# Isn't Small Cell Just as Fraught with Potential Issues as Large Cell?



## JRG13 (May 11, 2012)

I think small cell has some merit but I have a feeling it doesn't quite work the way people think it does.


----------



## Joseph Clemens (Feb 12, 2005)

The way I think it works, is that it usually creates honeycomb with smaller cells. Those smaller cells sometimes are used to grow smaller honey bees. It has merit for me because I simply like the appearance of large portions of comb composed of small cells - it looks amazing.

For me the issues with small cell are the same as for large cell -- the bees use them for their business.


----------



## Beregondo (Jun 21, 2011)

I think that some think that anything "unnatural" is inherently bad, period, and that all things natural are inherently good.

For me the goal is not to be all natural in my bee keeping practices, but to use every natural advantage I can.
I see no natural advantage in harvesting honey, bees or pollen from bee trees, so I use boxes.
I see no natural advantages in using fixed, natural comb. Aside from being illegal, it is wasteful and inherently unprofitable.
I see great advantage in straight, even comb. 
Using foundation to achieve that is a business decision. It just isn't profitable to roll queens.
I see great advantage in not having comb blow out in an extractor. Using foundation gives me peace of mind on that count.

I use small cell foundation to guide foundationless comb in the brood nest. 
I also use it to get a higher proportion of small bees.
I like having more, smaller bees for a number of reasons, some having to do with spreading risk. 
More bees mean any single bee mortality is a smaller proportion of the whole. More bees also mean more foragers are available, and can more efficiently forage a variety of plants.

I don't have any varroa or disease problems in my hives, and haven't used chemical pest treatments. 
I don't know that small cell contributes to that or not, but it ain't broke, so I ain't fixing it.

While my apiary and potential losses are small, I'll probably continue to use the "Bond" approach to treatment.
When it is large enough that I might lose a great deal more I might treat them if I have an epidemic in a yard. 
I'd have to decide if the economic impact of losing my "treatment free" niche exceeds the cost of what I perceive the potential loss to be if I continue not to treat.

I've done no work to regress bees, and had no hassles with "crazy comb" in foundationless frames.
I don't have a disproportionate number of drones, except in drone colonies where I want a lot of them. 

2013 will be my third year doing this, and hope to see bees that continue to thrive without treatments.
I think it is good business not to have to spend money on treatments or labor to apply them.
I understand that many treatment free hives that crash, do so in there third year

I'm looking forward to seeing how it turns out.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

If I'm reading things right, there's a movement away from small cell combs, to natural combs. That's the trend I've been picking up for the last little while. Probably the people who are already set up with small cell are keeping their small cell combs, but most people starting up who don't want to go large cell, are going natural comb.


----------



## d.frizzell (Aug 27, 2012)

Adam,
Are you new to the forum?
Donna
CB, Nova Scotia


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Adam your top bars are a few years old now the bees must surely have settled on their natural size of cell by now, what is it?


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

Adam, I sum up most of your points in this. You cannot keep something naturally in an artificial environment. Others can change the cell size in their foundation and call it natural if they want. 

One of the first thing I see as far as "Natural" Beekeeping. People will say, "Left to themselves, bees will find better places to build colonies". Says who? What makes anyone think that feral bees do a better job of taking care of themselves than we do? Push an animal beyond what it was ever intended to do and then step back and say. okay now I will just be hands off and you all can carry this extra burden. If you think that additional size etc. is a good thing. You don't know much about nature.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

True, the ferals certainly dissappeared when varroa got to my country.

And in your country, Deknow has found research showing the ferals they checked are escaped swarms from treated hives. He can tell that, by the gut microbes.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

Adam, this question comes up a lot, and I think I can shed some light. For the record, we were doing foundationless before we even heard of small cell, Dee Lusby, Michael Bush, or the organic list.

Ideally, one would just not use foundation...this I agree with.

But....

The problem is, the enlarged cell/bee size persists...in fact, Badeaux used this persistence as evidence of Lamarkian evolution (the classic example is that giraffes have long necks because their ancestors stretched their necks so much...and the stretched neck was inherited by the offspring).

What we have found when we tried it, is that a regular package of bees (from Rossman in this case), shaken down onto foundationless will make brood cells about 5.1mm. Others have generally had the same experience.

This is precisely what Marla Spivak told me...she claimed to have done the experement....so I asked her a question, 

Me: "...do you know what happens when _those_ bees (that made the 5.1 foundationless comb) are shaken down to build foundationless comb"?

Marla: "No"

Me: "Would you like to know?"

Marla: "No"

...this was the same conversation where she told me point blank that even regressed bees can't draw small cell foundationless comb (unless they are AHB)....I offered to bring her some small cell foundationless comb from our very gentle bees (bee inspector was present to vouch for the fact that our bees did not display any AHB traits)....she declined the offer...and went on the edit the Seeley study, which found that bees can't draw small cell comb, even with foundation. This is "the state of the science" by two of our most well respected researchers...and it is junk.

So...there are a few issues worth considering:
1. Once comb is built, until you swap it out (or until the bees chew it out), it remains there. There is some shrinking of cell size due to cocoon buildup...but this is quite a bit different than small cell comb (brood density does not change with cells made smaller in this way). A broodnest does not simply transition into small cell, at least it doesn't very fast.

2. There are some claims that the bees use the comb they have, at least in part, as a template for their new comb. Big comb in the colony leads to big foundationless comb. I have some ideas on how and why this would be the case, but I won't share them here.

3. Regardless, it is important to remember that LC bees making foundationless comb make a larger size than SC bees making foundationless comb.

4. Unless you are very aggressive about rotating out comb, it takes a very long time for the bees to get smaller this way...too long for me in my climate.

5. The PF frames make the regression process painless for almost anyone that has tried them.

Michael Bush has had success simply shaking packages onto foundationless as a means to regress them...we have not had the same experience. Perhaps his packages are produced on PF frames? Perhaps there are other factors? I dunno, I can only report on what I've seen.

We strongly recommend starting the package on PF frames, then, after all the bees have emerged from those frames, start adding foundationless.

The take home is that "foundationless" is different depending on the size of your bees to start with...and that, at least in our experience, shortcutting past the "regression" process doesn't provide the same results.

I keep thinking of "free range chickens" that are kept indoors until their habits are established, then a small door to the outside is opened so they can "range free" if they wish...but they don't wish, they are already trained not to go outside, and they don't.

I do think foundationless is best (and I always have since first trying it), but I think it is a mistake to not take some effort to give the bees a head start on getting smaller....it's cheap to do so (1 box of PF frames/package....could probably get away with 5 frames), and it works.

If I were starting with regressed bees, I would shake onto foundationless.

deknow


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Adam Foster Collins said:


> A fair number of the small cell proponents will make reference to the fact that bees naturally make smaller cells. And while this is true, it is also true that bees naturally make a wide range of cell sizes. So isn't the consistency, or uniformity also necessarily suspect if we are to question foundation's effect on bee health?


I know Dee has always stressed to weed out comb that isn't 4.9. I gave up on that long ago. You're right, bees do naturally build a wide range of cell sizes and restricting them to only one size (as well as drone comb) is, well, unnatural. I probably have 20 percent SC in my hives. The rest is a mix of sizes.


----------



## JRG13 (May 11, 2012)

Deknow,

Do you think frame sizes have any affect on cell size as well? I tend to agree with Beregondo's observations and thoughts on the subject as well. I think small cell changes the hive dynamics more than people think. The thing with bees is hives are so variable it's very difficult to make comparisons.


----------



## Adam Foster Collins (Nov 4, 2009)

d.frizzell said:


> Adam,
> Are you new to the forum?
> Donna
> CB, Nova Scotia


Hi Donna,

No, I'm not so new. I have been here several times a day since 2009. Good to see you here. There are probably 4 or 5 people here from NS, but none of them are as yackative here as I am.

Oldtimer,

The last natural comb I measured from the tbh's was from 2010, and in it's smallest cells (in the comb center) they were about 5.1, as is often predicted. I have been steadily introducing empty bars over time, but have not remeasured. The Lang hives I started this year were started on 5.1mm foundation, and later added new frames with 5.1 starter strips and then natural comb. I have not measured any of that either.

Dean, I appreciate the detailed reply. If SC is just used as a transitional tool to get to natural cell, then I get that, and have read quite a bit about that. It's the consistent use of any foundation that I question. If no one's doing that with small cell, then there's no basis for my question. But I imagine there are. I think many people have a hard time with the irregularity of natural comb, and the effort it can sometimes take to keep it straight - just hop on over the the tbh forums to find plenty of stress over the cross-combing issues.

Adam


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Adam Foster Collins said:


> Oldtimer,
> 
> The last natural comb I measured from the tbh's was from 2010, and in it's smallest cells (in the comb center) they were about 5.1, as is often predicted. I have been steadily introducing empty bars over time, but have not remeasured. The Lang hives I started this year were started on 5.1mm foundation, and later added new frames with 5.1 starter strips and then natural comb. I have not measured any of that either.
> Adam


Yes, I can remember the conversation.  Just thought maybe you'd measured since.


----------



## d.frizzell (Aug 27, 2012)

Adam Foster Collins said:


> Hi Donna,
> 
> No, I'm not so new. have been here several times a day since 2009. Good to see you here. There are probably 4 or 5 people here from NS, but none of them are as yackative here as I am.
> Adam


Adam,
Are you totally "treatment free" ? and do you know others that are in your area? 
Donna


----------



## Adam Foster Collins (Nov 4, 2009)

d.frizzell said:


> Adam,
> Are you totally "treatment free" ? and do you know others that are in your area?
> Donna


Well, at the moment, yes. The last time I did anything to 'treat' for mites was last winter. But that really doesn't mean anything yet. I did a lot of splitting this past summer, so most of my colonies now are new or nucs.

I do not know of anyone in Nova Scotia that is truly "treatment free" that isn't a new beekeeper. It's easy to be treatment free until your bees die, and until spring shows healthy bees - me being treatment free could just mean that I've decided to make the winter harder for my bees. We shall see.

The cornerstone of what I'm going to try to do is going to rest on nuc management, with the idea being that each colony gives me another chance to survive the winter and have recovery stock. It also means that most of my colonies will be building more worker comb than anything, and most of my colonies will be small. I expect that to help with mite loads. I'm likely going to work toward having about 75% of my colonies being nucs - as honey is not my central interest.

That said, I know it's a mistake to assume that any of this is easy. Some newer beekeepers choose to a mentor or more experienced beekeeper to follow, others mix and match. You have mentioned Dee quite a few times, so maybe you're going to follow her example and philosophy. Others are all over Don's (Fat Beeman) approach, or Mike Bush's. They're all solid places to start.

For myself, I just can't get around Mike Palmer. Mike is essentially the "fly in the treatment-free ointment" for me, in that what he says about what he does really rings true for me, and his questions regarding the possibility of being truly treatment free without some kind of management answer to beating mites really 'feels' well-founded to me. And he is a very 'successful' beekeeper to boot.

On the other hand, the writings of Michael Bush and the ideas he shares also ring quite true to me. 

But one has to try things in order to know what works. So I'm running on a mix of Mike B and Mike P - with a healthy dash of my own ideas. So if something doesn't work, it can always be my fault.

There just aren't many conclusive answers anywhere...

Adam


----------



## d.frizzell (Aug 27, 2012)

Adam,
Thanks for sharing, sounds like we are both on the right track. I have followed MB's foundationless methods for 3 years now. I have recently read a lot of Dee's information and will be following her methods along with my own knowledge based on all I have learned over the past 8 years. There are still a few beekeepers up here who are treatment free simply because they don't have mites, this is the first time I have found them in my hives. Joanne M. suggested I use oxalic acid but I decided against it after doing some research. At first I felt guilty because I felt I should try to help the bees, but then would I really be helping long term? I have never used treatments so maybe it is an easier decision not to go there. At this point my bees are bedded down for the winter and I will do as much research and planning as possible over the winter and take it from there. We all have a lot to learn from what the bees are trying to tell us...are we up to the challenge? time will tell. I will be very interested is hearing how your bees do. I wish you and your bees the very best.
Donna
46N


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

Certainly using any foundation sets the size and forces the bees somewhat. At least 4.9mm is in the range of what brood comb naturally is, but of course it varies and 4.9mm is not exactly what they would build all the time.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

It varies with circumstances such as climate, location, health of the hive etc, over here there is no way they would build 4.9 on their own.


----------



## deejaycee (Apr 30, 2008)

Beregondo said:


> I use small cell foundation to guide foundationless comb in the brood nest.
> I also use it to get a higher proportion of small bees.





Beregondo said:


> I like having more, smaller bees for a number of reasons, some having to do with spreading risk.
> More bees mean any single bee mortality is a smaller proportion of the whole. More bees also mean more foragers are available, and can more efficiently forage a variety of plants.


Although these two quotes run directly on from each other in Beregondo's post, I've separated them here to point out an apparent leap of.... well, I'm not sure of what. 

In the first quote, no problem - small cell foundation should give you a higher proportion of smaller bees. 

In the second, there's a leap from having more small bees as a proportion of the hive population, to just having more bees altogether. 

I often see this correlation drawn - that there are believed to be more individual bees in a small cell hive than a larger cell hive - as if the mass of the bees is some sort of constant to be divided by the size of the bees to get the population. 

Small cell comb certainly means more cells on the face of a comb.. but where does it the assumption come from that this means more bees in the hive? Surely that's ruled by the queen's laying capacity and the hive population dynamics, neither of which, as far as I can see, are ruled by the size of the cells?


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

I've been trying to answer that Dee by seeing what happens with my own bees. But I've been messing with the sc bee so much it's not possible to say for sure, what would happen if they were run normally. What it looks like so far though, is the sc bees have a similar biomass in the hive through winter, ie, more bees. This is the first summer I've had full sc hives, so far, a slightly lower bee biomass, but I'm pretty sure, more bees. I'm running 2 x FD super brood nests, and the queen pretty much lays them up, she must lay more eggs than a LC queen has to.


----------



## D Semple (Jun 18, 2010)

JRG13 said:


> Deknow,
> 
> Do you think frame sizes have any affect on cell size as well? I tend to agree with Beregondo's observations and thoughts on the subject as well. I think small cell changes the hive dynamics more than people think. The thing with bees is hives are so variable it's very difficult to make comparisons.



I agree with you about frame size, and I find I get far less messed up combs with SC bees with 1 1/4" frames in the brood nest. 

Like Dean and Micheal suggest I use mostly foundationless but I do start a lot of new feral swarms on PF120's in order to have nice straight combs to later pyramid up between foundationless frames. Next year I will be shaving them down to 1 1/4" frame width to match my foundationless frames. I also plan to try some 1 1/8" inch frames.

Don Semple
Overland Park, KS


----------



## Beregondo (Jun 21, 2011)

deejaycee said:


> In the second, there's a leap from having more small bees as a proportion of the hive population, to just having more bees altogether.
> 
> I often see this correlation drawn - that there are believed to be more individual bees in a small cell hive than a larger cell hive - as if the mass of the bees is some sort of constant to be divided by the size of the bees to get the population.
> 
> Small cell comb certainly means more cells on the face of a comb.. but where does it the assumption come from that this means more bees in the hive? Surely that's ruled by the queen's laying capacity and the hive population dynamics, neither of which, as far as I can see, are ruled by the size of the cells?


I understand that most have more space fo their queen to lay in than she uses.
My Russell Sunkist queens actually do run out of room sometimes.
At those times, more cell-dense comb certainly makes a difference.

I'd also note that with 10% less distance btw cells, travel time btw each egg laid might reasonably be assumed to be reduced 10%, with a corresponding increase in population.

Whether another person thinks those differences might might matter or not, I wasn't commenting on another person's preferences.
The sentence began,

"I like having more, smaller bees.."

You are not qualified to assess whether what I observe unless you are present observing it as well, are you?

While I am basing my comment on observation, someone else's comment is based on the assumption that queen lay rate is the only variable in effect.

Unfortunately, the commentor is ignorant of the history of the colonies in question.


----------



## Beregondo (Jun 21, 2011)

I am not one of those zealots who think small cell is the answer ot all problems.

Nor am I one of the zealots who think large cell comb is the One True Way and all other views must be discredited.

I'm not an expert on much, but I am an expert on my experiences.
And an argument based on assumption seldom makes a more compelling point than experience does.

Do what you like in your own yard.
But please don't present expense and tradition as a "safer" way when others are actually being successful with alternatives.

I believe that last sentence, in fact is the point of this thread, is it not?


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

deknow said:


> I keep thinking of "free range chickens" that are kept indoors until their habits are established, then a small door to the outside is opened so they can "range free" if they wish...but they don't wish, they are already trained not to go outside, and they don't.
> deknow



This whole thing sounds good but is not even close to reality. Chickens may hesitate when given access to unfamiliar space. But I know for a fact first hand that this idea is bull. I have a chicken that has been kept in a pen for two years. and it will come out of that pen in a heart beat if given the chance.

Okay so forget all about training bees to make smaller cells or what not. I will just agree that it can and is done.

My question is why? what good does it do? I know about the claims concerning Varroa mites and not enough room to reproduce. Other than that are their any other reasons it is beneficial to have smaller bees or smaller cells?


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

deejaycee, I have seen unrelated reports that the bees do manage there population in accordance with stores. Since I do not think bees can either count or conduct a census. I consider it reasonable that there measure if any of population would be based on mass. Or how much room is in the hive. IN this case it would require a larger number of small bees to fill a given space. 
That is at least one way that you woudl end up with more individual bees by having smaller bees.


----------



## d.frizzell (Aug 27, 2012)

Adam Foster Collins said:


> I do not know of anyone in Nova Scotia that is truly "treatment free" that isn't a new beekeeper. It's easy to be treatment free until your bees die, and until spring shows healthy bees - me being treatment free could just mean that I've decided to make the winter harder for my bees. We shall see.
> Adam


Adam,
My bees came from one beekeeper up here in CB. He was a commercial beekeeper for years and is now retired. I do not live in an area where there is a good chance for collecting swarms. I am thinking I should consider getting some bees from another area (not too far away) but possibly from the mainland area. Do you recommend or know any beekeepers in your area who you would consider a good supplier, I understand they may not be completely treatment free, but using good management practises. Do you plan to sell any nucs yourself if your bees are healthy in the spring? Donna


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

dfrizzell I may be confused but did I read somewhere that varroa are not in youir area yet? If so, wouldn't import any bees.


----------



## d.frizzell (Aug 27, 2012)

Oldtimer said:


> dfrizzell I may be confused but did I read somewhere that varroa are not in youir area yet? If so, wouldn't import any bees.


When I first started posting here I did not have mites and Cape Breton Island has been mite free until recently, may 3-5 years now. I live in one of the little pockets on the island that did not have mites until this year, now I do unfortunately...found them very late this fall. 
Donna


----------



## jmgi (Jan 15, 2009)

I'm thinking that to get the most benefit from small cell or even natural cell in regards to varroa, shouldn't one also get their brood combs spaced more tightly, as I understand in nature bees have closer to 1 1/8" centers as opposed to 1 3/8" in the standard Lang hive. This tighter comb structure surely has many benefits to the bees, and quite possibly would have a negative effect on mites. I know they have done studies on small cell impact on varroa, which didn't turn out to be that effective, but might there be a better result if it had been done with brood combs on 1 1/8" centers. John


----------



## Adam Foster Collins (Nov 4, 2009)

Hi Donna,

Sorry I'm so long getting to this.

I have gotten bees from a couple of people, but I must admit that I'm not too closely aware of their management practices. I don't know of anyone around here who is treatment free. I got bees from Kevin Spicer in the valley this spring, and so far I really like them. PM me if you'd like a contact number.

As for me selling bees, I think that's a year off anyway.

Adam


----------



## d.frizzell (Aug 27, 2012)

Adam Foster Collins said:


> Hi Donna,
> 
> Sorry I'm so long getting to this.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the contact Adam, I did find his phone number online. I know that newfoundland still has mite-free/TF bees but not sure yet if nucs are available or if I can even import them.
Donna


----------



## 2Sox (Dec 17, 2011)

In answer to the original post question: Most of you are probably familiar with Jennifer Berry's research and findings but for those who are not, I think it would be a good idea read this article - link below. We know that strong opinions are held by many, but many others are of the opinion that the small cell size concern of recent times is much ado about nothing. 

http://www.ent.uga.edu/bees/personnel/documents/Berry1109.pdf


----------



## Adam Foster Collins (Nov 4, 2009)

d.frizzell said:


> Thanks for the contact Adam, I did find his phone number online. I know that newfoundland still has mite-free/TF bees but not sure yet if nucs are available or if I can even import them.
> Donna


If NFLD doesn't have mites, then I don't think it's worth trying to import from there. If you have mites, and you're going to be treatment free, then the bees have to be able to withstand the mites. Buying from a mite-free area means they have not had any selection pressure to do that.

Adam


----------



## d.frizzell (Aug 27, 2012)

Adam Foster Collins said:


> If NFLD doesn't have mites, then I don't think it's worth trying to import from there. If you have mites, and you're going to be treatment free, then the bees have to be able to withstand the mites. Buying from a mite-free area means they have not had any selection pressure to do that.
> 
> Adam


Yes, I agree Adam, I already have bees here that have not been exposed to mites so may not be much to gain there (NFLD). I do have more contacts up here so will keep looking at possibilities. Donna


----------

