# No Chemcals And No Small Cell



## NeilV (Nov 18, 2006)

This Spring, I went to a bee club event where a beekeeper/state inspector from Arkansas (Ed Levi) was a speaker. He was a very interesting person, who has travelled extensively and taught beekeeping in third world countries. He was a very interesting speaker. He is also an organic gardener and beekeeper. 

However, he does not use small cell at all. His system involved breeding his own queens. He used Russian stock to help deal with tracheal mites and Varroa. He also used drone comb for varroa mites. He used in-hive traps and nematodes for small hive beetle. 

I was just wondering whether there are any other chemical-free beekeepers who are not on small cell. Anybody?


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

I'm one of those. I have a few smallcell hives as well as about everything else including FGMO, drone comb, etc. But that stuff is for playing and experimenting with.

My main operation is non-chemical and non-smallcell. I use russian and a mixture of carni stock from various places. I also have incorporated breeder SMR/VHS breeder stock into my lines.


----------



## iddee (Jun 21, 2005)

I have one strain of bees I use nothing on. They are Italians from a hive that survived the mites on their own from the eighties. I haven't treated for anything, on large cell, haven't trapped shb. All my other hives are large cell and I treat them with thymol and fgmo only.


----------



## peggjam (Mar 4, 2005)

I like Bjorn, also have hives that are LC and I am not treating those either. Last year I did a fall treatment of MiteAway II, but not on all the hives, only about half of them. I relay more on my mutt Italian queens than anything to handle mites. I have brought in Russian and NWC breeder queens this year, and will requeen about 1/2 of my production hives with each strain, but will leave the rest of my hives with mutt Italians.


----------



## Randy Oliver (Nov 27, 2006)

Hi ndvan,
Easy to do with powdered sugar and drone trapping only. I published methods in ABJ, or see on my website at www.randyoliver.com, look under varroa management, Biotechnical II article. All details and photos.
Randy


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--I was just wondering whether there are any other chemical-free beekeepers who are not on small cell. Anybody?--ndvan,

Hello ndvan!

My bees were small cell (4.9), but at their own free will increase the cell sizes to about 5.0 mm. Small cell being 4.9, I guess I am not small cell. 

All my bees are caught from the feral population and I use no treatments, including NO sugar dusting, NO screened boards and NO drone culling.

Couple of brood frames from my last inspection.
Still not up to where I want to be with brood viability, but I’m working on it as my top priority.

http://s109.photobucket.com/albums/n41/pcolar/?action=view&current=DCP_1944.jpg

http://s109.photobucket.com/albums/n41/pcolar/?action=view&current=DCP_1945.jpg

“I laid my head to ye tree and there was a humming, and I said there is bees!” (Bee Hunter, 1641)

Joe Waggle ~ Derry, PA ‘Bees Gone Wild Apiaries' 
FeralBeeProject.com 
http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/H...neybeeArticles


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Easy to do with powdered sugar and drone trapping only.

And even easier to NOT do them.


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

MB, I find it even easier than that. No smallcell. But who's comparing....


----------



## Jeffzhear (Dec 2, 2006)

I don't have a large operation yet, but I am working on it. I am regressing most of my hives, because from what I have read, natural cell size is about 4.9 and many are having success regressing. Why not regress now while it's easier and less costly, this way when I have a larger operation, I'm there already...

I recently talked to Iddee and I am impressed with his success with FGMO and thymol, so, I am going to start experimenting along those lines as soon as I can get some thymol. I think Joel uses FGMO too and I have a lot of respect for him also...

Last fall I treated with Formic, and I think it helped...

My experimentation all stems from those here on Beesource, and I am forever grateful to learn from the experienced...thanks


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

And even easier to just do no foundation at all, but who's counting...


----------



## Yuleluder (Mar 2, 2005)

I'm currently expanding and I am up to about 70 hives. I use no treatments, and I run screen bottom boards. I use the SBB's more for the ventilation then anything else. If the bees can't survive without chemicals I don't want them!


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

Jeffzhear said:


> ...from what I have read, natural cell size is about 4.9 and many are having success regressing.


Hello Jeff,

Actually, 4.9 is at the bottom end for cell size in our area. Ferals in SW PA that I find range from 4.9 to 5.1mm. IMO, Better to strive for a medium of 5.0.

Natural Cell Size:
http://www.beesource.com/pov/lusby/therm_map.htm

“You can keep a bee away from you by the use of tobacco-smoke, but a bee is always in such a confounded hurry that he gets in his work before you can light your cigar.” 
(The Freeborn County Standard, 1879 Albert Lea, Minnesota) 

Joe Waggle ~ Derry, PA ‘Bees Gone Wild Apiaries' 
FeralBeeProject.com 
http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/H...neybeeArticles


----------



## bbbbeeman (Jan 13, 2007)

*no chems*

I am one of those who have not used chems in about 10 years ,getting old and cant remember just when, but any way i use a closed screen bottom board that has a tray of veg oil that is pulled out from the back,it is on the hive year round and i chang the oil about 4 times a year.i lose 3or4 winter die off per year out of 50 hives.it works for me time and money. good luck ROCK.


----------



## JC (Jun 3, 2006)

ndvan said:


> This Spring, I went to a bee club event where a beekeeper/state inspector from Arkansas (Ed Levi) was a speaker. He was a very interesting person, who has travelled extensively and taught beekeeping in third world countries. He was a very interesting speaker. He is also an organic gardener and beekeeper.
> 
> However, he does not use small cell at all. His system involved breeding his own queens. He used Russian stock to help deal with tracheal mites and Varroa. He also used drone comb for varroa mites. He used in-hive traps and nematodes for small hive beetle.
> 
> I was just wondering whether there are any other chemical-free beekeepers who are not on small cell. Anybody?


I only have Russian, not Russian hybrid, bees. Additionally, I have screened bottom boards on my 20 hives and I use solid bottom boards on my 6 nucs. I do not use any other treatment, or small cell. I did not lose any colonies this year, and I only lost 1 colony last year. The Russian bees are taking take of the mites and small hive beetles!


----------



## Jeffzhear (Dec 2, 2006)

Michael Bush said:


> And even easier to just do no foundation at all, but who's counting...


Michael, I hear you, lol....I have read the theme many times and I promise you I will try that in the near future...maybe next spring but it's on my list of things to do. 

Thanks


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

So what is the theme?

I thought MB was a promotor of smallcell. 

I have heard many call smallcell "natural". Which is wrong in my opinion.

I think foundationless is natural. Bees drawing what they want and NOT being forced onto some pattern provided by the beekeeper.

So now MB says "no foundation at all", is easier yet. Do I see a new direction and tone for the future? I would find it hard for MB to continue promoting smallcell outside the parimeter of promoting no foundation at all, after this comment.

I have foundationless frames and Tbh's. The comb is across the spectrum with much of it being constructed as the bees see fit. One comb may be smaller than standard foundation, while the next complete tbh comb would be drone size.

Anyhows...I am glad to see a clear and distinct difference being pointed out in regards to the very un-natural forcing of bees on smallcell, and the very natural way of having bees draw what they want. The lines have been blurred for way to long.

If your culling out frames from your tbh and letting the bees continue to draw new comb, any progression to a smaller size will be seen. So far, I have not seen this or have seen it from others.


----------



## Keith Benson (Feb 17, 2003)

BjornBee said:


> and the very natural way of having bees draw what they want. The lines have been blurred for way to long.


I guess my concern with natural comb would be this. Let us assume that varroa have a harder time reproducing in small cell as defined by Dee, 4.9 "top-tolerance" as she calls it. If we take that as a given, and we know that bees build different size cells at different times as their "natural" brood-nest is created, then it would seem to me that there are more restrictions placed on the beekeeper as to where he might place those combs later when making splits, combines etc. I have seen it postulated that the contraction of the brood-nest to the smaller cells at various times of the year is what confers some of the resistance to varroa that the subset of smaller natural cells are supposed to provide. 

If the majority of brood-combs are 4.9, the benefit would be there regardless of how you re-arranged the combs. The benefit being discussed here being only reduced varroa reproductive capability. There may be a downside, but I am just talking about varroa (for two reasons, too many variables make the discussion tangential rather rapidly and I do not buy that small cell is the panacea that some would have you believe).

Of course that all depends on whether small cell performs as suggested. So if you are using natural cell, what do people pay attention to when making splits, combining hives etc. Or do you just split 'em and combine 'em as you see fit and devil take the brood-nest structure? Is the brood-nest structure that people report seeing a product of the circumstances of the colonies development, or a functional design whose integrity must be maintained in order to confer it's benefits? Or is it as much of a wil-o-the-wisp as natural housel positioning?

Keith "wondering if Mr. Housel is OK with his name being bandied about on the internet as it has been?" Benson


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

Kieth.

I have seen bees construct a hive in a narrow log/tree 12 inches across and perhaps three or four feet high. I have also seen the same going side to side. It seems they will fill any suitable volume, with comb dictated by season, resources, and need.

As the season progresses, the bees fill the sides, or the top, depending the arrangement of the hive space. Brood seems to be in one place one time of the year, and depnding upon flow, left over stores, and other factors, the brood may in a different place the following year.

I think the bees we deal with have been exposed to v-mites for a really split second on the time-line of the bees existance. Russians may have been exposed longer, but the same can be said.

Do I think they have cell construction a particular way for combating v-mites? No way! For them to develope this in such a short period of time would be impossible. I think they do it for brood cycle probabilities, maximizing of resources, and sometime by pure luck or chance.

I think we are the ones who look at their comb, and try to tailor some explanantion as to why comb is this way or that way, and have fabricated this whole v-mite thing to sound like we know what were doing.

I agree with your "panacea" comment.

Take Care.


----------



## Keith Benson (Feb 17, 2003)

BjornBee said:


> I think the bees we deal with have been exposed to v-mites for a really split second on the time-line of the bees existence. Russians may have been exposed longer, but the same can be said.


I agree entirely with this. Anything the bees are doing to deal with this issue is likely a pre-existing thing, or darned close to it. but then that is how the process works whenever a population deals with a new pressure.



> Do I think they have cell construction a particular way for combating v-mites? No way! For them to develop this in such a short period of time would be impossible. I think they do it for brood cycle probabilities, maximizing of resources, and sometime by pure luck or chance.


I agree with this as well, I guess I wasn't phrasing what I meant correctly. IF small cell confers some level of protection to V. mites, I don't think it was something that occurred specifically in response to v. mites, just a nice feature of bee biology (they can raise young in a cell that is 4.9 mm wide) and mite biology (they have trouble breeding in a 4.9 mm cell). If the theory is correct, the two combine to produce an effect that is a reduced number of mites. I don't think A. mellifera has adapted to this new parasite much at all . . . yet. My great^20 grandson might have more to say on that. We we are generations away from having *consistently* less pathogenic mites and *consistently* more resistant bees.



> I think we are the ones who look at their comb, and try to tailor some explanation as to why comb is this way or that way, and have fabricated this whole v-mite thing to sound like we know what were doing.


In most instances I agree, though I think beekeepers may have gotten lucky with the cell size thing. Looking at the mites behavior in A. cerana colonies, there is some logic to the varroa specific claims about small cell. Do I think bees purposely use 4.9 cells to combat mites? No, but I think if they have 4.9 cells, they *might* do better against the mites. The possibilities for research are legion. Of course someone needs to show there is a benefit in the first place, before committing scores of PhD students to the mechanisms of said proposed resistance. . . but that is another argument.

I find some of the claims about the mechanisms by which "natural cell" works fro bees and against varroa strike me as a little incongruous.

Have a nice 4th - everyone be safe!!

Keith


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

I am relying mostly on genetics. There is ample evidence that SMR/VSH, Russians and almost all bees from Africa show varroa resistance. I used Api-Life Var this spring. I think that it may have helped and will use it for a pre-winter treatment depending on September mite counts.


----------



## Chrissy Shaw (Nov 21, 2006)

*Strange things in dark places...*

The packages have no mites in the drone brood at all and i have yet to check the overwinters bur combs, but it is late enough where i saw them from brought in nucs last year in great numbers. All i did is use PF-100s (5mm) and wave at the mites. I did learn that the new formualtion of a name brand spray bottle skeeter repellant sets off some darker lines and bees bounce off my door encouraging me not to wear it. 

It might be that i waved to the mites last summer, but in my suicide mite program the only thing i have done thus far is keep new combs, requeen and split the bees, recombine in the fall with the select queens. I only have twenty-five sitting out here at the minute so my numbers are not high enough to give a solid test, but the next two years will be the same as these previous if the weather does me right and sugar prices don't hit the ceiling. I use sugar for syrup and winter dry feed on any unit i think needs is, even if it doesn't. The skeeters however are working nightshift for the yellowjackets here this year.

Chrissy Shaw


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>I thought MB was a promotor of smallcell.

Do you READ anything I post? I have said I use mostly foundationless frames for some time. I recommend small cell foundation for those who USE foundation, sure. It's a lot closer to natural than 5.4mm.

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

>I have heard many call smallcell "natural". Which is wrong in my opinion.

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

>I think foundationless is natural. Bees drawing what they want and NOT being forced onto some pattern provided by the beekeeper.

Absolutely.

>So now MB says "no foundation at all", is easier yet. Do I see a new direction and tone for the future?

New? By no means. I've been doing foundationless, talking about foundationless, and recommending foundationless for several years now. I started doing starter strips and top bars hives in 1976. I went back to them for Varroa control in 2001. I did a presentation at HAS in 2005 on natural cell and have had a page on my web site on foundationless frames since 2004 and natural cell size since 2005. I've been buying frames with no grooves in the top and bottom bars and cutting a bevel on the top bars. Recently I bought 1,000 more foundationless frames from Dave W more to my specs. I currently have more than 2,000 foundationless frames (with bevels) and another 1,000 with starter strips. 

> I would find it hard for MB to continue promoting smallcell outside the parimeter of promoting no foundation at all, after this comment.

You don't read what I post do you...

>Anyhows...I am glad to see a clear and distinct difference being pointed out in regards to the very un-natural forcing of bees on smallcell, and the very natural way of having bees draw what they want. The lines have been blurred for way to long.

I do see a difference between natural cell size and small cells size, but small cell is much more natural than large cell. I do prefer natural cell. Some people, however, can not handle the thought of no foundation, and for them small cell is a nice alternative. Also, for laziness and price, the PF120's were so cheap and so well accepted, I bought a bunch of them. But I still have more than twice as much foundationless than I do the PF120's.

The lines are blurred because either way you get smaller cells and less Varroa.

I see a lot of variety of worker cell size. Mostly in the 4.4mm to 5.1mm range. Quite a bit smaller than 5.4mm.


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

MB,
Sometimes I don't read what you post. Sorry. I actually don't like the cut and paste, and reference a website type responses. If I wanted to read responses pre-scripted for awaiting questions, I would read a book, or just copy all the previous posts.

I stand corrected. I thought you were "Mr. Smallcell". Thats about what I percieved from the many posts. I did not realize you were so much into natural comb. I can recall many, many posts promoting smallcell. But honestly, I don't recall near as many (almost none) posts touting natural comb. But maybe I wasn't paying attention.


----------



## peggjam (Mar 4, 2005)

Bjorn, you must admit that links to MB's website are much easier than retyping the same answer to the same question for the 100th time.

I also do alot of foundationless frames, because I am getting lazier with each passing day, or I just don't have the time to wire/wax in alot of starter strips. Unlike MB however, I have taken laziness to new heights, as I do nothing with any of the frames, other than put them together. If I don't like what they do with them, I cut it out and make them do it again.


----------



## Jeffzhear (Dec 2, 2006)

For the record, I enjoy reading all of your posts, and enjoy the occassional lively debate. I do agree with Peggjam and I think MB's links are great.


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

peggjam and Jeff,
I am sure its easier than typing 100's of times. But thats MB's choice, and nobody is forcing him. If it needs to come to a point, that instead of typing a tailored made personal response to an individuals question, that a pre-texted response is need.....whats next? Why not just make the site a "1000 questions" site and just have the answers posted. Kind of like a book.

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with MB's site or how he answers people. He asked me if I read his posts, and I answered honestly. Normally I ignore replies that direct to a website or some pretexted material. I don't like them. I come here for dialog between two (or more) people.

I also don't like those who will take several paragraphs of someone's comments, and selectively cut and paste portions of the comments, then post replies. Many times the "entire" meaning is lost of the original comments, and I personally don't like those replies that take this approach. Many times someone's reply is off the topic or point, in such a response, and many times its nitpicked to this extent to do nothing more than irritate or find some small detail to complain about.

To me, its just not the way conversations go. I read someones comment, and I reply as I would speak back to them. To me to edit the previous comments line by line, and add replies to every detail, well, its just not me. Again, if thats the way conversations go on the internet, I guess I'll have to deal with it. Maybe I'm "old school". Heck, I am 42 you know...


----------



## peggjam (Mar 4, 2005)

"Heck, I am 42 you know... "

You too..eh.

I agree, that custom responses are more personalble. Like your talking to the person, instead of a linked response. But some of these questions are asked over and over and over.....what happened to using the search feature?

MB responds to many questions, some of which have been asked at ad nuasem, and I think he has a limited amount of time, so I understand why he puts links in.

You an me, well, we have nothing better to do I guess.....


----------



## Yuleluder (Mar 2, 2005)

If your lazy just get Pierco Frames. That's what I've been doing. Nothings easier then pulling premade frames from a box.


----------



## peggjam (Mar 4, 2005)

Prieco won't give you natural cell, empty frames will.


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

peggjam, he said "lazy". Not naturally lazy!

Since I (we) allowed MB to go with that Naturally, more naturally, less naturally, slice and dice rationalization, lets give Yuleluder some credit. Actually MB just said one is more natural than another, but should we start a grading system? Good, better best. Less, more, closer to, almost natural, etc.

Standard foundation has 79 cells across the sheet. Pierco has 81. Smallcell has 86.

So it only goes to show that yuleluder was just showing a more natural foundation. But since it is an improvement, we should give him a pass. Its not full natural, but less natural. Better than less natural, but less than the best natural. Somewhere between no natural, not to be confused with minimal natural, but far below full natural, not to be confused with smallcell, which is called more natural than standard foundation, but really shouldn't be called natural at all, but is labled by feelgood nose raised in the air labelers of natural, less natural, no natural, better natural, best natural and natural BS.

Personally, this all makes me want to puke.....


----------



## peggjam (Mar 4, 2005)

BjornBee said:


> peggjam, he said "lazy". Not naturally lazy!
> 
> Since I (we) allowed MB to go with that Naturally, more naturally, less naturally, slice and dice rationalization, lets give Yuleluder some credit. Actually MB just said one is more natural than another, but should we start a grading system? Good, better best. Less, more, closer to, almost natural, etc.
> 
> ...


All I can say is:


----------



## sierrabees (Jul 7, 2006)

Heck, I am 42 you know... 


Let's see? At 42 I though I was getting older too fast. At 52 I was in my prime. At 62 I started to understand that age didn't make any differance. In another four years I'll be worrying about who is going to change my diapers in ten years. From the point you are at you just keep getting younger all the time.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Unlike MB however, I have taken laziness to new heights, as I do nothing with any of the frames, other than put them together

I do that a lot, but only between drawn brood combs...


----------



## Yuleluder (Mar 2, 2005)

The size of the cell doesn't matter much if your bees can survive year after year. I like bees that are highly adaptable, and are survivors. I don't like handicapped bees that need special attention, and special equipment. The special olympic bees don't last too long in my yards.....


----------



## peggjam (Mar 4, 2005)

Yuleluder said:


> The size of the cell doesn't matter much if your bees can survive year after year. I like bees that are highly adaptable, and are survivors. I don't like handicapped bees that need special attention, and special equipment. The special olympic bees don't last too long in my yards.....


I don't mess with special needs bees either, no point in propping up bad genetics.


----------



## newbee 101 (May 26, 2004)

If anyone cares, I'm 42 also...and I have not used any chemicals in the last 3 years. Just some minor drone comb removal and a sugar dusting once. As someone previously stated "If the bees can't survive without chemicals I don't want them!
"


----------



## Jeffrey Todd (Mar 17, 2006)

Is EVERYONE here 42 years old like I am? This must surely be the most common age on Beesource ! ! ! !


----------



## peggjam (Mar 4, 2005)

Musta been a good year, 42 years ago.


----------



## suprstakr (Feb 10, 2006)

Or rough winter.


----------



## Ann (Feb 18, 2006)

I wish I was 42 again....


----------



## kirk-o (Feb 2, 2007)

I was 42 16 years ago.I have one large cell hive I cut out of a bird house going
on 4 years. No treatment of any kind,I have a bunch of swarms I got this year all small bees.I never treat.The only treament I give them is love and admiration.
kirko


----------



## newbee 101 (May 26, 2004)

> The only treament I give them is love and admiration.
> kirko


That made me smile! see >>>>


----------



## Cyndi (Apr 26, 2005)

peggjam said:


> Musta been a good year, 42 years ago.


Turning 43 this week,


----------



## notaclue (Jun 30, 2005)

Use starter strips and bees are healthy for past two, one and this year. Yeah I'm a rookie, only using strips and powdered sugar if needed. Two hives from last late summer/early fall were treated until last year. Going great so far.

Will bee 49 next month. one brother will be 42, but not a beek.

Just wanted to add that cell sizes are all over the place. Smallest according to notes is 4.8 and largest is 5.2. Honey is the largest along with drone comb.


----------



## Kevin M (Aug 11, 2006)

Your not kidding Ann, i wish i was 42 again as well...!! I like how MB replies to questions, he's answered plenty of mine personally , as well as links of the topic at hand...thanks MB...


----------



## tony350i (Jul 29, 2005)

I make 90% of my decisions on how I keep my bees from MB replies 

And I’m just a youngster turning 41 this year.


Regards Tony


----------



## nc_beekeeper (Jul 11, 2007)

*Youngster*

I've got about 12 more years before I hit 42...


----------

