out another challenge - any SCers laying any claims to 3 digit average harvests for their apiary? *

For those who believe that the scientific community has the wrong slant on SC I have a web site for you, that you will find other good company

www.rense.com 

Its full of conspiracy and anti government gibberish. SC fits right into that kind of fringe thinking that those with credentials and/or who make a living in the industry somehow know nothing. 

Let me tell you something folks - I worked with some of the best minds in our country and its just plain weirdo thinking that some back yard beekeepers have the real solutions to the varroa mite problem and that the published science is incomplete is just plain IGNORANT!


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Bud Dingler said:


> common folk
> 
> nonsense like SC.


If you were directing this to any other member besides myself, your post would be deleted. FYI



> To the beginners who are reading this - one sure fire way to beat the mites is to run a dink colony. Since the mites are parasites the boomer colonies are the ones that succumb first. A colony struggling to "regress" is in itself a dink and unlikely to be a mite haven, so this Sc may have nothing to do with it.


The way you talk indicates you have no firsthand experience with SC. All just theory to you. Care to explain what experience you've had with it?



> Take an Italian strain with no mn hygenic or VSH genetics and run them on SC for a real test.


Yea Bud, go right ahead, do it for yourself. Let us know what happens.


----------



## pgmrdan (Nov 20, 2007)

I'm still fairly new here but I'm beginning to love this set of forums on beesource.

I've wasted far too much time looking into small cell as a starting point for a new beekeeper and here is a subset of what I've found.

Small cell has a cult following.

Small cellers think educated people are stupid and educated people can't understand the conspiracy that the University researchers are pulling off. For what reason they're running a conpiracy they can't say.

There is no scientific proof for the claims of those who use small cell.

One very well known small celler claims that small cell takes care of ALL bee problems. (Yes, he claims ALL! The 'too good to be true' snake oil claim.)

Jennifer Berry at the University of Georgia Bee Research Center (where she is the research coordinator reporting to Dr. Keith S. Delaplane) has shown twice (she repeated the study) that the number of varroa mites increased in the hives using small cell.

If you look at Dadant's The Hive and the Honey Bee on or around page 26 there is a good bit of information and a table about how many bees per unit of measure were found out in nature in several areas around the world. Their findings do not agree with the small cellers. Small cells are not natural cells.

In a poll on beesource it was found that many people have bees on standard sized cells that they aren't treating and that have survived for quite a number of years.

Critics attribute any success of small cellers in AZ to the abundance of AHB genetics in the area that have interspersed with the EHB in the area.

Small cellers can't get their ducks in a row with the same answer to why small cell works because it doesn't work.

The conclusion I reached for my personal use is that small cell is a complete and total waste of time.


----------



## Bud Dingler (Feb 8, 2008)

*rebuttal*

pgmrdan

thanks you for the OBVIOUS - you will make a great beekeeper with your analytical mind. 

my apologies also if I offended anyone - not my intention. The term "common folk" could be interchanged with lay people, meaning a non researcher or scientist. I find it amusing that the Moderator would threaten to have a post deleted for something as benign as that. Touched a nerve perhaps? 

We need to RESPECT the highly trained researchers who have dedicated their lives to improving beekeeping. The trend towards people not putting credence in real science or research and instead touting faith based ideas is troubling and not peculiar to just beekeeping. Two of the brightest minds in beekeeping research are Marla Spivak and Tom Seeley. If any of you get a chance to hear them speak and meet them afterwards, I think you would be impressed as they both promote chemical free beekeeping and have common sense answers to SC and other beekeeping issues. 

While some industries have millions or billions of dollars sloshing around that provides incentive for shenanigans and fraud - where is the financial incentive for a conspiracy in the beekeeping researcher community to deep six SC?


----------



## db_land (Aug 29, 2003)

*R-E-S-P-E-C-T common sense*

Hey Bud, how about a little RESPECT for us common folks? Here's a little common sense for you: there ain't no money in researching small cell. Why would a chemical company fund research to prove that their chemicals/pesticides are not needed? News Flash >> as soon as some authoritive "scientist/researcher" proves that pesticides are not needed for mite control a lot of products, money and jobs go away. Scientist/Researchers are driven to publish -- it's how they earn their bread -- so why would they want to put themselves out of a job? Fortunately, there are researchers that work for more than just money and fame, including the folks you mention. But why be stuck on naive about it? Duh!


----------



## pgmrdan (Nov 20, 2007)

db_land said:


> Hey Bud, how about a little RESPECT for us common folks? Here's a little common sense for you: there ain't no money in researching small cell.


Small cell HAS been researched. It doesn't work for varroa.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

db_land said:


> Here's a little common sense for you: there ain't no money in researching small cell. Why would a chemical company fund research to prove that their chemicals/pesticides are not needed? News Flash >> as soon as some authoritive "scientist/researcher" proves that pesticides are not needed for mite control a lot of products, money and jobs go away. Scientist/Researchers are driven to publish -- it's how they earn their bread -- so why would they want to put themselves out of a job? Fortunately, there are researchers that work for more than just money and fame, including the folks you mention. But why be stuck on naive about it? Duh!


Duh??? Very little of the funding for honey bee research comes from private industry. Its a myth. I asked Keith Delaplane once about that type of funding. He said the last private research funding he received from a company was many years ago and the results went against the company's interest. The vast majority of funding comes from government grants. If a researcher can put together a sensible proposal for reduced or chemical free beekeeping he stands to get some money. The USDA is awarding many grants for IPM, reduced and chemical free studies. The UGA beelab is currently examining the effects of subleathal doses of various common pesticides on honey bees. There isn't likely to be anything from that type of research that'll make any pesticide outfits happy. 
Duh? News Flash? naive?
You are only perpetuating a myth circulated by people who don't require any facts to make absolute statements.


----------



## mudlake (Nov 26, 2007)

This is like asking 10 beekeepers a question you will get 11 answers. Keep posting please that is the only way most of us will learn. Tony


----------



## Bud Dingler (Feb 8, 2008)

*correcto mundo*

I concur that most research is funded by: honey packers, almond growers, bee keepers, donations from companies like Hagen Dazz or Burts Bees or from the USDA or other grants etc.

In general there is not enough funding to go around. I suggest everyone find a local or state or national bee club to participate in and go and see some of the great bee researchers speak at meetings etc. This will greatly open your eyes to the reality of the situation. Also if you can donate to organizations like Project Apis

http://www.projectapism.org/

For example some of the feedlot beeks who don't want to believe in the science behind the Bayer controversy with Imid etc funded their own research which from what I hear through the grapevine basically confirmed what we already new. no cigar. 

the experiment involved isolating test colonies away from any ag pesticide spray, installing pollen traps to they could not get access to wild pollen and then force fed 2 different groups a high and low dose of Imid. in a pollen substitute the control colony got nothing but pollen substitutes. 

the low dose imid was close to what Bayer says bees would see in treated crops. the high dose way off the charts. again no cigar - the answer was already in the published peer reviewed science papers. 

Again I refer the conspiracy theorists to www.rense.com you'll find more of your kind over there in the corner with tin foils hats and pocket protectors. 

small cell joins the ranks of mineral oil fogging, vinegar vaporization and cannibis leaves in the smoker. repeat after me..... we believe cause we believe........cause we have nothing else to go on.....

the morrow of the story is respect your researchers and bee darned glad we have so many and the quality too. go to OUS countries like eastern Europe and they don't have the same breadth and quality of bee research. 

Its a shame really that some segments of beekeepers have such disdain towards real science and highly educated people who are trying to help the industry. This is a problem in many areas of our every day lives. Self proclaimed experts tout bogus voodoo science and now have the pulpit of the internet to spread their well meaning but bogus truths. 

Tha'ts really why Beesource exists at all. A splinter group expunged from the BEE List over the mineral oil fogging debacle if I recall. Its turned out to bee a great site though as the content is geared to beginners and hobbyists etc and has a large user base.


----------



## db_land (Aug 29, 2003)

*What's Bayer got to do with SC?*

I don't know why a pharmaceutical giant like Bayer was brought up in the context of a Small Cell discussion, but Bayer sure doesn't have a problem using Dr. Delaplane as a reference

http://www.animalhealth.bayerhealthcare.com/3424.0.html#c7503

Check out the references. The study was published in that venerable scientific journal "Apidologie" vol 30, pages 361-366. As best I can tell, Bayer provided "financial support" for the study that concluded CheckMite was very effective against both varroa mites and hive beetles. The study was very informative about how much and when to use the product. 

There may not be a direct financial link to Dr. Delaplane and/or UGA research, but I suspect Bayer (and others like Mansanto?) provide financial support, product and collaboration with many graduate/undergraduate research projects. That's not necessarily a bad thing. My point is that there's no such funding for Small Cell. Despite years of vociferous advocacy by hundreds of beekeepers who claim it works as an effective IPM strategy against vorroa, there has never been a serious study to prove/disprove SC and why it does/doesn't help with varroa mite control. There's nothing in it for the researchers.


----------



## pgmrdan (Nov 20, 2007)

"there has never been a serious study to prove/disprove SC and why it does/doesn't help with varroa mite control."

University of Georgia's study by Jennifer Berry wasn't serious???


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Bud Dingler said:


> Self proclaimed experts tout bogus voodoo science and now have the pulpit of the internet to spread their well meaning but bogus truths.
> 
> Tha'ts really why Beesource exists at all.


:doh: As a member Bud, I'll bet you're pleased to have the pulpit.



> A splinter group expunged from the BEE List over the mineral oil fogging debacle if I recall.


Nope, your recall is not correct.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>but I can't seem to find anything on the benefits of using larger sized cells(5.2-5.4)

The scientists Baudoux, Pinchot, Gontarski and others found out they could make bigger bees and several of them even had research to prove that they were amazingly more productive. Research that since has not seemed to prove out.

In my experience there is no benefit to large cells.

Instead of arguing small cell, and about what size is natural let's try the simple logic test for natural comb:

Either natural cell size helps with Varroa or it does not. If it does not, there is no evidence that it is detrimental. If it does, and there are many anecdotal references that would indicate it might, then it would be well worth doing. So there appears to be no downside to using natural cell and a huge possible upside.

We know that the foundation supply is contaminated with acaracides (fluvalinate, coumaphos and amitraz among others). I believe this is at the point of being beyond dispute. We also know that contaminated comb is contributing to shorted lives of queens and the infertility of drones. The effect of shortening worker lives might be up to debate as to how significant that is, but we know the hive depends on the queen and a queen who is failing or getting superseded repeatedly is not contributing to the success of the hive.

We know that natural comb is not going to be contaminated with acaracides. We know that it is the “right” size. We know it’s possible to induce the bees to build it in a frame (see historical references from Huber on until the early 1900s).

We know it’s possible to put wire in foundationless frames when getting natural comb for reinforcement if strength is an issue.

We know that the current cell size of foundation is NOT natural (see historical references from Huber on until early 1900s). http://www.bushfarms.com/beesnaturalcell.htm#historiccellsize

We know that artificially large cell sizes changes the anatomy of the bee (see historical references from Huber on until early 1900s, particularly writings of Baudoux et al). http://www.apidologie.org/index.php...=/articles/apido/abs/2006/06/m6049/m6049.html

Therefore since there is no reason from the point of view of the health of our bees that I can see NOT to use natural comb and at least one KNOWN reason (contamination) that foundation is detrimental, at least one LIKELY reason (the effects of artificial enlargement on the health and vitality of the bee) it could be detrimental and at least one POSSIBLE reason (more Varroa reproduction) that it could be detrimental, I think the most prudent choice would be to stop using foundation and use only natural comb.


----------



## Oldbee (Sep 25, 2006)

What is the MINIMUM size cell that bees can use to reproduce [raise brood] and maintain a viable colony? Has anyone,..'analyzed this??

In a RECENT [DEC. 2008!!!] article in Bee Culture, Jennifer Berry spends a good deal of time discussing 'old comb' and how cell size is reduced as the comb gets 'older'.-- "As mentioned before, while brood comb ages, the diameter of the cell decreases due to accumulated cocoons and fecal matter that are deposited by the larval and pupal instars,...."--J. Berry.

Is this what is happening? Small cell 'people' have comb in their hives that is now LESS than 4.8 or 4.9?? Certainly, small cell beekeepers are not replacing their comb every 2-3 years,...are they? An EXORBITANT cost for commercial or even side-line beekeepers I would think.

If this is so important, why not pay someone [research funds?] to to make 'foundation' that is,....4.0, 4.1, 4.3 or 4.5 and,.. 'see' what happens regarding those mites?


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>What is the MINIMUM size cell that bees can use to reproduce [raise brood] and maintain a viable colony? Has anyone,..'analyzed this??

According to Baudoux the Italians at the time he started upsizing had foundation that was about 4.6mm. I've seen, and have pictures of, natural comb from Pennsylvania that is 4.4mm. I've seen a lot of natural comb from regressed bees that was 4.6mm. I've seen comb from package bees that was 4.7mm.


----------



## wayacoyote (Nov 3, 2003)

It seems to me that this argument is dancing around the same issues the routinely come up when two sides disagree. "what is science?" "was science applied?" "was the applicaiton(s) thurough? etc... 
It is no surprise that such things be argued here, for they are also argued in "the scientific community." 

In my scientific research, we didn't look for 100% results, only Statistical results. Papers were written to describe our methods and to discuss the results. Why? so that others could analyze, repeat, and debate our findings. No toes are stepped on when it isn't personal. Too often it becomes personal.

Debate is great! 

Some would rather argue.


----------



## Bud Dingler (Feb 8, 2008)

*what is science?*

No debate really with small cell. There is ZERO scientific data or published papers that confirm the legitimacy of the major claims from the small cell crowd. 

If you delve into some of the claims its a house of cards with almost every known bee ailment cured by small cell, smaller bees accessing medicinal native plants that the so called enlarged bees cannot access, mite balancing and a host of other hypothesis. 

That's the POINT a hypothesis does not make a scientific fact and we are not debating science. Many small cell disciples dispute the science and claim conspiracy and ignorance for lack of any published evidence.


----------



## Joseph Clemens (Feb 12, 2005)

I use various comb sources, randomly, in my hives; foundationless, small-cell, drone foundation, and the usual 5.4 mm regular worker foundation. My motive is simply to have fun and enjoy observing the bees. 

It seems very reasonable that reducing or eliminating pesticide contaminated wax in beehives is a very good thing.

I have much more of a problem with the bees robbing each others hives, than I do with either kind of mite.

Since there appears to be little official scientific research to substantiate that small-cell comb is beneficial in any way. My curiosity is deeply engaged - is there contemporary scientific research to substantiate that 5.4 mm cell size is beneficial in any way? Does cell size really have any impact - for good or ill?


----------



## Omaejel (Nov 29, 2008)

Michael Bush said:


> >
> Therefore since there is no reason from the point of view of the health of our bees that I can see NOT to use natural comb and at least one KNOWN reason (contamination) that foundation is detrimental, at least one LIKELY reason (the effects of artificial enlargement on the health and vitality of the bee) it could be detrimental and at least one POSSIBLE reason (more Varroa reproduction) that it could be detrimental, I think the most prudent choice would be to stop using foundation and use only natural comb.


You have summed up what my thoughts are been about the situation. 

There is also one more upside that you forgot to mention. No more money spent of foundation.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>There is also one more upside that you forgot to mention. No more money spent of foundation.

And no more time spent putting it in...


----------



## wayacoyote (Nov 3, 2003)

Bud Dingler said:


> and we are not debating science.


Thus my point toward arguing.


----------



## Musashi (Dec 5, 2008)

Hi all!

Mr. Bush, I wanted to thank you for your wonderful website. It's beeen a great piece of alternative information as I've been soaking up everything about the fascinating art of beekeeping.

In that vein, I find myself quite agreeable to your stance on natural comb. I have a variety of foundation at my disposal but have just about decided to use empty frames with a starter strip of wax foundation at the top of the grooved frame. I was thinking I could only do this on supers as the long term strength needed in the deep brood box I'll be using was not sufficient. I see you mentioned wiring an empty frame so I was thinking that might be the solution for the brood box? 

I have some small cell foundation but anything other than natural comb seems to lose value in the comparison. I just love the idea that harvesting each year's comb would result in a much more pristine product. If small cell or natural comb reduces mite population more the better, but who cares if it does or not. The anti-small cell people seem hung up on small cell fans claims on not needing to use as much or any pesticides. That incredulity seems to be the basis of the heated tone of the anti-small cell crowd. If you take V mite claims out of the small cell conversation then I think a lot of people would be much more calm about the topic. Helps a little, helps a lot or helps none....what is the difference? No one seems to dispute that it can't hurt (much), other than some possible lost productivity why you try it out.

This level of emotion about small cell is amazing to me. It hurts NOTHING to try. We're all trying 8 different kinds of Beetle Traps and Bottom Boards. Here in Florida, many never use inner covers---they're just beetle hiding playgrounds. We're all trying all sorts of stuff, why not try small cell?

Bees have been doing their thing a LOT longer than commercially available foundation has been around. Heck the pest problem is effect has only been around in ernest for 20 years give or take. The subsequent dumping of chemicals to deal with the new threat is nothing agri-types haven't been doing all along. Just like the poor chickens raised in horrid conditions vs free range chickens and cattle stuffed in feces thickened pens out West vs a rancher with ten head of cattle on his farm, so too goes honey and related products. There is the amalgamation we find in Walmart-comprised of honey from around the world in ONE bottle, frequently adulterated and almost always pasteurized vs a backyard or sideline beek with 20-200 hives selling the honey off the back of his truck. If us "gourmet" honey types aren't producing more flavorful, healthy honey then what are we doing? In the race to produce more honey are we willing to sacrifice our souls to do it? 

At what point do we start to say, this is a gourmet product where it IS harder to produce delicious healthy due to imported pests, AHB fears, etc. If the backyard beekeeper could look someone straight in the face and say this honey came from comb that is new and fresh and then CHARGE a premium price wouldn't all the problems be solved. It seems to me it's an education challenge for the public to understand the difference between the grocery store product and what I have to offer is where the rubber hits the road. Will small cell or SBB or powdered sugar shakes cure the pest problem? Highly unlikely. I do know that the IPM ideas are non toxic to the bees and to my customers. As long as I'm trying to minimize the chemicals then my stewardship is on target. It would be folly to ignore the benefits of all chemicals in an IPM mindset but small cell can't possibly cause me or the bees any harm. And as I'm leaning heavily to natural comb on near empty frames, what is wrong with making up the lost honey with selling beeswax related products. It commands a decent price unworked.

Those of you who fight so hard against the small cell thing seem to be upset about what you characterize as huckster claims regarding mites. I'm in Florida, trust me the SHB is a way bigger problem. The fear of AHB is real. Just let your colony raise their own queen? Right! No small cell is going to do anything about those problems just to name a few. So what if small cell doesnt affect mite drops. It's sure as heck worth a try and it introduces no new chemicals into the conversation. 

If you think again to the idea of backyard beekeepers able to command a premium price for first year comb, if the general public understood that comb honey is almost by it's very nature the most pure product available then small cell would be more easily embraced as a POSSIBILITY. Because any method that encourages comb honey---read as pristine as possible---would be more readily embraced. The drive to produce produce produce in ever increasing bulk seems to be some of the crux of the problem. 

Everywhere I read, people who have comb or chunk honey can't keep the stuff it's so popular. Obviously there are enough people running around who understand the innate health benefits. Don't try to compete with Wal-Mart honey in a little bear. You'll never win that battle and you sell your product short. Don't sell small cell short as it has at the VERY LEAST brought the concept of "regressing" bees, which would lead some people, like myself to say..."hmm...why stop there? I'll just go all the way to NO foundation!" I'm not sure how much if any credence I put in small cell FOUNDATION, but it's obvious that bees make different sized cells based on brood type and even variance of the bee size itself. No pre-made commercial foundation is ever going to be able to account for all those slight variances on one comb so in that regard I don't care if small cell results in lower build time/hurts the mites development. I care that the concept of one size 'don't fit all' was much more important. I know it isn't the intend of small cell proponents to suggest comb honey production is the way to go but that's what it did for me at least. 

Like anything there are a million variables. In my case I have all the pests known to man down here in Florida but I also have the weather to make chunk honey more viable due to a longer harvesting period. I doubt any technique in any study is going to be able to say xyz foundation did this simply due to the weather. Not only is each year's weather variable but studying anything that does or does not work in Minnesota might not mean much to me where it's going to be 78 degrees today and it's December 9th. I am not discounting the study that small cell didn't result in lower mite drops. I'm adding that information to every other piece of info I have on hand. Neither side need use that study as the drivinng wedge to attack the opposing view.

The more important lesson was there is a way to approach beekeeping which emphasizes comb honey products, which allows my ethics to sleep unfettered by driving me to produce a premium product that I will charge a premium price for! ;-)

Musashi


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Musashi said:


> This level of emotion about small cell is amazing to me. It hurts NOTHING to try.


This just isn't necessarily so. I've documented my experiences on multiple occasions and do not intend to repeat them. Others have as well. I realize that I can't compete with 'high volume' posters who promote small cell to newcomers. 
I think that natural cell is a different story. But even that isn't necessarily simple as is often implied. Again, I've already spoken about that as well. Having said that, if you want to use starter strips/foundationless frames for your deep brood box, I'd highly recommend wiring, using all four crosswires for support.


----------



## Musashi (Dec 5, 2008)

Yeah, I'm going to give some serious thought to using no foundation in the brood box, wired up. I get the feeling I'll get lazy though and just try different established foundations in the single Deep Brood box and use starter strips and blank frames for the supers. That is likely the compromise I'll go with. Of course the real benefit, if any mite wise, would be realized in the brood box so that is why I'll try two hives with the small cell in the brood box. If I really wanted to go au natural, I suppose I should make my own non-embossed wax sheets from wax harvested from my own supers to at least give the little buggers a guide seeing as how I won't be harvesting from their brood box ;-)

I meant it can't "hurt" as in, if and when I decided to use small cell if it doesn't work for me and one of those little voices in my head says, "rethink that battle plan soldier", then I will march on to the beat of a different drummer at that point. (FYI, I have several competing voices in my head, have a beer with me at your own risk ;-)

If small cell isn't for me I'll try something else. It's like my bottom board situation right now. I have about 6 different manufacturers bottom boards and one of my own construction. We can't ALL be right as to which is the magically best one right? But I'll try them out and see what flys in my apiary in the future. Throwing stuff at the wall may not be all that scientific but it's kinda fun! By the way, I think Brushy Mountain has about 4 different bottom boards on their site alone. Rossman has two as far as I know. Already we have a disconnect lol.

I might have to go the "Bee Whisperer" route and dress like a bee to get more in tune with which parts of the crap I've purchased they'll take a fancy to. ;-)
Musashi


----------



## Dan Williamson (Apr 6, 2004)

Barry said:


> While true, please keep in mind that there are loads of published papers that show the negative effects varroa is having on bees on "large" cell.


Yet that doesn't equate to any validation of or give any credence to small cell either.

Any no I haven't tried small cell.

That said... I wish small cell were the answer. I'm not convinced that it is yet... But wouldn't it be nice if it were that easy. I just believe there is more to it than just simply cell size.


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

Its all about a little useful thing called the scientific method. When applied correctly, science assumes all propositions to be false. If the fallacy of an idea can be repeatedly rejected in multitude, then it is said to be "not false". Those seeking truth, anecdotes, rationalizations and faith should not criticize scientists for doing their jobs correctly.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Dan Williamson said:


> Yet that doesn't equate to any validation of or give any credence to small cell either.


Nope, and that wasn't the point. It's funny that those who are quick to find fault with sc have it no better with lc.


----------



## Musashi (Dec 5, 2008)

Barry,

I think that's what seems to puzzle me about the large cell/small cell thing. If everyone can agree that large cell and small cell have some reported problems then why the hating on small cell. I don't hate large cell. I don't feel the need to bash it and push my small cell agenda (I don't have a small cell agenda, but just for conversation sake).

Why is no one focusing on the effect of the millions of kinds of foundation running around? How many different major processing plants are there? Is the wax used like ground beef? Is the source of wax from all over hell and high water? Source of wax is important isn't it? We know there are contaminants in the wax used in foundation. Has there been a systematic study of what chemicals are persistent in various manufacturer's foundation. That study would have to run for some time to get a good picture.

If anyone would like to talk variables, look at foundation in general. Plasticell, Thin wax foundation both embossed and non, hook, no hook, pierco, some wired vertically from the "factory" some not, Duragilt and on and on an on. 

How about type of wood as it affects mites, beetles, bees, moths? Does pine help or hurt vs cypress. What about different kinds of pine? What if we rub fresh garlic cloves on the inside of our woodenware? What kind of wood might benefit from this old school natural remedy? 

I mean the variables are simply incredible. I still think weather and amount of sunlight that hits each hive is one of the largest variables around the world. Temperatures, humidity, barometric pressure. Who knows how many weather variables alone would produce different results using different foundation types. As we can't possibly account for all these things in any University level study then anecdotal evidence or what the small cell haters call faith based cures, are about as relevant as any other information. 

As I've said, I'm not pushing small cell, but what is with all the hate? ;-). I think it's just because some tout it as the cure all which paints some in the Mountebank mold. It also seems many who claim any benefits from the small cell are being misquoted or led down a path which narrows the claim to purposefully paint the small side crowd as all Charlatans. I believe it's the time needed to properly regress the bees that stings many. If it was just a different type of foundation that you could just plop on and see what happens, then there would be no more controversy than me saying I think Duragilt it the best stuff since the wheel. Some would say, ahh it's ok..some would say they hate it and then it would just be dropped. It's the need to regress bees and the underlying assumption that the designers of large cell were no more scientifically arrived upon than joe smoe backyard beek offering small cell as a possible solution. If scientific method is so important than why isn't there a determined study to figure out if large cell was arrived upon in a careful scientific way? 

Mr.. Bush has a handy reference to the source documents which detail the method and motivation to go to large cell when commercial foundation was being constructed. A neverending supply of study ideas could be generated by myself alone, much less universities full of eager grad students looking to make a splash. But those things take funding, approval and interest in getting it off the ground. It's not that anyone lacks respect for the scientific method or those professionals working on them. It is just like waiting for FDA approval of some drug that might save your life but not until long after you'd have been killed by the disease. You take some short cuts, you go to Mexico to buy your cure etc. If someone wants to have a go at small cell on their own without any hard scientific data and reports it helps, why not have a go at it if you feel so inclined. If you aren't so inclined, skip it and move right along to that wooden fly swatter thing that you can put Checkmite strips in (Yes, I own one lol).

Musashi


----------



## IndianaHoney (Jun 5, 2006)

Bud Dingler;371003
Let me tell you something folks - I worked with some of the best minds in our country and its just plain weirdo thinking that some back yard beekeepers have the real solutions to the varroa mite problem and that the published science is incomplete is just plain IGNORANT![/QUOTE said:


> Let me throw in a little information. But first, I have not tried SC, but plan to. If it works, great, if not, I'll dump it. So either way, I am not biased. I look for things that really work, and take no sides just for the sake of taking sides. So I'm not in either camp.
> 
> I can tell you that I personally know a well respected researcher. When I asked this researcher if he knew anything about SC beekeeping, he stated that he had "never tried SC", and that he was "researching genetic resistance". About two months later I was talking to another beekeeper. That beekeeper stated that this very same researcher told him that he had tried SC, and that it does not work.
> 
> ...


----------



## IndianaHoney (Jun 5, 2006)

pgmrdan said:


> Small cell HAS been researched. It doesn't work for varroa.



You have jumped into a camp very quickly for being a rookie. And attempted to correct a seasoned beekeeper. I'm not jumping down your throat. But the best beekeepers are those who give respect and creedance to scientific research, but are also willing to go against the grain in order to find out for themselves.

As I said in another post, I don't know if SC works. But I can't ignore all the people who claim that it has worked for them. So I will try it for myself. Ignore them if you want, but it would be wiser to gamble two or three 18 dollar queens for the benefits that it could provide if they are correct.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Musashi said:


> Barry,
> 
> I think that's what seems to puzzle me about the large cell/small cell thing. If everyone can agree that large cell and small cell have some reported problems then why the hating on small cell.


I think it's a cult thing. Instead of open discussion and sharing of experience by those that have it, and continue to use SC, some need to put it down immediately to either defend their management style because it threatens them, or "save" someone else from the evils of something different. I think it's about being "right." 

Personally, I don't know why I've had great success with my bees using SC, scientifically, but it doesn't matter. I'll keep doing whatever works. All the negative remarks anyone wants to say won't change the health of my bees.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Barry said:


> I think it's a cult thing.... some need to put it down immediately to either defend their management style because it threatens them,


I'm thinking that this statement applies to both camps at some level.
I'll add that I tried small cell and it caused me more problems than it could possibly solve. My only point is that I was open minded to the idea, tried it and have now formed an opinion based in large part on my experience. Everyone who doesn't support small cell aren't 'defending their management style or because it threatens them'.
And I'll add that there are many traditional cell beekeepers who don't treat. So, what's the point in converting to an unnatually small cell?


----------



## IndianaHoney (Jun 5, 2006)

Ok, new question for SC beekeepers. How many of you dived into the SC method with your mind already made up that SC was the answer? And how many of you decided that you would try it on a few hives first, then dump it, or expand it based on the future health of those hives without treatments?

Now, since you claim that it works. What are your observations throughout the process? And how long have your bees been on SC without treatments?


A little side note. I have found that there are two types of beekeepers. There are those who are willing to try new things, and verify results of studies that others have done, and test the claims of another beekeeper to find out if that is indeed the case. These very same beekeepers will dump a project or method that does not work in a heartbeat. But are more likely to discover something profound.

Then there are the beekeepers who are more traditionalist, not willing to try things for themselves, and bashing or dismissing those who do. They are the very last ones to accept something as a truth, and this has served them well many times in the past. Why go off half ****ed and lose your bees right?


It seems to me that one of two things will happen. SC will either be very successful and more and more beekeepers will change over to it. Then the researchers who have studied this will have to go back and find out what they did wrong. Or these SC hives will crash at a high rate due to PMS, and the beekeeper trying it will be forced to dump it.

Time will tell.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

beemandan said:


> So, what's the point in converting to an unnatually small cell?


If it doesn't/didn't work for you, just say so and move on. So what's the point in dumping on those who haven't had a problem with SC? The point for me is that it works well for me.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

IndianaHoney said:


> Ok, new question for SC beekeepers. How many of you dived into the SC method with your mind already made up that SC was the answer? And how many of you decided that you would try it on a few hives first, then dump it, or expand it based on the future health of those hives without treatments?
> 
> Now, since you claim that it works. What are your observations throughout the process? And how long have your bees been on SC without treatments?


I jumped in all the way. Got rid of all my LC comb. I didn't know if it would work going into it. I decided to test the claims that the Lusby's were saying. My observations are in here:

http://www.beesource.com/bee-l/bioarchive/index.htm


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Barry said:


> So what's the point in dumping on those who haven't had a problem with SC?


Dumping????? Is that when someone disagrees with you? My posts about small cell typically concern the efforts by many small cellers who try to convince newcomers that putting their bees on unnatually small cells is easy.
It may have been a simple process for you but it isn't necessarily so.



Barry said:


> just say so and move on.


I could say the same to you. If someone doesn't agree with you....does that mean they are unwelcome? Let me know. They're your marbles.


----------



## pgmrdan (Nov 20, 2007)

IndianaHoney said:


> You have jumped into a camp very quickly for being a rookie. And attempted to correct a seasoned beekeeper. I'm not jumping down your throat. But the best beekeepers are those who give respect and creedance to scientific research, but are also willing to go against the grain in order to find out for themselves.
> 
> As I said in another post, I don't know if SC works. But I can't ignore all the people who claim that it has worked for them. So I will try it for myself. Ignore them if you want, but it would be wiser to gamble two or three 18 dollar queens for the benefits that it could provide if they are correct.


"You have jumped into a camp very quickly for being a rookie."

Actually, I've looked at small cell for about 1 1/2 years. So, rookie? Yes. Very quickly? Perhaps not. I recognized crap logic and pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo conjecture and speculation so I discarded the claims of the small celt cult.


"And attempted to correct a seasoned beekeeper."

I didn't attempt to correct anyone. After looking into small cell for well over a year I gave my opinion of it. Anyone is welcome to take it or leave it.


"But the best beekeepers are those who give respect and creedance to scientific research, but are also willing to go against the grain in order to find out for themselves."

Well, at least the first part of that statement is correct. I'm not sure about the second part. I don't need to repeat research studies that have already been repeated with the same outcome. I will believe the results until someone of equal professional standing (not cult members) repeats the research and gets conflicting results.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>And I'll add that there are many traditional cell beekeepers who don't treat. So, what's the point in converting to an unnatually small cell?

And are they still fighting Varroa and losing colonies to Varroa? I don't see small cell as unnaturally small. Any uniform cell size is unnatural, but 4.9mm is more at the TOP of what I see at the core of the brood nest, so it's hardly unnaturally small when it's .3mm bigger than what I often find at the core of the brood nest and .5mm bigger than what I sometimes find at the core of the brood nest. But the simplest solution to that worry is to stop using foundation, which I think is the better choice anyway. There is nothing unnaturally small about that.



>Ok, new question for SC beekeepers. How many of you dived into the SC method with your mind already made up that SC was the answer?

I was pretty convinced that 4.9mm probably was unnaturally small, but I wanted to find out if it was. I found out that it was not. I had no idea if it would help with Varroa and had several backup plans if it didn't. It did.

>And how many of you decided that you would try it on a few hives first, then dump it, or expand it based on the future health of those hives without treatments?

Since all my combs were contaminated and since they all died after the last Apistan treatment anyway, I was determined to start clean with all either small cell or natural comb.

>Now, since you claim that it works. What are your observations throughout the process?

I have a web site full of them. Here are a few:
http://www.bushfarms.com/beesnaturalcell.htm

> And how long have your bees been on SC without treatments?

I stopped treating most in 2001. I stopped treating all of them in 2003. I've had them inspected every year since then so I can ship queens:
http://www.bushfarms.com/beescerts.htm


----------



## IndianaHoney (Jun 5, 2006)

Michael Bush said:


> >
> 
> I have a web site full of them. Here are a few:
> http://www.bushfarms.com/beesnaturalcell.htm
> ...


Thanks Michael. I've read just about everything on your site, and find it very informative. I'm going into SC this year with just about the same mindset you did. I probably won't convert everything to small cell until I find out if it does work or not. But last year I lost around 60-70% even after using Thymol, and Checkmite (not on the same hives). This year I used other natural methods such as requeening with queen cells, and sugar dusting. We'll see what happens this winter. Either way, that is not a long term plan. I want to be able to go into winter without the worry of losing more than half my business, and having to scrap expansion plans the next year in order to just make up the numbers that I had going into winter. I want to quit sacrificing honey production to simply replace the hives that died the previous winter. I want to know that I'll have enough hives that are healthy enough to provide pollination. I hope that SC, or natural cell is the answer. I'm willing to give it a fair shake by following the plan that Dee Lusby helped me come up with for my operation. But if it doesn't work, I have no loyalty to any camp.

Thats one thing that I can't figure out. If SC doesn't work as the large cell camp claims, why would all these beekeepers claim that it does, and defend it? Seems to me that they would have enough sence to move on to something that does work. That is probably the single biggest thing that makes me want to try it.

Another thing that puzzles me. Why don't those who have tried it, and failed, attempt to find out why they failed, and correct it. I thought that we all figured out as babies that it takes more than one step to learn how to walk, and that we can expect to fall sometimes.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Thats one thing that I can't figure out. If SC doesn't work as the large cell camp claims, why would all these beekeepers claim that it does, and defend it? Seems to me that they would have enough sence to move on to something that does work. That is probably the single biggest thing that makes me want to try it.

Maybe our small cell bees are actually a figment of our imagination and they died years ago... 

Actually you can see how much money there is to be made selling people on not using foundation, not treating and raising their own queens... 

Plus, of course, you get to be accused of being irrational all the time by those who have never tried it. Everyone loves that... 

There must be some kind of motivation here for being a small cell proponent, if I can just figure out what it is...


----------



## Dundrave (Jun 1, 2008)

*Interesting.*

I have been watching this debate. I am a newbie, first year with the ladies. I have 3 hives, 2 italians set up on packages and 1 russian mongral from a nuc. One package and the nuc were on small cell and the other package was on 5.4. Our bee inspector swung by and inspected my hives on one of his rounds. Interesting enough he only found a mite infestation in the one hive on 5.4 foundation (even though it 2 feet from the other hive). Not exactly scientific, but if this trend continues, I am sold.


----------



## Bud Dingler (Feb 8, 2008)

*refuted*

Excerpts from an article on foundation in the South African Bee
Journal, dated May/June 1967:

> What a blessing to beekeepers the invention of foundation in 1857 by Mehring. ... But it was not until 1875 that A. I. Root produced a machine to roll out was quickly enough and with cells perfect enough to be of commercial value.

> It had one fault: the cells were too small, there being 5 to an inch. Though the bees used it, they preferred their natural comb. Mr. Root then measured the cells, and found there were 4.83 to the inch. These particulars refer to the Italian bee.

4.83 cells to an inch equals a cell size of 5.23 mm
5 cells to the inch is 5.08 mm
5.2 cells per inch is 4.88 mm

again folks - the scientific honeybee research community is very familiar with the small cell argument and has rejected the whole notion that:

1.0 european honey bees were upsized. 
2.0 that a smaller brood comb cell size reduces the mite loads in a hive.


Dee, Micheal and others prefer to use their own references that have been rejected by the mainstream honeybee researchers. 
Furthermore many beekeepers have really old brood comb that after 30 years of use have cell sizes in the range advocated by the small cell camp. The cells get smaller as many many brood are reared and the cocoons build up in the cells. 

You can believe the faith based folks with their small and natural cell claims or go with the science and look at resistant stock like VSH or Russian if you want to run like I do with no treatments. 

Don't believe me just call up Tom Seeley at Cornell or Marla Spivak at U/MN, Jennifer Barry down in GA or on and on and on.......


----------



## IndianaHoney (Jun 5, 2006)

Bud Dingler said:


> Here is a dose of reality
> 
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3081789258595842918


Wait a minute Bud. I watched this whole video from start to finish. Jennifer Berry was very informative and articulate. However, she never stated that small cell does not work. On the contrary, she stated that this beekeeper named Bill, who uses SC, does not treat, and is successful. She did not claim that he did not lose hives, but she also did not state what % of hives this Bill loses every year on average. And I do believe I heard her say that it does show some promise, and her discussing other aspects of SC that she thought would make an interesting study. Listen to her closely, and listen very closely to the questions the crowd is asking, and her answers, and you will find that she did not state, insinuate, or even elude to SC not working. She simply stated what she found. Here is what she stated.

1. Mites did increase with SC bees. But that the number of mite increase was NOT significant.

2. That the number if bees in SC hives WERE significantly higher than regular cell hives.

3. Another statement that was made by Jennifer was an admittance that 5.3mm cells were artificially enlarged. As a matter of fact, she stated that this had raised the following questions. How many generations ago did this happen? And is it even possible to get them to draw out natural cell sizes? She apparently got her answer.

This makes me wonder. Is it possible that the cell size is not reducing the mite levels, but instead causing the hive to raise a significantly higher number of bees, thereby decreasing the percentage of bees that have mites on them? Could this be the cause of the success that SC beekeepers are seeing? Could the reason that the mite levels did not significantly increase be that SC has somehow triggered a defensive gene or mechinism that causes these bees to keep mites below the economic threshold that Jennifer Berry speaks of? To clerify that, could it be that orginally before foundation was used, that there were a range of cell sizes in hives, and that these smaller bees were charged with defending against such problems as pests and parisites?

Jennifer Berry's study raises a million questions. And provides a fountian of information. But what it does not do, is make any conclusions on SC. On the contrary, I heard her specificly state that her friend Bill (whom helped her with this study), was successful without chemicals, and that his hives were SC.


----------



## IndianaHoney (Jun 5, 2006)

Bud Dingler said:


> 1.0 european honey bees were upsized.
> 2.0 that a smaller brood comb cell size reduces the mite loads in a hive.
> 
> 
> ...


Bud, I'm starting feel like I'm picking on you 

Ok, you are the one gave the link to Jennifer Berry's link. So, I'll go with that in disputing what you have to say.

Other researchers may not believe that cell size were enlarged. However, Jennifer Berry made a reference to it, did not dispute it in her video, and even stated that it raised two questions, how many generations, and is it possible to regress. Other than that, I have nothing to refute the claim that other researchers have rejected that claim.

I heard Jennifer Berry mention Micheal Bush in her video, and she said nothing about rejecting anything that he, or Dee Lusby have claimed. And she even stated that SC holds promise. I suspect that she does not believe that small cell reduces the total number of mites, given the results of her study. But she did not state that SC was unsuccessful. She even stated that Bill has been successful with SC and no treatments. Consider that SC may not reduce the number of mites, but it may trigger some other mechinism, or variable that causes these hives to survive, like the fact that her research showed that mite levels did increase with SC, but DID NOT increase significatly (and yes, I heard her say that multiple times), and the fact that her research showed that the number of bees in SC hives DID increase significatly. That can only mean one thing, the ratio of mites to bees was significatly lower.

As for 30 year old comb being in the 4.8mm range. Jennifer stated in that video that research has shown that mites were attracted to older comb that has previously had brood in it, reguardless of cell size. This is the very reason that she used a queen excluder, and she stated so.

There is also one other veriable that you are not including. Jennifer Berry stated that these two shakedowns were done in May, and August. But how long did the study continue? Jennifer Berry did provide a wealth of information. But as I said in my previous post, she did not conduct a study that concluded anything except that mite levels increased in the SC hives, and bee population was higher in the SC hives in the time frame that the study was conducted.

A true study that will settle this issue once and for all, must continue for 3-10 years. A three year study can give us a good idea of what is really happening. And a 10 year study could give us statistical data that could account for all or most variables. Until then the only persons that can claim real success or failure is Dee Lusby and others whom have had SC bees for approximately 10 years. The issue remains that many beekeepers have hives that are surviving on SC without treatments, or bees that have been geneticly breed for resistance. And that no researcher has conducted a long enough, or enough studies to refute the success of SC. Until that happens the only option is to try it for yourself.

To sum it up. Every new discovery starts out with a lack of understanding. It is only with time and years of research do we usually find out why something really works, or doesn't.

Jennifer's study leaves me with two very important questions. We have seen from the article, and other people's success that braking the brood pattern and requeening with freshly mated queen causes a drop in mite populations, and the newly mated queen out breeds the mites for at least one season. Without any intervention and given time, mites will outbreed the bees, and cause the PMS. Could we be seeing the other end of the spectrum with SC? Jennifer stated that the number of bees in the SC hives was significatly higher. Could the increased number of cells and brood have enable the bees to outbreed the mites long enough that the winter brake in brood rearing and cold weather will take care of enough mites, while still allowing the winter cluster to remain large enough to survive? Did the increase in population raise the economic threshold high enough that mites can't reach it?

I don't know if any of this is the right answer. But think about that question, and do the math. Imagine two hives that are equal in mite to bee ratio. But hive A is large cell and has fewer bees, and hive B is SC has a significatly higher number of bees. Now lets say that every bee that has a mite on it falls to its death, in both hives. Hive B will still have a significalty larger cluster of bees. Hive A may have fallen below the number of bees required warm the cluster and build up for spring. The result is that the hive freezes when the temp drops. And even though all bees with a mite died, hive B would still be likely to have enough bees to warm the cluster and make it through winter, even though it had a larger mite population. Now add to that the fact that Jennifer Berry stated that SC had more mites, but not a significatly higher mite count, and the odds of hive B surviving winter are even greater.


Have I repeated myself enough?


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

bud,

if you want to argue the "effectiveness" of sc comb, that is one thing...and no, jennifer berry's study didn't show anything other than some effects of sc comb when using her management practices over the period of time she did the study.

but to argue the historical record is a bit silly at this point. dr. erickson concluded that ehb had been upsized (and were under stress for having been) based on studying various foundations, mills, and combs way back in 1989. 

it's especially hard to argue with ai root reporting on plans to upsize be the comb before it happened:

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

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.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

To say that upsizing bees is anything other than historical fact is simply absurd. There are far too many references easily found to prove it happened.

Here's a recent reference: "Until the late 1800s honeybees in Britain and Ireland were raised in brood cells of circa 5.0 mm width. By the 1920s this had increased to circa 5.5 mm."-- The influence of small-cell brood combs on the morphometry of honeybees (Apis mellifera)--John B. McMullan and Mark J.F. Brown

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

And there are literally REAMS of work by Baudoux, Pinchot, Gontarski and others on upsizing bees and careful measurements of them on various sized combs. Much of Baudoux distilled down is available in the ABC XYZ of Bee Culture books from the 40's or so which can be easily bought from the old book sellers on the internet. Some of those charts are here:
http://www.beesource.com/pov/lusby/table.htm


Just a few dozen of these historical documents are here:
http://www.beesource.com/pov/lusby/celldata.htm

>How about this? Name a researcher who has spent time with the Lusby's or someone of the like, studied their methods, and proven them right, or wrong.

Eric Erickson who proved them right and who published several papers off of what he got from the Lusby's, including one on small cell controlling Varroa. He got kind of quiet after being accused of plagiarizing it from the Lusby's: 
http://www.beesource.com/pov/andy/andy9.htm


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

And here we go again. I think I’m going to save this post so I won’t have to rewrite it every time Jennifer Berry’s study comes up.
Berry’s study was initiated because of the large anecdotal pool that claimed that small cell reduced varroa infestation. The claims of the time were that you could put your bees on small cell and not treat. PERIOD. There wasn’t any voice stating that it’d take years for the bees to learn their new behavior (although one arm of the study used established small cell bees so it should have shown). Nor were there any voices claiming that you had to isolate your small cell bees from non small cell bees so that the mites wouldn’t migrate from the traditional cell hives to the small cell hives. 
Much of the impetus for this study came from Bill Owens, a local, highly regarded (past president of the GBA) small cell beekeeper. Bill was active in this study. He supplied drawn small cell comb for the first arm of the study and small cell bees for the second. He was active in much of the beekeeping and data collection (for those who wanted small cell oversight).
Under the conditions of the study, the small cell did not result in lower mite loads. They were tested using mite drop, alcohol wash and removing mature bee pupae for mite counts. In both arms of the study the colonies of bees produced multiple generations of brood. If there was any truth to the initial claim i.e. that small cell reduced varroa infestation, then there should have been some indication of it in this trial. There was none.
As part of the study, brood comb was collected from over a hundred (about a 150 if my memory serves me) feral bee colonies. Many of these were old, well established colonies. Cell size was measured. Less than 1% were 4.9 or smaller. Just a few percent 5 or under. The same thing on the other side of the spectrum. Only a few above 5.3. The average was between 5.1 and 5.2.
I might add that Jennifer Berry ran another series of tests this season. The results haven’t been published or released yet.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

beemandan said:


> Many of these were old, well established colonies. Cell size was measured. Less than 1% were 4.9 or smaller. Just a few percent 5 or under. The same thing on the other side of the spectrum. Only a few above 5.3. The average was between 5.1 and 5.2.


Please clarify. "Less than 1%" of what? Cells or hives?


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Barry said:


> Please clarify. "Less than 1%" of what? Cells or hives?


The way I remember it:
A section of comb from the brood area of each feral colony was saved and a number of cell size measurements taken from each sample. The average cell size from each sample was recorded. One average from each sample, each sample from a different feral colony. Of those averages, only one sample averaged 4.9mm or smaller.
So, it works out that less than one percent of the feral colonies tested had an average brood cell size of 4.9mm or less.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

beemandan said:


> Berry’s study was initiated because of the large anecdotal pool that claimed that small cell reduced varroa infestation. The claims of the time were that you could put your bees on small cell and not treat. PERIOD.


although i agree that things sometimes get oversimplified to the degree you claim above, can you quote even one person with any kind of credibility that supports what you say above? one quote...one credible proponent of sc?

if your car is out of gas _and_ the coil is shot, putting gas in the tank will not make the car run.

dee's claims have always been 1/3 breeding, 1/3 nutrition, and 1/3 comb...always.

who is "the large anecdotal pool"? if these claims are so common, you ought to be able to quote something.

imho, those who hear that "sc is all that is needed" are people that are looking for a "magic bullet", and are willing to skimp on the facts in order to show one that either works or doesn't.

"the small cell crowd" is quite diverse...some insist that foundation is neccessary, some don't use foundation at all. some use fgmo, some don't. some use package bees, some only use ferals. some feed routinely, some feed only honey, and only in emergencies.

so who in "the small cell crowd" is making the claims you object to? can you quote anyone? a post here on beesource? bee-l? the organic list?

to my way of thinking, sc seems to be an important component to keeping bees without chemicals...this is based on my own experiences, and visiting bees kept by others (both large and small cell). it does not follow that "no matter what management practices you are currently using, that merely switching to small cell will solve any problems you are having".

but please, a quote...a cite...something that actually documents who said the things you are objecting to.

deknow


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

deknow said:


> although i agree that things sometimes get oversimplified to the degree you claim above, can you quote even one person with any kind of credibility that supports what you say above? one quote...one credible proponent of sc?


Today probably not one. A couple of years ago it was a different story. I'm not going to go on a search. I'm a bit weary of all of this. If you don't believe me....so be it.



deknow said:


> who is "the large anecdotal pool"? if these claims are so common, you ought to be able to quote something.


What are you talking about? One only needs to read Beesource or Dee's Yahoo blog to see the 'large anecdotal pool'.


deknow said:


> so who in "the small cell crowd" is making the claims you object to? can you quote anyone? a post here on beesource? bee-l? the organic list?
> 
> but please, a quote...a cite...something that actually documents who said the things you are objecting to.


My only objection to any of the small cell stuff is that some folks have suggested to newcomers that it is a simple thing to convert. I don't agree. I base that on personal experience. What other objections have I made?
I've repeated the results of Jennifer Berry's study on a number of occasions. My main concern is that it be reported properly. Does that qualify as an objection?

Do you see this as a personal attack? It isn't. I don't believe that small cell works. I believe that a combination of things does. New comb, genetics and good beekeeping practices. As I've said before, there are many traditional cell beekeepers who don't treat. Many seem to be doing fine.

Its OK if I disagree with you, isn't it?


----------



## pgmrdan (Nov 20, 2007)

IndianaHoney said:


> She simply stated what she found. Here is what she stated.
> 
> 1. Mites did increase with SC bees. But that the number of mite increase was NOT significant.


If you watched the same video I watched twice earlier this year this is not quite what she said. She said the increased number of mites were not *statistically* significant *but the researchers felt the increase was significant.*


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

beemandan said:


> The way I remember it:
> A section of comb from the brood area of each feral colony was saved and a number of cell size measurements taken from each sample. The average cell size from each sample was recorded.


If so, I'm suspect of the results. How can you get an average of cell size by taking one comb from the brood area as your sample size? There is variation within the brood "area" (multiple combs), let alone within each comb. This percent number doesn't jive with what other's have measured on feral brood comb. If i remember right, it's more in the 15 to 20 percent range.

I still have these combs:

http://www.beesource.com/bee-l/biobeefiles/lee/index.htm


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

For those who follow such things.
Jennifer Berry conducted some additional studies this season. So, if you have a chance to attend a meeting where she's speaking do so....and ask what her results were.....
Amanda Ellis in Florida has been conducting a similar study; only in hers the apiaries are separated. Whatever results she reports should answer whether or not drift is a significant factor.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Barry said:


> If so, I'm suspect of the results.


Somehow I'm not surprised.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

beemandan said:


> Today probably not one. A couple of years ago it was a different story. I'm not going to go on a search. I'm a bit weary of all of this. If you don't believe me....so be it.


this is telling. you seem to prefer to make broad generalizations ("the sc crowd says this" and "the sc crowd says that") that don't appear to have any basis in fact



> What are you talking about? One only needs to read Beesource or Dee's Yahoo blog to see the 'large anecdotal pool'.


i read beesource...and i'm a moderator on "dee's yahoo blog" (the organic beekeepers list)...and although from time to time someone makes a claim that sc is the only thing that matters, it is never from anyone with actual experience wrt bees. personally, i see more touting of commercially available "varroa resistant" or "varroa tollerant" stock...where there isn't a single example of an end user that has bought the stock and not treated. this is the fault of the people making the claim, not queen breeders in general, and not lc beekeepers in general. again, your unwillingness to back your claims up of what is (or was) "commonly claimed" is telling. if these claims were/are so common, one would think you could produce even one example.



> My only objection to any of the small cell stuff is that some folks have suggested to newcomers that it is a simple thing to convert.


i thought your objections were (or at least included):


> ...large anecdotal pool that claimed that small cell reduced varroa infestation. The claims of the time were that you could put your bees on small cell and not treat. PERIOD. There wasn’t any voice stating that it’d take years for the bees to learn their new behavior (although one arm of the study used established small cell bees so it should have shown). Nor were there any voices claiming that you had to isolate your small cell bees from non small cell bees so that the mites wouldn’t migrate from the traditional cell hives to the small cell hives.


but again, some examples (or even one) would make this claim a lot stronger. what you have done is to claim to have "paraphrased" what "the sc crowd" has said...when in fact you have paraphrased inaccurately, building a "straw man" and then tearing down the straw man on the presumption that you are tearing down what was actually said.

it's also worth noting that there is plenty of bad advice offered from lc beekeepers.



> I've repeated the results of Jennifer Berry's study on a number of occasions. My main concern is that it be reported properly. Does that qualify as an objection?


i agree. her study should be reported properly. i'm not sure of the ultimate value of any honeybee research that is supposed to be of practical value that doesn't last for at least a couple of seasons...unless one is planning to start with new packages every year.



> Do you see this as a personal attack?


no, but i do see your repeated claims about "the sc camp" to be intentionally inaccurate and misleading. the refusal to look at the historical record is also troubling.



> It isn't. I don't believe that small cell works.


define "works". i've seen lots of sc bees (close to 1000 colonies) that seem to be thriving...so it doesn't "not work". none of these bees are treated. they produce honey.



> I believe that a combination of things does. New comb, genetics and good beekeeping practices.


yes, combinations of things do work...and combinations of things do not work. in a system where things are not working, "fixing" one of the variables will not necessarily "fix" the problems.



> As I've said before, there are many traditional cell beekeepers who don't treat. Many seem to be doing fine.


yes, some seem to be doing fine. none, as far as i can tell, have put forth any method for others to follow. none, as far as i can tell, have been selling bees to others that do not need to be treated. this isn't a criticism of these beekeepers, just an observation that if one wants help keeping bees without treatments, it seems that "the sc crowd" is not only willing to help, but has a track record of beekeepers having success. no, it's not 100% success, it's not success for 100% of those that try...but there are well documented cases of people applying dee's techniques with the intention of not treating and not losing all their bees, and succeeding.




> Its OK if I disagree with you, isn't it?


i don't care if you agree or disagree with me. i do care that you are constantly making unsupported claims (about what "the sc crowd" says).

deknow


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

IndianaHoney said:


> Ok, new question for SC beekeepers. How many of you dived into the SC method with your mind already made up that SC was the answer? And how many of you decided that you would try it on a few hives first, then dump it, or expand it based on the future health of those hives without treatments?


we tried keeping bees for years without treating. when i originally joined the organic list, i did not think that sc was the answer...even now, i remain skeptical. if you want to look at the article i wrote for our local bee club last year:
http://www.beeuntoothers.com/Summer_WCBA_2007_newsletter.pdf
you will see that we were trying sc, but had not made up our minds.

our stock has been from the same (and similar) suppliers. our management practices have been largely the same (but of course we learn more every day). we started on new comb every spring for the last several years.

this past spring was our first year not seeing sacbrood and chalkbrood. our bees did not all die off in the spring (which happenend most other years), and we had strong bees.

our "path to sc" was that we didn't want to use treatments. the people that we could find who successfully didn't use treatments were using sc. we couldn't keep bees alive without treatments on the lc comb (even foundationless), and decided that we would take the sc plunge whole hog...we simply didn't have the locations or money to run a controlled study. i was hopefull that it would work, but i was not convinced.

deknow


----------



## Musashi (Dec 5, 2008)

DEKNOW SAID:.when in fact you have paraphrased inaccurately, building a "straw man" and then tearing down the straw man on the presumption that you are tearing down what was actually said.(end quote)

Hey, weren't you in my college logic class in the back row, near the cute blonde?
You're exactly right about this line of thinking. You have one side offering strategies to try to help the situation and the other side throwing rocks offering nothing more than generalized distracting arguements which throw attention from the way that they are not offering anything other than use resistant stock. 

BTW, I'm all for resistant stock. I mean who isn't. The equivalent of all of this would be for me to start deconstructing anything that has to do with varroa control via genetics. You could start with the thesis that commercial queen breeding has resulted in a shockingly low number of genetic parent strains being used and how that genetic bottleneck is a possible danger in CCD (Mr. Dr. Ellis hit on this in the last lecture I heard him give). 

But of course why would I dump on breeding for genetic resistance, even if some of it makes no sense. It has some hope of helping, possibly greatly. But I could if I wanted to, focus on negative making generalized statements not directly connected to the hope equation. I could say the hope of improved genetic resistance is faith based assumptions that ignores the idea that the genes being used to narrow resistance already start from too narrow a genetic pool to have any significant chance of success. I could say that it takes an island to keep pure Russians bred consistantly as bees have this annoying habit of flying off to mate with whatever darn bees are flying around. Pure Russian pairs are over 200 bucks last time I looked and as soon as they're hybridized the resulting desirable traits rapidly dissipate. 

See what I mean, I have little to no idea about bee genetics, but any half brain like mine can come up with any inane number of ways to attack stuff. Offereing solutions is significantly more difficult and helpful overall.

Plus, I'm completely in Mr. Bush's camp regarding the "follow the money theory. The world works on money. Show me anyone who could possibly benefit from pushing small cell. Then look at the relatively sizeable number of people who would not benefit from beekeepers suddenly deciding self constructed kenyan TBH's using starter strips. I think in the Florida bylaws for beekeepers that you are REQUIRED to have a langs type hive. I'd have to verify that but pretty sure I read that on the website. Now that seems strange doesn't it? lol.

I'll go with the "crowd" trying to help. If these method's are later proven through studies and trial and error to not be any help or even hurt, imagine what I'll do.....uhhh....something else? lol.


----------



## Musashi (Dec 5, 2008)

Speaking of people trying to help (since I'm on a roll ;-)

I am greatly looking forward to attending the Univ of Fl's Beekeeping College held this year in St. Augustine. What a nice place to visit regardles of activity! Due to my interest in this and the fact I live in Florida, I keep an eye on the U of F website frequently to see what they're up to. There is also a pamphlet called the Melitto files which addresses current and future projects. In this vein, there is a new funded position about to be opened for Varroa Mite study. Here is the link for the appointment details. It is pretty interesting read if you cull through it:

http://entnemdept.ifas.ufl.edu/honeybee/files/pdfs/Position Announcement.pdf

If you don't want to read it or skipped past the juicy part. It states, 

"For the UF position, the candidate is expected to investigate varroa control from the mite’s perspective (mating disruption, pheromone traps, etc.) rather than from more traditional approaches (acaricides, bee breeding, etc.). The candidate will work with a team of scientists and regulatory officials from the USDA-ARS, FDACS-DPI and UF to address the critical issue of varroa control holistically."

Is that some crazy cool idea or what? Now funded by who is always a concern mind you, but in this case I don't see how any chemical company would want to have anything to do with the word HOLISTICALLY. Therefore, I think we're free from conspiracy theories on either side. Isn't that a great idea though? Genuis! (Think Guiness beer commercial). I think it shows that brave minds are always trying to figure out different ways to solve problems. A focus on the mite themselves vs Bees dealing with them makes a ton of sense to me. It's a bit like Dr. Ellis' favor of nematodes. Something outside the box (hive hardy har) that is more directly focused on the pest not the bees managing the pest.

Wouldn't it be great if we had a pheromone trap that you could place in your apiary and all the mites would come running? I frequently have fantasies of being a beekeeper before the advent of mites and SHB, but alas I'm a recent fanatic so my education continues ;-)
Musashi


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

Musashi said:


> Speaking of people trying to help (since I'm on a roll ;-)
> I am greatly looking forward to attending the Univ of Fl's Beekeeping College held this year in St. Augustine.


i don't think there has been a full official announcement yet, but michael bush, dee lusby, ramona (my wife), and i are (as far as i know) all scheduled to speak at the palm beach county beekeeping club on Feb 7&8.

Southeast Organic Beekeepers Conference

This is a tentative announcement.
The Palm Beach County Beekeepers announces the 1st (possibly annual) Southeast Organic Beekeepers Conference.

When:
February 7&8 2008

Where:
Mounts Botanical Garden
531 N. Military Trail
West Palm Beach, FL
33415

Subjects include:
Organic Commercial Beekeeping
Natural Cell Size
Africanized Bees
Microbial Culture in a Hive
and more 

deknow


----------



## Keith Benson (Feb 17, 2003)

Musashi said:


> Show me anyone who could possibly benefit from pushing small cell.


Anyone who sells small cell foundation?

Keith


----------



## pgmrdan (Nov 20, 2007)

I've been wondering about that for a long time. Do those who keep pushing small cell use have some financial connections to those who sell small cell foundation?

I don't think I'll ever know.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

pgmrdan said:


> I've been wondering about that for a long time. Do those who keep pushing small cell use have some financial connections to those who sell small cell foundation?
> 
> I don't think I'll ever know.


yes, we are an evil cabal of terrorists. we are funding our terror activities by selling sc foundation, and sc foundation mills. with our vast resources, we have constructed a weather control machine, and have it configured to blow varroa away from the sc hives that are run by members of the organic beekeeping list.

some of us are so clever, that we are raising even more money by encouraging people to not use foundation at all...it's a terribly clever trick, and if i told you how, i would have to kill you.

we have made millions off of books alone, and are soon to take over the planet.

seriously, does anyone sell sc foundation that doesn't sell much more lc foundation? i think that don "the fatbeeman" might sell some hand milled sc foundation...is he behind it all? the whole evil plan to travel back in time to the 1880's and before, so that we could change the manuscripts for some of the best known beekeeping books of the time, and make them support our "small cell claims".

deknow


----------



## Keith Benson (Feb 17, 2003)

pgmrdan said:


> I've been wondering about that for a long time. Do those who keep pushing small cell use have some financial connections to those who sell small cell foundation?
> 
> I don't think I'll ever know.


Unlikely. I was just making a point. The fact is that someone is profiting from it. Nothing like Bayer and such, but someone is making money. I seriously doubt that the most vocal proponents of small cell methods get a red cent. I think their motivation lies elsewhere.

Keith


----------



## Musashi (Dec 5, 2008)

LOL keith. Good one.

Small Cell is sold by the same people that are selling the other stuff. Now if the small cell folks were the only ones making and selling small cell and then saying how great this stuff was, I'd be a tad worried. 

As it turns out the small cell being manufactured is made by the same large concerns making the rest of the stuff...it's just another way for them to cater to the growing crowd of small cell fans and make MORE money! 

But you gave me a good laugh for the day though! 

There's an idea Micheal Bush has cornered the market on small cell foundation and has purchased all the embossing machines! You simply need to go to his website and put down your visa card to join the revolution!

Why didn't I think of this?


----------



## Keith Benson (Feb 17, 2003)

deknow said:


> yes, we are an evil cabal of terrorists.


MHmmmmm - did someone touch a nerve? 

The reaction is a bit over the top, especially when one considers that a similar argument has made the rounds in the small cell camp about research, chemical companies etc. 

Maybe, just maybe, most researchers haven't picked it up because they A) just don't buy it, B) know that unless there is a glowing result to the positive of SC their work will be subjected to all sorts of nonesense C) it might not fit into their research in any other way and D) they just aren't interested. The list could go on and on. 

Which inevitably brings us back to the argument that if someone wants the stuff validated, they should pony up the cash and the hives. The response to this has always been some variation on the theme "I know it works, I don't need to waste my money or time proving it".

And around and around we go been there, done that . . . is there a tee shirt? 

Personally I would love it if the stuff did what it was supposed to. Does it? I dunno, but the data to date are not looking particularly encouraging.

Got some illuminating data? Post it or publish it. But don't say "My bees are a success", or "X's Bees are a success" 'cause that is not data. :no: Your idea of success may not be mine and vice versa.

Keith


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Keith Benson said:


> I seriously doubt that the most vocal proponents of small cell methods get a red cent. I think their motivation lies elsewhere.


I'd love to hear you elaborate on that. I have my own opinions.....but then you know what they say about opinions......they're just like.......bellybuttons, everybody's got one.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

Keith Benson said:


> MHmmmmm - did someone touch a nerve?


no, it's a sarcastic reply to a ridiculous implication.

seriously keith, i expect you pay enough attention to have observed that:
1. no one is currently selling a "sc beekeeping book".
2. everything written by the "largest promoters of sc" is available on the web, including videos...all for free. all of these people will offer specific advice via various forums, email, phone...free.
3. aside from 1 or perhaps 2 people that hand mill a limited supply of sc foundation for sale, all the sc foundation is available from the same suppliers (and manufacturers)...very little "extra" is made by selling sc for these people...and they generally have an "advanced beekeepers only" warning on the stuff.

follow the money...there is none.

deknow


----------



## Keith Benson (Feb 17, 2003)

Musashi said:


> LOL keith. Good one.
> 
> Small Cell is sold by the same people that are selling the other stuff.


So? Variety can be a marketing tool.



> Now if the small cell folks were the only ones making and selling small cell and then saying how great this stuff was, I'd be a tad worried.


I agree they would be more suspect. But they are not, well, some are, but it doesn't seem to be an issue where one could cry foul.



> As it turns out the small cell being manufactured is made by the same large concerns making the rest of the stuff...it's just another way for them to cater to the growing crowd of small cell fans and make MORE money!


Yep.



> But you gave me a good laugh for the day though!


That really was what it was mostly about. That and I get tired of the whole "follow the money thing, big [insert you favorite large profit making entity here] is suppressing investigations into [the next best thing since sliced bread that costs nothing and would save the world] thing. Heard it with FGMO from time to time, heard it from small cell folks. There are ways to get the data.

OF course when you say this the next thing one often hears is "Data . . . data? We don't need know steenking data . . . we know it works!" 



> There's an idea Micheal Bush has cornered the market on small cell foundation and has purchased all the embossing machines! You simply need to go to his website and put down your visa card to join the revolution!


More lies and misinformation. He has cornered the market on the molds and embossing machines for all of the foundation for foundationless frames and will be making a killing every time someone puts and empty frame into a hive. If you cannot keep a story strait, don't pass it on . . . this is serious business.


> Why didn't I think of this?


'Cause he is quick man, very, very quick, you have to have gotten up very early to beat him at his game. Better luck next time.

Keith


----------



## Musashi (Dec 5, 2008)

Keith Benson said:


> MHmmmmm - did someone touch a nerve?
> 
> 
> And around and around we go been there, done that . . . is there a tee shirt?
> ...


The round and round part of this conversation are these statements. You state you haven't used small cell and I would guess not using no foundation either. So, we're getting anecdotal evidence from people actually using it and instead you're discounting that unless they quantify their experience with a full blown study? So any "stories" of success are met with a skeptical eye, but "data" from a study most people have no intimate contact with is good to go gospel? Seems they are both additional pieces of information. Why discount either? Just take it all in. Why require small cell people's experiences not equal one more piece of information to evaluate? Again, I think it's because you have bought into the idea that small cell fans are wacko's from planet nine and you need some sort of scientific proof.

If I'm buying a car and I look at various websites to look at consumer responses as to their experience with the vehicle, I take these into account when making my purchasing decision. I don't base all my decision process on testimonials or trashing, but it sure figures into my decision. How is people's experience with small cell any different. I don't ask the guy who drove my Mitsubishi Raider truck for a year to do a controlled study to see if his experience with the thing was valid.

Bizarre... lol

It seems to me we are at the point with small cell that for many people it helps but no one is exactly sure why or how that is working precisely. It's just like powdered sugar shakes. Not one year ago sugar shakes were thought to work because the mites were groomed off the bee and the powdered form would make the mites more easily lose their grip. Now, it's coming out that science community has determined that it's not the sugar, but the hygienic behavior induced by the dusting. You could just as easily dust them with stuff you picked up below your rugs. Of course we figure the bees enjoy the powdered sugar more for obvious reasons. The goal is dealing with mites, not figuring out a powdered way to do supplemental sugar feedings. My point is, a recent technique of powdered sugar baths is constantly being evaluated for if it works, why it works, and is it maintenance or prevention? 

Small cell is in the same boat...it seems to work occasionally, but exactly why? Is the bother of going to small cell worth the benefit? That is where again, you'd have to try it yourself to really chime in with an experienced opinion. It does seem funny to me that you don't have nearly as many people who use it and then say, OMG what a waste, worse thing I ever did..arrggh..who talked me into this. It just doesn't knock over the milk cart in that way. The pushback is from people who haven't used it at all and are just reacting to it for whatever reason.

I posted this in an earlier post too. I am going to be collecting pollen for profit. Therefore I'm looking at all the various traps running around. There is an incredible diversity of these things, top bottom type of screening, size openings. It's like having to take a class to learn about them all in itself. How did I primarily decide which one to settle on? From reading reviewers experiences with them so I can ask questions and help me make a decision. How is asking about small cell any different? No one is asking for a university study to see which pollen traps are really working great. You just ask people! Amazing!


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

Keith Benson said:


> That really was what it was mostly about. That and I get tired of the whole "follow the money thing, big [insert you favorite large profit making entity here] is suppressing investigations into [the next best thing since sliced bread that costs nothing and would save the world] thing. Heard it with FGMO from time to time, heard it from small cell folks.


keith....in general, i'm not a conspiracy theorist...but wrt the above.....

what do you do when you have a prominent researcher say that they tested everything in the hive (wax, pollen, beebread, bees, brood) for chemical contamination but, because the NHB was funding the study, honey wasn't tested.

this is a concrete example (and one someone was willing to admit to) of the above...and most examples are not likely to be this cut and dried. does this not concern you? does this seem like good science to you? do you see this as good for the longterm benefit of the beekeeping industry? 

does this not look like the science taking a back seat to short term industry interests?

deknow


----------



## Keith Benson (Feb 17, 2003)

deknow said:


> no, it's a sarcastic reply to a ridiculous implication.


My apologies - it seemed serious. And honestly - it was in line with things I have heard small cell people say about "big pharma" and "big ag". That stuck me as funny.



> seriously Keith, i expect you pay enough attention to have observed that:


Seriously deknow, don't *expect *anything, that path leads to disappointment. MMmmmm - is there is Buddhist smiley on here?

I think I have paid some serious attention to the arguments on both sides of the issue, for quite a while. 



> 1. no one is currently selling a "sc beekeeping book".


No one said they were.



> 2. everything written by the "largest promoters of sc" is available on the web, including videos...all for free. all of these people will offer specific advice via various forums, email, phone...free.


Yep, are you telling me this because somewhere someone said they did? I think we all know this. Otherwise what is your point?



> 3. aside from 1 or perhaps 2 people that hand mill a limited supply of sc foundation for sale, all the sc foundation is available from the same suppliers (and manufacturers)...very little "extra" is made by selling sc for these people...and they generally have an "advanced beekeepers only" warning on the stuff.


Money is money however - if you don't know how much or how little, don't make statements that suggest it is either. I think the money issue is largely irrelevant, from wither side of the issue. Some folks like to harp on it though.



> follow the money...there is none.


Factually untrue - there is some, but read what I wrote before you get your adrenals in a squeeze next time. Especially read where I said it was mostly said in fun.

I do not believe for a second that there is money in small cell for the most vocal proponants. I don't think Dee does this for money. I don't think MB talks about small cell for money. Nor you. 

Might I suggest the decaff. . . 

Keith


----------



## Keith Benson (Feb 17, 2003)

beemandan said:


> bellybuttons, everybody's got one.


I got one too. :lookout:

Keith


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

deknow said:


> what do you do when you have a prominent researcher say that they tested everything in the hive (wax, pollen, beebread, bees, brood) for chemical contamination but, because the NHB was funding the study, honey wasn't tested.


Actually it seems pretty big of them (NHB). After all, anyone with any sense knows that if there's contamination in all that other stuff there's gonna be in the honey as well. It'd be foolish for the NHB to pay them to prove it.....
Now, if that same researcher tested the honey at his own expense, found it contaminated and didn't report it or altered his results under pressure from the NHB...that'd be a different story, in my opinion.

Conspiratorists appear to believe that the researchers falsify their data so that they can get more funding. Or that the researchers suppress their results if they are unfavorable to the funding organization. And those conspiratorists seem to think this is a common practice.


----------



## Musashi (Dec 5, 2008)

beemandan said:


> Actually it seems pretty big of them (NHB). Conspiratorists appear to believe that ....


Ok this is mean, because I sure don't proofread my own posts, but I couldn't resist. When I saw you say Conspiratorists, I thought, "OMG I'm a conspiratorist!". 

You, of course, meant to say Conspiratorialists....... ;-)


I actually pefer your version as it can so easily be bastardarized into conspiraterrorist. 

1.Yes, the mob killed JFK (Al capone's fingerprints are all over that one)
2.No, OJ didn't do it (I didn't say which one he didn't do)
3.Yes, alien probes DO hurt (My now, ex-wife, told me they came in our bed while I was asleep and she just wasn't strong enough to stop them)


----------



## pgmrdan (Nov 20, 2007)

Keith Benson said:


> Unlikely. I was just making a point. The fact is that someone is profiting from it. Nothing like Bayer and such, but someone is making money. I seriously doubt that the most vocal proponents of small cell methods get a red cent. I think their motivation lies elsewhere.
> 
> Keith


I hope you're right but since the same small manufacturer of small cell gets mentioned over and over and over it makes me wonder. I hardly ever hear about all the other big manufacturers of small cell, just the same small one.

Looks a little fishy to me but, like I said, I hope you're right.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Keith Benson said:


> Maybe, just maybe, most researchers haven't picked it up because they A) just don't buy it, B) know that unless there is a glowing result to the positive of SC their work will be subjected to all sorts of nonesense


Wow, I didn't know researchers based their choice of study on public opinion. That would be pretty weak. After all, one is above the fray if they have the data behind them.



> Your idea of success may not be mine and vice versa.
> 
> Keith


Exactly, so the best approach is for YOU to do your own data collecting!


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Musashi said:


> You, of course, meant to say Conspiratorialists....... ;-)


 You are absolutely correct. And I made the same error twice....if I recall. Conspiratorialists is just too long a word for my brain to assemble.



Musashi said:


> I actually pefer your version as it can so easily be bastardarized into conspiraterrorist.


I'm glad it came to some good.


----------



## Musashi (Dec 5, 2008)

pgmrdan said:


> I hope you're right but since the same small manufacturer of small cell gets mentioned over and over and over it makes me wonder. I hardly ever hear about all the other big manufacturers of small cell, just the same small one.
> 
> Looks a little fishy to me but, like I said, I hope you're right.


My fine man, you're starting to sound like a "conspiratorist"!


----------



## Keith Benson (Feb 17, 2003)

Barry said:


> Wow, I didn't know researchers based their choice of study on public opinion. That would be pretty weak. After all, one is above the fray if they have the data behind them.


That is not what I said. If I thought something was a waste of time, but was toying with the idea of investigating it because it was one of the more popular things in the lay literature, I might think twice about whether or not the result would be taken serious. Not weak, just choosing to apportion limited resources where they may actually make a difference.

As to being above the fray - I would say that is where they are now . . . 



> Exactly, so the best approach is for YOU to do your own data collecting!


If you are qualified. Especially if you are qualified to interpret it. Problem is too many people feel like they are qualified to do all sorts of things. The internet is littered with them. Don't get me wrong - I don't think people are stupid - quite the contrary, but there is a difference between being bright and having expertise.

Keith


----------



## Keith Benson (Feb 17, 2003)

pgmrdan said:


> I hope you're right but since the same small manufacturer of small cell gets mentioned over and over and over it makes me wonder. I hardly ever hear about all the other big manufacturers of small cell, just the same small one.


I dunno, I certainly have access to no actual numbers but I would be surprised if it was a large number. And FWIW, I don't think the biggest fish in the SC pond are selling foundation, except maybe in very small amounts.



> Looks a little fishy to me but, like I said, I hope you're right.


I do not think sales of foundation is driving anything within the small cell movement/group/adherents/cabal/congress/synod/listserv - call what you will.

Keith


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Keith Benson said:


> but there is a difference between being bright and having expertise.
> 
> Keith


Quite right, yet the "brightness" of many on this topic isn't good enough for some who's mantra is "data", "expertise", "etc."

As for me, there are others who are brighter. I'll settle for honest.


----------



## pgmrdan (Nov 20, 2007)

Keith Benson said:


> I do not think sales of foundation is driving anything within the small cell movement/group/adherents/cabal/congress/synod/listserv - call what you will.
> 
> Keith


Other way around Keith. I'm wondering about the way some small cell proponents keep referring newbies to buy foundation from the same small company. It makes me wonder if cash is being passed around under the table or if, since it's a small company, there might be some ownership by those who keep pushing newbies to that small company.

I'm not into conspiracy theories but if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck you gotta wonder if it just might be a duck. :scratch:


----------



## Musashi (Dec 5, 2008)

I'm not into conspiracy theories unless it involves small cell.


----------



## Keith Benson (Feb 17, 2003)

Musashi said:


> The round and round part of this conversation are these statements.


To each his own.


> You state you haven't used small cell and I would guess not using no foundation either.


Are you talking to me? Please show me where I said anything of the sort. Someone is making assumptions. . . tsk tsk, tsk. You know where that will get you . . . :no:



> So, we're getting anecdotal evidence from people actually using it and instead you're discounting that unless they quantify their experience with a full blown study?


The plural of anecdote is not data. I don't care if people do or do not do a study, but the simple fact is that without one it is just a bunch of anecdotes. They don't stand up well against an actual study, well, unless the reader isn't already convinced of the effectiveness of small cell. 

I am not disscounting anecdotal evidence, merely suggesting that it doens't have the predictive value that some would like it to have. That perhaops some folks should ratchet down their claims unless they have something to back it up.



> So any "stories" of success are met with a skeptical eye, but "data" from a study most people have no intimate contact with is good to go gospel?


So many asusmptions, so little information. Let me answer both questions: Yes, no. No need to put words in my mouth, I can take care of that myself thank you very much.



> Seems they are both additional pieces of information.


A piece of information is not automatically a good thing. In fact, bad info is worse than no info in most instances. Think about it.


> Why discount either? Just take it all in.


Who says we haven't. But - this is a discussion forum no? If all we did was take it in, there would be no reason to post here would there. . . . 



> Why require small cell people's experiences not equal one more piece of information to evaluate?


Hunh?



> Again, I think it's because you have bought into the idea that small cell fans are wacko's from planet nine and you need some sort of scientific proof.


Again with the assumptions. Please stop, it does little for the exchange of real information, it is a little irritating and tiresome. I do not think that small cell fans are wackos. Well OK - some may well be, but not because they beleive in small cell. 

I think some of the claims made go far and above that which the data and real evidence can support. 

I don't know what planet nine is. If we are still in this solar system, and you might want to sit down for this, the ninth planet is not a planet any more. 

I do not *need *scientific proof of small cell. I would argue that some of the claims made by small cell advocates suffer in the credibility arena due to lack of scientific evaluation. Some have suffered because of such evaluation.



> If I'm buying a car and I look at various websites to look at consumer responses as to their experience with the vehicle, I take these into account when making my purchasing decision. I don't base all my decision process on testimonials or trashing, but it sure figures into my decision.


Driving a car is a far different experience. Customer satisfaction with an automobile is a combination of purchase price, status (for some), the road feel, styling, gas millage and a host of other intangibles that relate more to feelings than say, survival, incidence of disease and honey production.



> How is people's experience with small cell any different. I don't ask the guy who drove my Mitsubishi Raider truck for a year to do a controlled study to see if his experience with the thing was valid.


'Cause you are not asking about the same things. This isn't apples and oranges, it is apples and rocks.



> Bizarre... lol


Now, now, don't get down on yourself, you don't seem that bizarre to me.


> Small cell is in the same boat...it seems to work occasionally, but exactly why?


And that is the $64000 question. Does it work occasionally, or is it irrelevant? Ask Dee what she believes is the reason for almost anything that could go amiss with a bee and she will immediately launch into a recitation of how man enlarged bees . . . and so forth and so one. In fact it is such a pat response at this point that I think she may have macros and hot key on her computer that spits out whole phrases with a single key stroke. Is she right, prolly not on a lot of points, prolly yes on others, but unless someone does the work, we will never know.



> Is the bother of going to small cell worth the benefit?


That depends, what are the benefits exactly? I can calculate the cost, can you tell me, in real numbers what the benefit is? Can you show me that there will be a benefit? Can you? Or are you going to ahve to pelt me with anecdotes?


> That is where again, you'd have to try it yourself to really chime in with an experienced opinion.


Really? Do you try everything, absolutely everything? Do you really think that is the best way to determine if the stuff works as billed? I think there is tremendous room for error there. I do see the potential for a lot of folks to miss a benefit and lose out cause they don't know how to run a side by side trial, and conversely i see the potential for a lot of people to perceive a benefit that doesn't exist for the same reasons.



> It does seem funny to me that you don't have nearly as many people who use it and then say, OMG what a waste, worse thing I ever did..arrggh..who talked me into this. It just doesn't knock over the milk cart in that way. The pushback is from people who haven't used it at all and are just reacting to it for whatever reason.


When you assume . . . . 



> No one is asking for a university study to see which pollen traps are really working great. You just ask people! Amazing!


Once again, I think this is a different story. I think collecting data on the efficacy of a pollen trap is something anyone can do, easily. Not so mites and their effects. Just because someone isn't asking for a study, doesn't mean that a study wouldn't bee a better way to quantify the differences, and that it would not be valuable. 

Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. Small cell claims can be quite extraordinary. To say "this pollen trap works well" is not so extraordinary a claim. There is a difference.

Keith


----------



## Keith Benson (Feb 17, 2003)

Barry said:


> Quite right, yet the "brightness" of many on this topic isn't good enough for some who's mantra is "data", "expertise", "etc."


What is wrong with wanting to see that a conclusion that may cause you to change the way you do things is arrived at by someone who not only has access to the best information, but also the best training to interpret it?



> As for me, there are others who are brighter. I'll settle for honest.


Um, OK, who are you suggesting is being dishonest?

Oh, and if someone truthfully reports what they believe to be true, but are simply wrong, is that OK too, because they are honest?

Keith


----------



## Keith Benson (Feb 17, 2003)

pgmrdan said:


> Other way around Keith. I'm wondering about the way some small cell proponents keep referring newbies to buy foundation from the same small company.


There are only so many where you can get the stuff. I think you are reading way to into it. There are other reasons why folks promote SC. The chief is a genuine belief that it works.



> It makes me wonder if cash is being passed around under the table or if, since it's a small company, there might be some ownership by those who keep pushing newbies to that small company.


I really don't think so. 



> I'm not into conspiracy theories but if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck you gotta wonder if it just might be a duck. :scratch:


Usually, but sometimes they are other anseriformes.

Keith


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Keith Benson said:


> I would argue that some of the claims made by small cell advocates suffer in the credibility arena due to lack of scientific evaluation. Some have suffered because of such evaluation.


How about names and claims. Let's nail this thing down so we don't have to assume who and what you're referring to.


----------



## Musashi (Dec 5, 2008)

Hi, My name is Musashi and I am suffering. Small cell has caused me significant mental anguish and loss of peace of mind. I am requiring a health hazard fee to be paid to me for said loss of mental comfort. I believe something in the round sum of 100K will be sufficient to relieve me of my small cell induced stress. I read that someone had some success with small cell so I changed over and all my bees have died. I believed you small cell people, now you must pay. I am not responsible for evaluating any of this on my own. You small cell propaganda artists are going to pay big time.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

Signed,
My lawyer


----------



## Keith Benson (Feb 17, 2003)

Barry said:


> How about names and claims. Let's nail this thing down so we don't have to assume who and what you're referring to.


Please Barry - tell me you have not heard that small cell will eliminate losses from mites, all fouls, any and all fungal diseases and even beetles. You know whom has made such claims and I don't think I need to be crass enough to say more. You also know that there is no work, scientific work that supports such claims and that the lack of said data has been a sticking point for many in terms of beleiving/adopting the methodology. So it is reasonable to suggest that the arguments suffer from a lack of data. What names do you need to see that?

If you don't think that some of the more vocal small cell folks have made such claims, OK, we can simply agree to disagree. Me, been there seen it. That should be good enough for you, after all, you are one of the "your own observations are the end all" folks.

Keith


----------



## Keith Benson (Feb 17, 2003)

Musashi said:


> Hi, My name is Musashi and I am suffering from a reading comprehension issue




I meant the argument suffers from lack of data and that some of the published data refutes some of the claims, not that any particular person has suffered. My apologies as it appears that I was not clear.

Keith


----------



## Musashi (Dec 5, 2008)

Keith Benson said:


> My apologies as it appears that I am suffering too. But my kind of suffering requires that I sit on a donut cushion.
> Keith


This is fun. But then I have nothing better to do at 6am due to work changing my schedule for a Christmas Party that I'm not even going to attend. ;-)


----------



## Keith Benson (Feb 17, 2003)

Musashi said:


> donut cushion


 inch:

All I can say Is Ouch.

Keith


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Keith Benson said:


> What is wrong with wanting to see that a conclusion that may cause you to change the way you do things is arrived at by someone who not only has access to the best information, but also the best training to interpret it?


Nothing, but the way you're going to get that is by talking with researchers and getting them to produce the information you seek, not by insisting it from the laity.



> Um, OK, who are you suggesting is being dishonest?


Don't assume.


----------



## Musashi (Dec 5, 2008)

Keith Benson said:


> inch:
> 
> All I can say Is Ouch.
> 
> Keith


Ha..Keith! You gave me a good laugh for the day thanks! This thread has been entertaining and spirited. Just like I like my women. Oh wait, I'm married...make that, just like I like my woman!

Musashi


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Keith Benson said:


> Please Barry - tell me you have not heard that small cell will eliminate losses from mites, all fouls, any and all fungal diseases and even beetles. You know whom has made such claims and I don't think I need to be crass enough to say more.


Sorry Keith, I don't know who has made all those claims, whether you're talking one person or several different people. I know I haven't. So we can't say WHO said something because it would be crass? I think it's crass to group everyone together who has anything to do with SC and treat them as one and the same. To me, that's lacking sensitivity.



> after all, you are one of the "your own observations are the end all" folks.


And what are you Keith?


----------



## pgmrdan (Nov 20, 2007)

deknow said:


> dr. erickson concluded that ehb had been upsized (and were under stress for having been) based on studying various foundations, mills, and combs way back in 1989.


So this obviously means that in 2008 the regression/retrogression performed by the small cellers is also stressing the bees.



deknow said:


> 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.


Shoots holes in the idea that larger or smaller cell size creates permanent change in bee size as claimed by the small cellers. This makes regression/retrogression look like a bunch of smoke and mirrors. Just put them on foundationless frames and they will go back to their normal size but do they change size on foundationless frames??? Not according to Dadant's The Hive and the Honey Bee. Contrary to what the small cellers claim the bees are already at their normal size.

Erickson in 2000 said, "Utilizing locally adapted stock ensures that your colonies will be most prolific and productive." Small cell is never mentioned in the article on Producing Varroa-Tolerant Honey Bees from Locally Adapted Stock: A Recipe. He must not have thought small cell to be of any importance. Using the Recipe he developed a Varroa-tolerant population in less than 2 years. He reported on them after they were in their 6th year. No small cells required!

The complete article is here on beesource under POV/USDA/.


----------



## tecumseh (Apr 26, 2005)

a joseph clemen snip:
I use various comb sources, randomly, in my hives; foundationless, small-cell, drone foundation, and the usual 5.4 mm regular worker foundation. My motive is simply to have fun and enjoy observing the bees. 

I have much more of a problem with the bees robbing each others hives, than I do with either kind of mite.

tecumseh:
it would seem to me for most hobbist and sideliner focusing a bit more on the last sentence of mr clemens first paragraph would be useful.

to mr clemens second (snipped) sentence how many here would or wouldn't agree?

then musashi writes:
am greatly looking forward to attending the Univ of Fl's Beekeeping College held this year in St. Augustine. What a nice place to visit regardles of activity! Due to my interest in this and the fact I live in Florida, I keep an eye on the U of F website frequently to see what they're up to. 

tecumseh:
thanks for the link. it is always interesting to follow along (when I have the time) with the antics of my alma mater. saint augustine is a very nice place... although I would assume nothing like the place I remember 40 years ago. the beach just south of St Augustine was one of our favorite get away places.

as to the question of this thread:
I am (and likely always will be) a tradional beekeeper. so that I may do as mr clemens suggest and to save time and money in the deal I treat as little as possible (I have never treated for varroa with anything that looks like a pest strip and likely will NEVER do so). I guess to some degree or another my approach has been somewhat successful since this little venture is growing steadily in numbers and I have little problem is selling the growing list of products I produce.

this year and primarily to entertain myself, I had about 10% of my total numbers tested. the test was not truely random in that the samples were pulled from individual hives from my various outyards that were the most thriving indivduals. of these samples (with the exception of one sample data point) morphologically the bees were extremely small relative to the normal physical parameters of european honeybees. all were raised on standard foundation.

finally.... I do understand the notion of the phrase of 'follow the money' and would not argue that this is a powerful motivational tool. it is however not the only motivational tool. I do suspect (and my experience would suggest this also) that when the public decided some 30 years ago to not fund research any longer and university researchers began to rely on commercial entities to fund research that 'the answer' that was produced from this research was (over time) more and more highly SPUN to conform to the expectation of those that were paying for the research. anyone who did not conform to this new reality was fairly quickly without means to do any futher research. so to some degree YOU the public are now getting exactly the kind of research you don't wish to pay for.


----------



## Musashi (Dec 5, 2008)

tecumseh said:


> a joseph clemen snip:
> that when the public decided some 30 years ago to not fund research any longer and university researchers began to rely on commercial entities to fund research that 'the answer' that was produced from this research was (over time) more and more highly SPUN to conform to the expectation of those that were paying for the research. anyone who did not conform to this new reality was fairly quickly without means to do any futher research. so to some degree YOU the public are now getting exactly the kind of research you don't wish to pay for.


I love your post here, so many interesting things to ponder. First off as to the part I snipped, I really enjoy overaching large scale analysis and I think that paragraph is so insightful. Macro anything is much more likely to come up with a successful generalization than pointing to specific grant sources of individual studies at the university level. 

I'm a University of South Florida grad, so you gators can just stay up there! lol.

I think you and I are of a completely similar mindset. I'm trying all sorts of stuff for the fun of it. I do want to make money from my little endeavor. I'm starting off a bit larger than most newbie's....10 and about 3 nucs, using nucs I'm getting from local florida folks so I'm able to hit the ground running right away in terms of testing out what I find I (oh and the bees too lol) like the most. I figure I'll have some losses. Not that I'm happy about the prospect but this is the stage where I can try out different stuff before I've multiplied it all times 25 hives, then 50, then 100. Anyway, it seems to me that overall, if I focus on propolis, pollen, chunk and comb honey from foundationless at first I'll have a hard time screwing that up. I'm going to put on some supers to get drawn comb too for specific purposes and again to experiment at first.

I'm mainly allowed this luxury because of the 3 or 4 harvest periods we get in the Tampa area. I can try this thing that flow and that thing this flow. ;-) Pretty good margin of error.

My biggest problem right now is using google maps to try to start finding a suitable place to have my first outyard. I'm in normal little house smack dab in the middle of clearwater, so obvously can't keep 10 hives in my backyard. ;-)


----------



## Keith Benson (Feb 17, 2003)

Barry said:


> STo me, that's lacking sensitivity.


OK - I will withdraw the comments. IF anyone wants to know waht kind of claims are being made, they simply need to join a listserv or two and read for themselves.



> And what are you Keith?


Depends on the situation. In many instances I think I can reach a cogent conclusion about a data set. In others I know I lack the requisite training and experience and would consult with someone who does. 

Keith


----------



## tecumseh (Apr 26, 2005)

musashi writes followed by some tecumesh remuninations:
I'm a University of South Florida grad, so you gators can just stay up there! lol.
tecumseh>my oldest sister was in the first graduating class at south florida. prior to my entry at the univesity of florida I took some course at south florida when that little university had just been cut out of a large cattle operation. incidently and not much later, I worked for the man who's family owned the property where south florida now sets.

I do want to make money from my little endeavor. 
tecumseh>a good target for most hobbist and sideliners besides just having some fun is to cover cost. if you are extremely good or reside in an excellent location (you would be if you were about 50 miles to the east) you can turn a profit in most years.

I figure I'll have some losses.
tecumseh>figure about 1/3. make these up the prior season. steve taber suggested this strategy in relation to trachael mite (way back when) and I think it is equally good advice now. many hobbist start with one hive... statistic and the gaming table suggest this ain't such a good strategy. your largest problem (at your stated location) is likely to be old ladies spraying their flowers. 


Anyway, it seems to me that overall, if I focus on propolis, pollen, chunk and comb honey from foundationless at first I'll have a hard time screwing that up. I'm going to put on some supers to get drawn comb too for specific purposes and again to experiment at first.
>thin surplus chunk honey is a good place to begin. richard taylor really pushed this product and it is easy to see why. you being smack dab in the center of a high population center should mean the propolis and pollen will sell well also. at your location I would be somewhat concerned with impurities in the pollen.

ps... my college room mate for most of my time in gainesville was from clearwater, so I spent a good deal of time there when I was younger. he being a good sicilian boy (now on the staff at the university of north florida) also point out to this young lad who had just fallin' off the turnip truck how to easily id the mob guys and the made guys here and there across the florida landscape. which I guess is a good way of suggesting that all education don't come out of a book.

best of luck to ya' with the bees...


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

pgmrdan said:


> So this obviously means that in 2008 the regression/retrogression performed by the small cellers is also stressing the bees.


no, it was not the "enlarging" that he claimed was causing the stress, it was the fact that the bees are living on "enlarged comb". this was in contrast with the ferrals that were _smaller_ and living on natural comb...in 1989, 4 years before ahb was detected in this area.



> Shoots holes in the idea that larger or smaller cell size creates permanent change in bee size as claimed by the small cellers. This makes regression/retrogression look like a bunch of smoke and mirrors.


who among "small cellers" claim that size change is permenant? Of course talk to virtually all beekeepers and queen breeders and they will say that the "biggest queens are the most desirable"....it's likely that selecting for queen size also has an effect on worker size.
wrt a"smoke and mirrors"...i don't see how. root said specifically that changing cell size alone would not lead to a permenant change...but when combined with breeding well could. this was _predictive_ ...this was before the fact. the "plans" laid out seem to have been pretty accurate...the results are likely different from what root expected...but seem pretty close to me. at the tucson lab, they were also able to breed for queen development time. all kinds of things can be bred for...and the obsession with "large queens" by beekeepers and queen breeders likely is selecting for a larger bee in general.




> Just put them on foundationless frames and they will go back to their normal size but do they change size on foundationless frames??? Not according to Dadant's The Hive and the Honey Bee.


the only copy of "the hive and the honeybee" that i have is the one written by langstroth (circa 1880's). can you please quote what it is that is said in the dadant version you are refferring to? did the author do (or cite) an experement to determine this...or just "stating facts"?



> Contrary to what the small cellers claim the bees are already at their normal size.


that is simply not true. simply giving the bees "worker foundation" (of any particular size) is a "violation" of "normal size", as the "normal size" for bees within a natural colony varies. there is nothing "normal" about foundation, especially if all the cells are the same size.

in addition, there is absolutely nothing in the historical record that indicates that bees were ever 5.4mm cell size...on the contrary, everything in the historical record shows 5.08 and below as "normal". yes, you can find contemporary writers that cite 5.2 or 5.4mm...but despite the volumes written "back in the day", nothing from the past supports the 5.4mm cell size as being "normal". 5.08 and below seems to be "normal" for the middle of the brood nest.



> Erickson in 2000 said, "Utilizing locally adapted stock ensures that your colonies will be most prolific and productive." Small cell is never mentioned in the article on Producing Varroa-Tolerant Honey Bees from Locally Adapted Stock: A Recipe. He must not have thought small cell to be of any importance. Using the Recipe he developed a Varroa-tolerant population in less than 2 years. He reported on them after they were in their 6th year. No small cells required!


and a show of hands on who has followed this and been successful? who has bought bees from someone who follows this procedure and doesn't have to treat? what was the original source of his stock? (he had previously worked with the "lus bee", and shown it to have several differences from other stock (wrt thyletoky, queen emergence times, etc))

the farmer we work with told me about the time the university researcher came by the farm with an extra dense growing technique for corn...as it turned out, he had demonstrated this on a one acre plot....with 17 grad students to hand pollinate the corn (!!!!). this may work well in a test field with free labor, but is not practical for production.

it's also worth noting that dr. erickson was widely criticized for claiming the small cell research as his own, rather than a collaberation with dee and ed lusby, based on _their_ observations. after this, he seems to have largely dropped the sc component...but how are his bees doing?

http://www.beesource.com/pov/andy/andy9.htm

deknow


----------

