# Here's something to consider about down-sizing



## txbeeguy (Jan 9, 2003)

I ran across this bee page from Africa where the infamous 'killer bees' live. Note the comments at the bottom of the page: 
http://www.algonet.se/~beeman/za/za-1.htm 

Could it be that cell regression in our southern states (where our AHB will reside) is NOT the correct thing to do?


----------



## db_land (Aug 29, 2003)

Very interesting and thanks for the link.

MB and other small-cell afictionados: Are small-cell bees more aggressive than regular (non-regressed) bees? 

Also, I notice the pictures of the starter-strip drawn combs appear to show that the bees are incorporating the frame wiring into the comb. Do our bees do that? If so, are the resulting combs sturdy enough to handle like foundation-based combs?


----------



## Clayton (Dec 8, 2000)

Why do you say that txbeeguy? I (and others)have discussed with Barry S. about scuts on bio bee list some years ago. The scut build cell sizing even smaller than 4.8. The cell sizing will bee greater the higher in elevation and smaller the lower in elevation. I would think that the fact that old literature shows bees were smaller and the fact that almost all the feral bees of africa build this smaller range cell size would indicate that there has been an up sizing. Barry S. even states that he is deliberately upsizing. You watch and see as he upsizes and his area of influence is altered to the larger and his bees will crash just like the rest. I liked discussing with Barry back then as it gave interesting POV on scuts vs EHB's. I hope in the end that he doesn't end up regretting altering the bees from there cell size as he seemed to really care for bees.


----------



## Clayton (Dec 8, 2000)

>Are small-cell bees more aggressive than >regular (non-regressed) bees? 

No.

>Also, I notice the pictures of the starter->strip drawn combs appear to show that the >bees are incorporating the frame wiring >into the comb. Do our bees do that? If so, >are the resulting combs sturdy enough to >handle like foundation-based combs? 

Yes. Yes to second question. Also the starter strips are used to up size like small cell bee keepers use to size down bees. The is problem in upsizing is similar to down sizing. I believe Dave Cushman has info about the problems beekeepers had when first trying to upsize.

Clay


----------



## txbeeguy (Jan 9, 2003)

Why do I say what? I'm only throwing out a question to be considered.

The link clearly says his wild bees (scuts, as you call them) build 4.8 and 4.9 cells, while his pedigreed bees build 5.2 cells. 

If his hives crash, it will most likely be because they don't have genetic resistance; not because of the cell size.

Since, apparently, Ms. Dee Lusby is the originator of this concept that smaller cell sizing plays an important role in Varroa control and she doesn't believe in the existence of AHBs, it seems a logical and appropriate question for me to ask. 

If scuts naturally build smaller cells (as the link clearly states) than European honeybees, then it seems likely this idea of going to smaller cell size foundation is something that could potentially assist the spread of AHBs across the southern states.


----------



## Clayton (Dec 8, 2000)

Txbeeguy,

>The link clearly says his wild bees (scuts, >as you call them) build 4.8 and 4.9 cells, >while his pedigreed bees build 5.2 cells. 

Yes. Barry raises apis mellifera scutelata ( the root stock of the famed AHB's, although not really the same bee to be exact). Scut's have 4.8- 4.9 cell sizing his pedigree bees have this same sizing. Barry buys foundation from Europe of 5.2 cell sizing to up size these bees in an attempt to make them more hardy winterers. This is NOT there natural cell sizing.

>If his hives crash, it will most likely be >because they don't have genetic resistance; >not because of the cell size.

Maybe a combination of both. One or the other, or neither?

>Since, apparently, Ms. Dee Lusby is the >originator of this concept that smaller >cell sizing plays an important role in >Varroa control and she doesn't believe in >the existence of AHBs, it seems a logical >and appropriate question for me to ask. 

That is her opinion. I have my own.

>If scuts naturally build smaller cells (as >the link clearly states) than European >honeybees, then it seems likely this idea >of going to smaller cell size foundation is >something that could potentially assist the >spread of AHBs across the southern states.

In a way you are right. AHB's survive varroa on that cell sizing. EHB's can too. What would you rather? EHB's that survive on small cell, or that die on larger? Either way AHB's aren't going to stop no matter the cell sizing one uses in there hive. Erik Erickson showed that AHB's placed on large cell combs varroa populations soared. In the end I don't think not using natural sized cells is going to halt the expansion of any kind of bee.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

I was not regressing the only time I had vicious bees. I would say that small cell bees are LESS viscious and more calm in general, but they are, after all, just bees.

As far as European bees building 5.2mm cells, if you take the 5.4mm bees and let them build what they want in the spring they will build 5.15mm cells. If you let them build what they want later, it will probably be about 5.2mm. If you let the second generation build what they want it's more like 4.9mm in the spring, but in one spring in two generations I've seen brood cells as small as 4.6mm. This is NOT using small cell foundation. This is using blank starter strips and letting them build what they want.

My bees are Italian, Cordovan, Carnolian and some feral survivors. None are vicous. All build small cells without any help from me in that regard. I have had all of these on blank starters and they built small cells.


----------



## txbeeguy (Jan 9, 2003)

> ...4.8- 4.9 cell sizing his pedigree bees have this same sizing. 

It's not what the link says. 

I would invite you to re-read what the link says: 
"The pedigreed bees (left) get only a small strip of foundation at the top of the frame, and build the comb themselves to the prefered cell size. During the selection process the bees have been upgraded in size, and now build 5,2 mm cells, like european bees. The wild bees build cells around 4.8-4.9mm.
Wild bees (right) build smaller cells."

While the way it's written might leave a little "wiggle room" for interrupting what is meant, it's pretty clear to me that what was meant is that his queen selection process yields bees that naturally build their own "preferred" size of 5.2 cells. And the last sentence quoted, makes this distinction clear. 

> Maybe a combination of both. One or the other, or neither?

Nope. Not neither. If Apis is genetically resistant to Varroa and can manage to survive (as in the past 100 years in the Primorsky Kry region of Russia), then that genetics is the answer. I don't believe small cell foundation was used there (which is not necessarily to say, the bees themselves didn't build 4.9) but I believe natural selection pressures on the genetics involved, is what has contributed to their survival much more so than the possibility of smaller cell size.

> What would you rather? EHB's that survive on small cell, or that die on larger? 

As I've pointed out, just because EHB is on larger cell size foundation doesn't mean they won't survive a Varroa infestation - genetics is going to determine this outcome, not cell size. I don't particularly care if EHBs survive on small cell foundation or large cell foundation - just that they survive. And the natural selection pressures that good old mother nature exert will play a much more important role than what size the bees build their honeycomb cells.
--
Because AHBs can (and do) invade managed hives (known from first hand, personal experience) that is what prompted my original question. I'm not at all sure that the use of small cell size foundation is a beneficial thing for beekeepers in the south. 
I'll be the first to admit this concern doesn't exist for northern beekeepers since AHBs won't ever inhibit those regions. But in the south, it's a question that should be asked.


----------



## BULLSEYE BILL (Oct 2, 2002)

>this concern doesn't exist for northern beekeepers since AHBs won't ever inhibit those regions.


Really? I thought that the Northern expansion was emminant. What's to keep them from coming North?


----------



## Clayton (Dec 8, 2000)

>It's not what the link says. 

Here's what it says:

The pedigreed bees (left) get only a small strip of foundation at the top of the frame, and build the comb themselves to the prefered cell size. During the selection process the bees have been upgraded in size, and now build 5,2 mm cells, like european bees. 

Clay writes:

The fact that he states small strip of foundation (5.2mm starter strip) and that the bees have been "upgraded" like ehb's. The cell size of the wild bees is just stating a fact. All scut's build this cell size in general. These bees have been sized up just as small cell beekeepers size down. I am 100% certain of it! This info is in the archives of biological beekeeping list for all to see.

I can understand your concerns about AHB's. But I don't think using or not using small cell sizing in ones hives will be the determining factor that will slow down the AHB's. I think climate and simple matings will have much more influence here. I will respect your opinion on genetics, however my view is combined genetics along with cell sizing. Just as some feel that small cell alone is what causes survival. In the end its the survival that counts.


----------



## txbeeguy (Jan 9, 2003)

> These bees have been sized up...

No disagreement there; that's what he says he has done. It's one of the things he apparently "selects" for in his queens. 

What I was taking exception to, was your comment [the comment I first quoted in my last posting] that his pedigreed bees (i.e., bees from his selected queens) drew out the same size cells as the scuts - which he clearly says, they do not. He says the pedigreed bees perfer to draw out 5.2 cell size (not the smaller cell size that the scuts draw out). But perhaps I didn't correctly understand your earlier comment. 

Clayton, I see I'm going to have to be VERY careful at how I express myself when I deal with you. You're also the guy that took me to task about the commonly used term, "AHB" in an earlier posting.


----------



## BULLSEYE BILL (Oct 2, 2002)

> Just as some feel that small cell alone is what causes survival. In the end its the survival that counts.


This is exactly what confuses me. I know I'll get flamed by the 'true believers' but, I have to ask.

It was either you or Dennis, so the question really goes to both of you, that has now gone four years downsized and no chemicles.

How can you be sure that it was small cell that got you to where you are today? Survival is the ONLY criteria for selection in the fight to survive varroa.

When you take heavy losses going the no chem route, survival on small cell is just happenstance.

Look at the Weavers selling resistant bees. Three and four years with no treatment and now they advertize resistance, and you know they aren't on small cell. There are a lot of case in points that can be scrutinized that are showing that there is resistance and survivability without small cell.

I don't mean to antagonize, I just can't fully buy into small cell when others have gotten the same results without going that route.


----------



## txbeeguy (Jan 9, 2003)

Bullseye Bill, 
The last study I read about the projected expansion of the AHBs, indicated there was some winter temperature range that would, in effect, define the ultimate extent of their range. As I recall, this study was done on the South American continent and looked at where the AHBs had NOT expanded to. Unfortunately, I do not recall now, where I read this (perhaps it could be found on the web). The upshot of the study led one to believe there was some "magical" temperature range achieved during the winter, that the AHBs would not or could not tolerate. In other words, so many 'X' days of the temperature being below 'X' degrees would limit their capability to sustain an existence in a particular area. (Sorry, I do not recall the exact numbers). What I do recall reading is that there was a band approximately 200 miles wide where the bees might expand into during a "mild" winter, but in effect, "freeze back" during cold winters. There may have also been some component of elevation (altitude) involved - can't recall exactly what was said about that now. 
What I took away from the article was the general understanding that the northern states weren't likely to have a permanent presence of AHBs (if this temperature correlation thing holds true). 
--
My own personal feeling is that we're just going to have to wait it out. For instance, here in Texas, they haven't expanded east as rapidly as they've expanded west. And so far, I've not seen any real explanation as to why this is the case.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

I have seen bees that are not reputed to have any resistance do fine on small cell. I have seen bees that ARE reupted to have mite resistance die when put on large cell. I think alot of the dissapointing results from Russians and Harbos, both of which were bred from survivors, simply mirrors what happens when you put AHB on large cell. They die from mites. All of them were doing fine on natural sized cells, but fail on large cell. This is like me taking any animal that is surviving in it's natural habitat and changing that habitat and wondering why they die.

I used to think genetics was the main thing. I don't think that anymore. I think genetics may be part of the whole picture, but ALL the bees I've seen do better on small cell and ALL the bees I've seen do worse on large cell. So I'd have to say I think the cell size is the most critical issue to surviving the mites.

As for small cell being more "attractive" to the AHB. I find it's more "attractive" to EHB as well. People put AHB on large cell all the time. And the mites kill them the same as the EHB. The AHB will build large cell just the same as the EHB and fail in the same ways for the same reasons.

Why put your bees in an artifical environment in which they are disadvantaged against the mites? How does this help in the fight against the mites?

I've come to the conclusion that it's foundation in general that is the problem. Why not let the bees do what they want? The fact that they want to build small cells in the middle of the brood nest shouldn't drive us to MAKE them make small cell everywhere. The fact that they want to build bigger cells for honey and other uses, shouldn't drive us to MAKE them build all large cells everywhere. The bees know what to build where and I think we should let them.
http://www.charlesmartinsimon.com/pictures.htm http://www.beesource.com/pov/simon/10principles.htm http://www.beesource.com/pov/simon/beebackwards.htm


----------



## txbeeguy (Jan 9, 2003)

Michael, 
I'm like Bullseye Bill, "I don't mean to antagonize" but I find the second and third paragraphs of your posting to be more your personal belief system than anything that's been proven (not unlike the discussion we had about thelytoky genetics of Dee's bees). 
I guess I just don't see how you can say that by putting bees on 5.2 or 5.4 cells insures their collapse due to varroa - I'm just not buying it. 
I read the links you posted from Mr. Simon; and I guess I'd fall into the group that would receive his writings less enthusiastically - strikes me as being 99% meaningless babble.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

As to my personal belief system I find in years of observing things you see patterns. To go to another field entirely as an example, I've concluded, after years of observing, that in general food that is highly processed is not good for humans. In general food that is unprocessed or minimally processed IS good for humans. This is a generalization based on lots of single examples that have always pointed that way. But following this general rule would have saved many nutritional disasters in history.

As far as bees, I have come to these generalities through looking at individual pieces of information that add up to a whole picture.

Here, for example is a specific study of AHB on small and large cell foundation. Since these are the thriving survivors that are infiltrating your state, I would think it would be significant that cell size mattered. A lot.
http://www.funpecrp.com.br/gmr/year2003/vol1-2/gmr0057_full_text.htm 

The results that are summarized in the study:

"Varroa mite infestations in Africanized honey bee brood are clearly affected by comb cell width. When compared in the same colony, the largest brood cells, those in Carniolan combs (mean of about 5.3 mm inside width) were about 38% more infested than the Italian comb brood cells (mean of about 5.15 mm), which in turn were about 13% more infested than the self-built Africanized combs (mean of about 4.8 mm). This same tendency was found in all six colonies. Message and Gonçalves (1995) found more than twice as many mites in Italian-sized compared to Africanized-sized brood cells; however, they used old Africanized combs, with much smaller cells (4.5-4.6 mm inside width); our Africanized combs were newly built and therefore had larger cells. This may be the reason for the greater difference in infestation rates in the two types of combs in the study made by Message and Gonçalves (1995), compared to our study. Additionally, in our experimental colonies the mites could choose between small Africanized comb cells, medium-sized Italian cells and large Carniolan cells. They preferred the largest cells. The varroa females also chose the largest cells in the study by Message and Gonçalves (1995); however, in their colonies the mites only had a choice between small Africanized cells and larger Italian comb cells."

This study explains the observation already made by many, that beekeepers who hived the feral surviving AHB in hives with large foundation lost those bees to the Varroa mites. This is a common occurrence. Doesn't it seem to follow that doing this same thing, putting feral survivor EHB, on large cell foundation will result in the same losses and the same increase in Varroa? For reasons unknown, no one seems to want to study this on EHB.


----------



## Clayton (Dec 8, 2000)

>What I was taking exception to, was your >comment [the comment I first quoted in my >last posting] that his pedigreed bees >(i.e., bees from his selected queens) drew >out the same size cells as the scuts - >which he clearly says, they do not. He says >the pedigreed bees perfer to draw out 5.2 >cell size (not the smaller cell size that >the scuts draw out). But perhaps I didn't >correctly understand your earlier comment. 

I was only trying to say that these bees (scut's)naturally draw 4.8- 4.9 cells. His pedigreed bees have been sizied up. Due to this sizing up and the continued use of the 5.2 foundation they will draw that cell size . They now have the same problem as our bees in that they will have to be stepped back down through regression due to this imposed sizing up to go back to the 4.8 sizing.

>Clayton, I see I'm going to have to be VERY >careful at how I express myself when I deal >with you. You're also the guy that took me >to task about the commonly used term, "AHB" >in an earlier posting.

I'm behaving







But in seriousness I have discussed in length with Barry S. his use of 5.2 foundation.


----------



## WineMan (May 16, 2003)

Ill disagree with some of this thread.

I would agree that different folks have hugely different experiences and opinions of Russians and Harbo SMR but I would argue that it is primarily due to the matings/hybrids and cell size isnt the main part of the equation.

Im one of those that have experienced many different outcomes with those two mentioned bees. When talking about Russians, there are a number of folks involved in that whole program that have relatively pure stock with virtually zero varroa or tracheal mites and they dont use small cell. And SMR was a product of a conglomeration of bees which were survivors but definately not limited to those on any particular cell size. That sure wasnt part of the selection process.


----------



## txbeeguy (Jan 9, 2003)

Michael, 
Thanks for that last link you posted; I have begun reading that article (with a most "critical eye", I can assure you!). And once I've had a chance to mull it over, I'll get back to ya. Hopefully I don't go through life with blinders on and if there IS scientific proof that small cells play a role then I'll be happy to acknowledge it. 
However, I can tell you, as far as I'm concerned, there had better be pretty irrefutable proof. Otherwise, observations like WineMan has just offered tend to reflect what I think natural selection pressures have done in the wild (both in America with the SMR and in Russia with their far eastern bee).
--
It seems like most of you "small cellers" tend to also acknowledge the role that "survivor hives" play in Varroa resistance. It's apparent you don't totally dismiss the Darwin line of reasoning. So the real question among us beekeepers apparently boils down to the issue of: is small cell regression worth the effort? (As opposed to Varroa resistant genetics being the sole answer to the problem). And while we may banter this discussion back and forth now, I suppose only time will tell if the cell regression efforts are [were] worthwhile.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>It seems like most of you "small cellers" tend to also acknowledge the role that "survivor hives" play in Varroa resistance.

Certainly survivors are obviously able to survive. At least in a natural hive on natural sized comb.

>It's apparent you don't totally dismiss the Darwin line of reasoning. So the real question among us beekeepers apparently boils down to the issue of: is small cell regression worth the effort?

I don't see how letting the bees build what they want is really any effort. If you use foundationless frames, or you use blank starter strips or small cell starter strips, they will build smaller cells.

My wax coated PermaComb pretty much does it in one shot without any wait and without any disadvantage to the bees.


----------



## BULLSEYE BILL (Oct 2, 2002)

>is small cell regression worth the effort?

>>I don't see how letting the bees build what they want is really any effort.

Reading the early articles on how Dee and others would draw out the early spring combs and switch out frames, and then the next year do it all over again, and on and on, sounds like a lot of trouble to me.

MB's process of waxing the PC is a real godsend to small cell enthuiests, but what he has to do to wax it isn't an easy process either. It is a one time deal and he is where he wants to be quckly, more power to him, he has achieved what he wants to do.

I, however, am not convenced that small cell isn't a bunch of hooey. It is a fact that winter bees are smaller, smaller bees draw smaller cells, bees raised after the main flow get bigger and make bigger cells. This is natural, but why does it happen? Nurishment, winter bees are eating honey, a survival food. Late spring bees and summer bees are eating nectar and fresh pollen, and just like us when we eat better(and more) we get bigger, so do they.

There is a recient post on here from someone who has lost most if not all seven of his small cell hives this winter. How could that happen if small cell is all that it is cracked up to be? Does size really matter? I think it is just survival of the fittest.

I should also let the small cell experimenters know that I apperciate their efforts. If we don't try different things, experiment in alternate directions, we will take even longer to find better ways to manage our bees and find resistance to mites and diseases.


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

Some are hobbiest. Some are hobbiest with alot of experience. Some are sideliners. Some are commercial. Some want to be "organic". Some want to be "natural". Some are not opposed to chemicals. Some dont care.

I say all that because each is different. For me, beekeeping means business. I want healthy bees while making a profit. If chemicals (used properly- meaning as needed as determined by testing, and not just to throw them in the hive two times a year.) are needed, then thats part of what I need to do. I don't care about being natural, or "organic", but that does not mean I want my honey tainted. I have more than two hives, so fogging for the next 20 years does not appeal to me, and small cell conversion is costly and not needed if other avenues of resistant bees are being made available. Just to say "I'm letting them do what they want" means nothing to me. I try not to let them swarm, and they want to. My tomcat didn't want fixed, but it happened.(now he's an ex-tom) If others are having success with survivor selection, and not using smallcell, then its an added cost to convert that I do not plan on paying.

I am one to think that genetics, and survivor selection will answer the mite problems. Some are already being successful and would make converting hives to smallcell, obsolete. Unless you enjoy saying my bees are "natural". If you do, go for it. 

I also believe a high amount of beekeepers do not test regularly, do not know how old their queen is, can't find a mite, and would lose hives regardless of what they do with the hives they have. Most do not realize that a percentage of all hives go queenless, and you stand a "natural" winter kill rate of about 20% just because the queens may stop at a critcal time going into fall. All hives do not die from mites.

It amazes me that some will spend alot of money converting to small cell, or fogging weekly, then shop around for the cheapest bees or queens on the market. Name one other animal or "product" that individuals want to make money off of, then as an industry, choose the cheapest product out there. 

This an industry that has no "central" guidance or structure. We pride ourselves on saying "ask ten beekeepers a question, and you'll get eleven answers". Thats why I believe that we will have probably several successfull paths to beekeeping, but each needs to choose the path based on cost, time, or preference. 

For me, its genetics and survivor stock.

I also wish all beekeepers get involved locally with a state or county club, attend conventions, and not follow one persons guidance. Look at all options.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>I, however, am not convenced that small cell isn't a bunch of hooey. It is a fact that winter bees are smaller, smaller bees draw smaller cells, bees raised after the main flow get bigger and make bigger cells. This is natural, but why does it happen? Nurishment, winter bees are eating honey, a survival food. Late spring bees and summer bees are eating nectar and fresh pollen, and just like us when we eat better(and more) we get bigger, so do they.

It's not all about the size of the adult bee. It's about the ability of the mites to reproduce in the brood cells and the health of the adult bee.

>There is a recient post on here from someone who has lost most if not all seven of his small cell hives this winter. How could that happen if small cell is all that it is cracked up to be? Does size really matter? I think it is just survival of the fittest.

Small cell bees starve and die from all the other things that cause winter kill. I think its irelevant unless we have some idea of the cause. I have not seen any problems overwintering small cell bees.

>Just to say "I'm letting them do what they want" means nothing to me. I try not to let them swarm, and they want to. My tomcat didn't want fixed, but it happened.(now he's an ex-tom) If others are having success with survivor selection, and not using smallcell, then its an added cost to convert that I do not plan on paying.

My point about "letting them do what they want" is that I don't have to force the bees to be on small cell. I am letting them be on natural sized cell. Forcing them to be on large cell gives them a decided disadvantage against the mites. Large cells have one day longer cappig times compared to small cell. One day longer capping time means twice as many cells infested. http://www.funpecrp.com.br/gmr/year2003/vol1-2/gmr0057_full_text.htm 

Large cells mean one day longer postcapping times compared to small cell. One day longer postcapping time means those mites reproduce more. http://www.csl.gov.uk/prodserv/cons/bee/varroa/ModellingBiologicalApproaches.pdf 

Why would I want to disadvantage the bees by putting them on artificially large cells?

What is the big convenience for me?


----------



## txbeeguy (Jan 9, 2003)

> For me, its genetics and survivor stock.
Ditto.

--

And the beat goes on....


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

MB, I read the article, and do not see the facts stating "one additional day means twice as many cells infested" I am not good with cut and paste, etc. Could you copy/highlight/reference what section this is in.

I did notice that all the information is dated to some degree, some being 15 years or more. I am wondering if any of this research took into account the hygenic behavior that survivor stock posess to some degree today, (that may not of been present back in the testing dates using basic first generation kill bees.) It seems that these tests would be true for that time, but not perhaps as data against the bees today that may posess other traits, recently bred for.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

from http://www.funpecrp.com.br/gmr/year2003/vol1-2/gmr0057_full_text.htm 
"DISCUSSION

Varroa mite infestations in Africanized honey bee brood are clearly affected by comb cell width. When compared in the same colony, the largest brood cells, those in Carniolan combs (mean of about 5.3 mm inside width) were about 38% more infested than the Italian comb brood cells (mean of about 5.15 mm), which in turn were about 13% more infested than the self-built Africanized combs (mean of about 4.8 mm)."

This makes a difference of 51% from the 4.8 to the 5.3mm cells. Our typical foundation here in the US is 5.45mm. They were measuring the inside of the cells, not counting the cell wall so that would make our foundation 5.35mm by that measurment. The cell wall is about 0.1mm ( http://www.sciencenews.org/sn_arc99/7_24_99/bob2.htm ) so that 4.8mm size in their experiment is about a 4.9mm cell by the "across ten cells" method of measuring. My "natural" comb seems to run about 4.6mm to 4.9mm in the center of the brood nest with 4.85mm being the most common.

from the modelling biologic approches:

"Shortening the post-capping time
Shortening the post-capping time reduces the number of offspring
that can be produced and the time for the last offspring to
successfully mate prior to emergence. Post-capping periods for
worker European bees have been reported to vary from 268 to 290
hrs (Harris and Harbo 2000) and the model is based on a post-capping
period of 288 hrs for workers and 336 hrs for drone brood.
Worker Africanized bees usually have a post-capping period 20
hrs shorter than European bees (Rosenkranz 1999). However,
among European bees there is significant variation in the average
duration of the capped period and this is a heritable characteristic
(Harris and Harbo 2000), but it can be affected by climatic conditions.
European Apis mellifera carnica bees had a worker postcapping
time only 8 hrs longer than Africanized bees at the same
tropical site (Rosenkranz 1999).
The model predicts that, in order to bring about a 25% reduction
in mite population growth (excluding the possible effects of
reduced mating success and fertility of daughter mites) the postcapping
period for worker brood needs to be reduced by 7% (20
hrs) for worker brood, by 9% (30 hrs) for drone brood and by 7%
(20hrs worker, 24hrs drone) for both. This results in a post-capping
time close to the minimum reported for worker brood, but
drone brood has greater phenotypic variation (de Jong 1997) suggesting
that it may be possible to breed bees that produce drone
brood with a shorter post-capping period. Buchler and Drescher
(1990) reported that 25% of the variation in mite populations in
their colonies could be accounted for by variations in the post-capping
period, which fits in well with the results of our model.
However, in a survey of European bees an average 8.7% reduction
of mite infestation rate was calculated for each 1hour reduction in
the capping time (de Jong 1997). This is a much larger effect than
our model predicts, suggesting other factors are confounding the
comparison in European bees."

This would indicate that a post-capping period that is 20 hours shorter would make the 25% difference that they think is critical to surviving mite infestations. 

and also:

"Altering the invasion rate of brood cells by the mite
The model suggests that the invasion rate of worker cells would
need to be decreased by 96% to reduce the mite population growth
rate by 25% (Table 1). Such a large reduction is necessary because
mites which do not enter worker cells are available to invade drone
cells. Since mite reproduction is greater in drone cells, only a proportion
of these "displaced" mites need to enter drone cells to balance
the loss of population growth. The attractiveness of the brood
to varroa mites may be affected by a number of factors which may
interact, including the size of the cell and the strength of the
pheromone signal."

And on the effect of cell size and invasion rate and pre capping times:

"The size and shape of the brood cells
The diameter of the worker cell appears to affect the invasion of
varroa mites. In the absence of drone brood, the varroa infestation
rate has been reported to be 16-50% lower in the small Africanized
worker cells than in the larger European (Italian) worker cells
(Guzman-Novoa et al. 1999, Rosenkranz 1999). This in part may
have been due to a higher visitation rate by nurse bees as the
European larvae were larger and heavier, and to the longer periods
spent capping the larger cells which would increase the time period
over which a mite can invade the cell (Message and Goncalves
1995)."

Another study I heard quoted at "Beetopia" here in Lincoln, was about how the majority of the mites get into the cell during the last 24 hours that it is uncapped and a shorter capping time could help with controling the reproduction of the mites. I didn't get the details of where to find the study, but the presenter wasn't thinking of small cell, but of possible genetic traits. The Harbo study mentioned above correlates capping and post capping times to genetics and climate, but there are studies correlating it to cell size. (see the one at the top) I have observed a one day shorter capping time (8 days) with small cell bees.

Also the model above assumes a 288 hour post capping time (12 days). I have not observed any longer than a 11 day post caping time on my small cell workers. I have not tried to measure the capping and post capping times on small cell drones, but plan to do so in the spring.

I also hope to measure the times down to the hour instead of the day. But they were 24 hours shorter in both cases but possibly a few hours shorter than that, because I was not constantly watching them so I have a window of possibly 7 or 8 hours shorter.


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

So the 50% was actual African honey bees and brood? Who has AHB? And why is this data being qouted with other bees not AHB?

I understand and agree with the capping rates and such, just not sure about the cross over of information based on AHB, to other strains as proven data. And the cross-over data that is good, is based on gene lines of bees from the past, not the survivor stock of today.

If you have hygenic bees, bees capable of handling the associated mite syndrome viruses, and gene lines that have handled mites in the past, then why the emphasis on data based on Africans and capping times? If there are hygenic bees, those capable of handling mite loads and viruses, than small cell to me is not warranted.

I also wish there were studies about the adaptation of parasites like mites and their ability to change to a different enviroment. It seems natural that the mites will change over time to enviromental changes. Then small cell would only be usefull if hygenic or survival bees were used.

There seems to be a number of beekeepers with survivor stock not on small cell. Easy to reach conclusions. But its tougher to prove that small cell is good enough without survivor stock bees. Only way would be to take bees back off small cell, after they handled the mites for a period of time, and put them back on regular comb. It would of course be stupid to do, but you could at least draw conclusions.


----------



## briancady413 (Dec 8, 2003)

As a queen lays an egg, can she choose her egg's sperm donor, among drones that had insemenated her before, from her sperm-storage organs, according to the size of the cell she is laying in?

---------------------------------
That's the best question from the belowsequence of ponderings:

Wasn't AHB considered a greater threat because 'its' queens, from AHB drones, hatched earlier, then killed EHB queens before they hatched? Isn't that how it was thought to take over hives?

Was this true on large cell frames because AHB is less responsive to cell size?

But queen cells are specially-sized anyway. 

Could hive cell size affect speed of EHB queen hatching??

Do big bees raise bigger, slower-hatching queens? Do shared-father/drone/sky-stallion loyalties between same-fathered workers within a hives worker population lead smaller AFB workers to raise smaller, quicker-hatching AHB queens? (Can't be - all the workers hatched in a hive were randomly insemenated from various drones stored semen, right? 

As a queen lays an egg, can she choose her egg's sperm donor, among drones that had insemenated her before, from her sperm-storage organs, according to the size of the cell she is laying in?

Sorry if I already raised these thoughts - some of them seem eeriely familiar, yet still unclear.

Brian Cady


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

Regardless of how you apply the information in the tests, one key point should be noted by EVERY BEEKEEPER. 
There was a difference between the AHB and italians, but more important, there was also a difference between the "standard" bess we all keep, that being the italians and carniolians. This shows that mite loads, (ie. possible survival) between the different strains already in the field, could have a big impact. Not only that all bees are not the same, but perhaps all breeders, and perhaps all selection processes could come into play. Strain of bee, possibly helped by breeders using survivor selection processes, and quality of product, would definetly have a impact. This would make a difference whether your using small cell or not. Think about that the next time your comparing prices.


----------



## txbeeguy (Jan 9, 2003)

> can she choose her egg's sperm donor

The answer here is, no, she cannot choose which sperm is used. She does, however, "overmate" - meaning that typically she expells about two-thirds (going from memory here) of the average total semen collected on her mating flights. And most of what is expelled is from the later matings; meaning the sperm from the earlier matings is what is left for her egg laying useage - and then only a small percentage of that is used during her lifetime. But what is available for use, is mixed up and she has no control over which drone's sperm is used.


----------



## Curry (Sep 22, 2003)

I've read that the sperm is not mixed up, but rather is used up drone by drone. So, for many months you can have dark bees and then they can turn lighter because of a different father. Someone correct me if I am wrong. Either way though, the queen certainly cannot select a sperm from a specific drone.


----------



## BULLSEYE BILL (Oct 2, 2002)

I understood it the same as Curry. However she can determine between a worker and stud.


----------



## txbeeguy (Jan 9, 2003)

> ...but rather is used up drone by drone.

Any given, single drone provides more sperm than a queen could use in a single lifetime (in the millions). And it is true that a queen can begin to lay eggs which yield workers that have different characteristics. Thus, obviously she hasn't "used up" all the sperm from a single drone before a different drone's sperm is used. All sperm is stored in the spermatheca and as a result, does mix. There may be some "layering" (i.e., first in, last out), but by no means is used up, drone by drone.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

The point is that the change in capping time and post capping time changes the mite infestation. And that capping time and post capping times are affected by cell size. AHB or EHB, it's still the same effect. I am dissapointed that they didn't do it on EHB, but the fact is that AHB that are flourishing as feral bees are being put on large cells and crashing from Varroa. My fear is that EHB that are flourishing as feral bees will be put on large cells and crash from Varroa. For the exact same reasons.

The modeling study and several other studies on capping times and post capping times have been done on EHB but not with the perspective that these can be controled by cell size, but rather that capping sooner is a genetic trait. But it's NOT a genetic trait in AHB it's the cell size that controls that and we have a scientific study to show that. And I have mearsured capping and post capping times on EHB on small cell and they are BOTH 24 hours shorter, so from my point of view I have satisfied myself that in EHB it is ALSO controled by cell size and not genetics.

The point of the modeling study is that their mathematical model predicts how much of a change certain things will make, such as capping and post capping times, and how much of a change will be critical to survival of a Varroa mite infestation.

The difference I have observed in small cell EHB is more than enough, according to their model, to turn the tide of the Varroa reproduction.


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

MB.
With the many years of beekeeping you have and mentioning that you had comb of 30 years, what was the capping time of the older comb? Did you do any testing with your older comb, or were all tests comparing small cell to new 5.4 foundation? Did you ever measure your own used foundation?

Also, why did feral bees have such a problem when v-mites were introduced. Were they not on smaller cell and going "natural", and if not why? You mention that its the shorter capping time and not genetics. Why did some make it and some not? You say capping times have nothing to do with genetics and yet some ferals made it and most did not? This also says nothing of the grooming aspect of different bees, and the hygenic bees, both very much in my mind based on genetics. I know your comment only had to do with the capping rates and not suvivability as per say, but thats the common goal. Bees capable of surviving not capping rates. If feral, small cell bees had that sole advantage, and that was the key, they would of handled it better. Those feral bees with certain genetics of these traits made it and those with less of those traits did not. Did any research on ferals show those surviving were on different comb, or was it more other behavior factors or genetics?

I realize small-cell alone, as pointed out time and time again, alone will not do. (Based on d. Lusby, and others.) Genetic selection is also a key element, but seems to get lost in conversation as most think small cell alone will make bees survive.

In selecting bees for genetic survivabilty traits, wouldn't it be great to find bees with these traits that could survive on regular comb, that 99.9 percent use anyways? More and more say they already have.

I know these questions bend the conversation, but its all inter-mixed in discussion. Thanks.


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

I hope anyone reading these posts do not get the idea I'm against small cell. If you know what balloon chucking is, then you understand.

My questions are posed from the angle that, even with small cell, mites will be present. With that in mind..

I believe that feral bees were killed even though some were on small cell.

I believe that old-timers with old comb also lost bees and these may of been on small-cell from the standpoint the smaller cells from years of use.

From these two statements, I ask "Would you rather have bees with few mites, or bees with more mites but able to handle the load? This question has to deal with the unanswered data concerning mite viruses, and the threshhold that makes a hive crash. I beleive that if all hives were made immediatly to be on small cell, than those mite/viruses threshholds would change over time for the worse. Will small-cell hives, still crash due to viruses and transmitted deseases from mites as the feral population did in years past? Hives would still go through survivor selection processes I suppose. If smallcell can limit these viruses and help beekeeping than I'm all for it. I do feel that even with small cell there will be hives crashing due to mites. Thats why genetics have to play a role. And if those selected genetic traits can be found, that allows bees to survive without small cell, I'm for that.

Ultimately, it would be nice to find bees, that however the enviroment, beekeepers ability(big statement), or other factors, that they could survive using there own gene pool and god given survivabilty traits.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>With the many years of beekeeping you have and mentioning that you had comb of 30 years, what was the capping time of the older comb?

I never tried to measure it. I had observed capping and emergence on new comb when I first started raising bees, but I never thought of it as something variable until I had small cell and was noting the times just out of curiosity so I could watch them emerge. I really hadn't expected a difference when I noted it.

>Did you do any testing with your older comb, or were all tests comparing small cell to new 5.4 foundation?

I did the 5.4 foundation observations when I first got bees and they are well documented everywhere. I did the small cell just because I had an observation hive and it was easy enough to make notes. I was really just trying to predict when to look for bees to be emerging. I was surprised when they were a day early.

What I do intend to do this spring is in one hive with one queen, confine her to one of four sections of a "shadow box" with comb. Sort of like a jenter box affair with a queen excluder on it. I have 4.9mm, 5.45mm, 5.9mm and 6.6mm foundation in it. I will let the queen lay in each and measure the emergence times. This should eliminate the factor of genetics since all are from the same queen, and the factor of how they were taken care of since they are all in the same hive. My hope is to measure capping and post capping times on small and large cell workers as well as small and large cell drones.

I don't think I have any really old comb left around. Between converting to mediums and converting to small cell I scrapped most everything.

>Did you ever measure your own used foundation?

No. It would be interesting to measure the amount of "shrinkage" each generation of coccons leave and predict how long it would take to regress that way.

>Also, why did feral bees have such a problem when v-mites were introduced. Were they not on smaller cell and going "natural", and if not why?

I don't think it's all that clear, but a lot of feral bees swarmed from enlarged foundation and built 5.15mm cells for the core of the brood nest. This isn't small enough to help. It would still take five years or so to get down to 4.9mm or less. So not all of the feral bees had small cell combs.

I certainly am not discounting that genetics is also a part of all of this. I wouldn't be raising feral survivors and russians and harbos unless I thought it was a part of the solution. Certainly all of the feral bees with no resistance to the mites died. From my observation the ones that survived were mostly hives that had been there for decades. Which leads me to believe that, either through being feral small bees when they moved there, or through cocoons filling the cells, they were already small when the mites came as opposed to the many hives that had swarmed from domestic hives with enlarged bees.

While I have seen less feral bees, I have always found feral bees.

>You mention that its the shorter capping time and not genetics. Why did some make it and some not? You say capping times have nothing to do with genetics and yet some ferals made it and most did not?

I don't know what percent of the ferals were still large cell bees that had swarmed and what percent were actual feral bees for generations. I don't know that most of the true natural sized bees did not.

Harbo has done a study to show there is some component of genetics involved in shorter capping time also. I'm just saying I don't think it's the main component. ANY bees on smaller cells will have shorter capping times. Some with genetic predisposition to shorter capping times might have even shorter capping times. This would be an aspect worth considering when breeding for resistance. But I don't think you will shorten the capping time as much by genetics as with natural cell size.

>This also says nothing of the grooming aspect of different bees, and the hygenic bees, both very much in my mind based on genetics.

Certainly, I think hygenic bees are a good thing. I have not spent a lot of time observing grooming behavior in large bees to compare, but the small cell bees in my observation hive do a lot of grooming each other and lot of "get it off me" dances to recruit a bee to groom them. Bwrangler has observed a lot of increase in grooming behavior in the same bees after regression with the same genetics.

>I know your comment only had to do with the capping rates and not suvivability as per say, but thats the common goal. Bees capable of surviving not capping rates. If feral, small cell bees had that sole advantage, and that was the key, they would of handled it better.

In my opinion true feral bees that were not recently swarmed from domestic hives DID handle it better.

>Those feral bees with certain genetics of these traits made it and those with less of those traits did not. Did any research on ferals show those surviving were on different comb, or was it more other behavior factors or genetics?

I'm sure genetics played a part. My point is that a bee that in it's natural state on natural comb is able to survive may fail when put in a totally different environment of artificially enlarged cells. In fact, that is exactly what the first study (about AHB) showed. That the enlarged cells put them at a distinct disadvantage as far as Varroa mite reproduction.

>I realize small-cell alone, as pointed out time and time again, alone will not do. (Based on d. Lusby, and others.) Genetic selection is also a key element, but seems to get lost in conversation as most think small cell alone will make bees survive.

I think bees in general are mostly quite capable of surviving if we let them, and not if we don't. I think most bees are already geneticaly capable of surviving if they are put in a natural environment.

>In selecting bees for genetic survivabilty traits, wouldn't it be great to find bees with these traits that could survive on regular comb, that 99.9 percent use anyways? 

The AHB study showed that "regular" comb is not a hospitable environment for the bees, because it IS hospitable for the Varroa mites. Why would you put a genetically capable bee in a disadvantaged position of having to overcome the advantage given to the mites?

>More and more say they already have.

I haven't seen any yet. The Buckfasts that I had that B. Weaver says they raise with no chemicals all died from Varroa their second winter AFTER I treated them with Apistan. The best thing I did for mite resistance wasn't buying Harbos and Russians and Carnis (which I did) but putting them on natural sized cells.


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

MB, In what year did you buy those buckfast from B. Weaver. You mentioned they were "chem free" but is that the same claim as mite resistant, or survivor selected. I'm sure with the organic crowd that "chem free" was advertised for many years previously.

The reason I ask is that most of the breeders I spoke to only recently (1-2-3 years) started having success or make claims as to resistance, etc. What is the history as to breeders making claims further back than that?

Are you also saying that articles such as the Webbs in Georgia, featured in I believe ABJ (Nov ?) are not acknowledged by you as to the amount of beekeepers coming forward that are having success without small cell? Not all are bee breeders with perhaps sales agendas.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>MB, In what year did you buy those buckfast from B. Weaver. You mentioned they were "chem free" but is that the same claim as mite resistant, or survivor selected. I'm sure with the organic crowd that "chem free" was advertised for many years previously.

I bought them the spring before last. I only recently heard that Weaver is saying they have been not treating them for mites for the last several years but it would be in that time period. According to their brochure they are saying they know they haven't been breeding for gentleness because they were breeding for mite resistance.

>The reason I ask is that most of the breeders I spoke to only recently (1-2-3 years) started having success or make claims as to resistance, etc. What is the history as to breeders making claims further back than that?

I haven't heard any claims further back than that, but these would have been in that time period.

>Are you also saying that articles such as the Webbs in Georgia, featured in I believe ABJ (Nov ?) are not acknowledged by you as to the amount of beekeepers coming forward that are having success without small cell? 

I have not read that article, but I have not heard much of the mainstream beekeeping world claiming not to be treating for mites. I think it's irelevant if I acknowledge it or not. I have no reason to believe they are not being honest. I'm not aware of any large amount of success with mites and not chemicals and large cell foundation. That doesn't mean there are none. What I AM saying is that you put the bees at a measurable, decided disadvantage on enlarged cells.

>Not all are bee breeders with perhaps sales agendas.

I only know the beekeepers I talk to and know. I don't know of anyone who isn't treating with something or using small cell.


----------

