# Francis Saucy: small cell beekeeping incorrectly cites regression to historical norm



## ellix (Sep 28, 2014)

This gentleman was published in the Journal of Apiculture Research 2014. He took on the exhausting task of analysing the historical size of melifera worker cells while often corresponding with Dee Lusby. His conclusion is that historical cell size is very close to what we supposedly consider large cell i.e. around 5.3mm cell (wall to wall) diameter. Accordingly the whole "regression to original cell size" movement could actually be "regression to_ unnatural_ cell size". 
I wanted to ask Ms. Lusby's opinion directly but I could not find the way to do it on the web site-- hence I ask here.
This is the link to the study. www.researchgate.net/profile/Francis_Saucy

Notwithstanding, if Asian honey bees are varroa resistant and happen to be smaller; this could explain some of the success reported using small cell foundation-- after having regressed back appropriately.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

Dee is easy enough to find here:
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/Organicbeekeepers/info

Plenty of historic documents to the contrary of his results here:
http://www.beesource.com/point-of-view/ed-dee-lusby/historical-data-on-the-influence-of-cell-size/

Not all of them are so simple to explain away by morphing the cells per decimeter or rhombic formulas since many are measuring across cells.

Plenty of historic quotes here that you can look up. Most of the books I quote can be found on the cornell site:
http://www.bushfarms.com/beesnaturalcell.htm#historiccellsize

The cornell site where you can read them for yourself:
http://bees.library.cornell.edu/

Mine are often on nothing but natural comb. I don't see how you can unnaturally regress them on natural comb... and those run between 4.6mm and 5.0mm in the core of the brood nest. Not to mention he ignores much of the historic data and only uses what he can to prove his point. There is plenty of documentation that shows the opposite of his conclusion. The fact is that natural cell size varies, so there is no definitive answer. There are, however, many historic references that contradict the conclusions in that study.


----------



## ellix (Sep 28, 2014)

Dear Mr. Bush-- Thank you. I am very familiar with your website and respect your expertise and opinion. I am going to quote your reply in its entirety on a linkedin thread where I have been debating the subject with some sceptics. My own position is (humbly enough) that the theory (small cell) merits investigation. Accordingly I am regressing my few hives back to, ah, close to historical(?!) size to then provide 4.8 mm foundation and carry on my observations.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

ellix,

welcome to the forum. how big of a problem is varroa in your location and what kind of experience are you having with it?


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

I'd suggest (at least temporarily) forgetting about the math and measuring methods. Instead, look at first hand sources from the time the enlargement was occurring...ones that don't use such sophisticated measuring methods.

Look at the writings from Root, Miller, Langstroth, etc. They all cite the number of brood cells within 2 inches as 10...which works out to 5.08mm. In addition, Root writes very plainly about the 'plan' to enlarge bees by enlarging the foundation.

I don't really understand how anyone could go through the trouble of researching, writing, and publishing such an article without addressing these less than esoteric sources and simple method of measuring cells.

A standard business card is 2" on the short side...hold this up to your brood comb and see if you can count 10 cells WITHIN these 2 inches., If not, then either something changed, or we have to accepts that these successful commercial beekeepers (and popular authors of books on beekeeping...books that were the foundation of beekeeping practice at the time) couldn't count to 10 or measure 2 inches.

I don't understand what there is to debate or argue about.

deknow


----------



## ellix (Sep 28, 2014)

Thank you. Varroa is a serious problem and inevitably results in the death of untreated hives. There are a range of treatments ranging from the horrific (trace Asuntol in the sugar solution feed) to the remarkable (powdered nettle in the sugar solution feed). Most apiculturists purchase acarocides but enough know about alternatives such as oxalic vapour, oxalic/sugar solution drip, formic acid....

I have recently heard about bee colonies surviving years without intervention on an island on lake Puyehue. The island is 1,300 metres from shore at its closest. I was informed that bees often accompany boats going to the island-- they fly along in or around the slip stream. Naturally questions arise about varroa....


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

very interesting and thanks for the reply. please keep us updated on your efforts.


----------



## AmericasBeekeeper (Jan 24, 2010)

Welcome!


----------



## ellix (Sep 28, 2014)

gracias


----------

