# Small Cell Adoption



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

This poll is intented for all people interested in IPM or non-chemical methods of varroa control.

[ November 04, 2006, 02:44 PM: Message edited by: Aspera ]


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

Small Cell has nothing to do with IPM.

IPM allows chemicals (pesticides) 

Small Cell stands on its own and does not allow for chemicals (pesticides).


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi Guys,

>Small Cell stands on its own and does not allow for .....

Here I go again Joe. Please don't tell the small cell police :>)

If you go to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Organicbeekeepers/ the no no list on organobee is much longer than just pesticides. The list is so long that I can't remember half of the stuff. And think it could be shortened to no nothing, no way, no how.

But a beekeeper can save much trouble and loss, if he understands the behaviors behind small cell and makes them work for him. Rather than just accept someone's arbitrary pronounce of what's natural and stick to it no matter what.

Small cell can be a vital part of an IPM program, especially for a commercial outfit that wants to get clean and stay clean. That program can include non-contaminating chems and heaven forbid, maybe even sugar! Did I say sugar. Oh please don't tell the small cell police ;>)

A beekeeper can knowledgeably run bees on small cell. And become a small cell beekeeper, with all the benefits. But he doesn't necessarily need to buy into that particular flavor of organic beekeeping. The small cell part and the organic part can be separate!

Not every small cell beekeeper, not even some other organic beekeepers, subscribe to everything in that version of organic beekeeping. I'll save my organic beekeeping rant for another time.

But by incorporating small cell into a IPM approach, a commercial beekeeper should be able to get clean and stay clean in about three years. And at the same time keep his colony count up and some kind of cash flow coming in.

Without an IPM incorporated with small cell. A beekeeper with thousands of hives will be left with a few hundred. And it will take a long time, maybe more than a decade to get back up to an economic strength.

So, what happens in the interim? Something will have to be retooled. And it will probably be the beekeeper's or spouse's occupation! Or both!!! And after one or the other works for free for a decade , or they both live in poverty, organo beekeeping may loose most of its sweetness.

Regards
Dennis
What? There aren't any small cell police, here on beesource! No problem then, eh!

[ November 03, 2006, 08:59 PM: Message edited by: D. Murrell ]


----------



## odfrank (May 13, 2002)

Question Two does not give me the option to vote "I am undecided on the merits of small cell", so I was unable to submit a ballot. This poll needs modification.


----------



## stangardener (Mar 8, 2005)

is the poller including natural comb in the term small cell?


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--But by incorporating small cell into a IPM approach, a commercial beekeeper should be able to get clean and stay clean in about three years.--(DM)

I was responding to the poll which states nothing about weaning or a temporary approach with IPM and small cell, 3 years etc.

--Here I go again Joe. Please don't tell the small cell police :>) --(DM)

I dont care what other people do, Im just stating from my experience that once your bees are on small cell, treatments are not necessary. If the poll was written different I would have responded differently. But IPM is a pesticide approach that should not be grouped with a category of organic approach for which is it is not. 

Please dont tell the large cell police.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--But by incorporating small cell into a IPM approach, a commercial beekeeper should be able to get clean and stay clean in about three years.--(DM)

So goes the theory. I remember Penn State said just about the same thing about Apistan. It was to be used for a couple of years till a resistant bee was bred. Seems some 15 years ago now, and the temporary pesticide still around with more types added. And I still dont see a weaning clause on the poll as you make believe exists. Dont tell the large cell police.


----------



## stangardener (Mar 8, 2005)

-Small Cell has nothing to do with IPM.

i'm hoping mr waggle can explain why small cell wouldn't be considered an integrated pest management technique.

i always considered ipm as comprising both what i call chemical (nonsynthetic) and mechanical. examples of mechanical could be screens and drone brood removal.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--i'm hoping mr waggle can explain why small cell wouldn't be considered an integrated pest management technique.--(Stangardener)

Hello mr stangardener,
I would be happy to.
I have experience with small cell, since 2001. During the past 6 years working with small cell, I have had MANY conversations and personal email discussions with the segment of beekeepers from all parts of Europe and the USA that are advanced in the field concerning experience and observations with how honeybees behave on small cell to compare with my own observations.

These beekeepers that I talk with who have more experience with small cell than I do (and frankly, much more experience than many on these lists know about small cell), describe specific behavioral changes that take place at the colony level when honeybees become stabilized on small cell. These cutting edge small cellers are to the most part Master Beekeepers, highly skilled and experienced in the field, that went into small cell blessed with the observational skills and expert knowledge of honeybee biology needed to from conclusions concerning the effects of small cell on honeybee colonies. 

From direct discussions and comparisons of observations made by myself with the few beekeepers with much more experience concerning small cell. It is clear that small cell used as a varroa treatment is not the sole mode of action for its mite suppression qualities, but also seems to facilitate behavioral changes that enhance the colonies health and abilities to fight disease, suppress mites and nutritional forage abilities which all play a vital role in mite and disease suppression. 

It is already known for example that the bees themselves produce substances and structures essential for influencing behavior and communication at the colony level. It is also well documented that some mite treatments can negatively affect the health of a queen, colony behavior, and affect the ability of the colony to function at peak performance. As a consequence, this lessened performance will be reflected in the quality of the feed source collected and other essential colony functions. 

So, the proposal that small cell be included in any IPM strategy is counter productive to the effectiveness of small cell, because treatments placed in a colony can have a negative affect on the behavioral changes that are an essential force behind the overall effectiveness of small cell. 

--i always considered ipm as comprising both what i call chemical (nonsynthetic) and mechanical. examples of mechanical could be screens and drone brood removal..--(Stangardener)

This is a common misconception. 
Please take note a few things in the IPM definition in the clip below.

1. Definition changed 64 TIMES since 1930!!!!

2. natural enemies, could allow BT or any other biological pesticides.

3. pesticides They specifically allow the use of pesticides, and do not state any restriction on what type of pesticides can be used!! 

4. harmful environmental side-effects are minimized
What is minimized? Does one trust the government tell you what minimized is? How is minimized determined?

======>
There are 64 definitions of integrated control, pest management, or integrated pest management that have been made since the early 1930s (Bajwa & Kogan 1996). In simple terms, IPM can be defined as a procedure to manage pest populations by harmonizing control methods such as natural enemies, pesticides and cultural practices. The purpose of IPM is not eradication or removal of the pest, but management of pest populations so that economic damage and harmful environmental side-effects are minimized. 
======>


----------



## stangardener (Mar 8, 2005)

thanks for the reply it's appreciated. i got the feeling from your reply that "small cell" is more than just using 4.9 foundation. it's i'ts own way of doing and as such shouldn't be lumped together with other ways of doing.
i've been a "low impact" small scale farmer for ever. in 1980 i read and used techniques described as bio dynamic. years later while discussing with a fellow marketer i mentioned using bio dynamic techniques. this guy started talking formulas and rudolph steiner and i was lost. i picked up a later edition of the same book and saw all referance to bio dynamic was gone and replaced with bio intensive.
some folks use techniques from here and there and don't pigeon hole to well. 
the cynical side of me says small cell/natural cell, chemical free is a niche market that small timers can take advantage of


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

Sorry, I should have included an "undecided" reponse for the second question. Until I figure out how to modify it, I would just assume that the first reponse also includes some undecided beekeepers. I am not including "natural cell" in with small cell.


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

Joe, 

That's just who the poll is targeting. I'm not say that they are the same thing. They are related concepts because both methods are intended to control varroa.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

Fair enough Asperia










I very much liked the intent of your poll,,,, 
,,,but

Considering that the art in designing and objective of polls would be to have questions that would reflect both points of view so as to remove any appearance of bias. I noticed that the poll asked: 

"I currently use small cell and would not strongly recommend it"

I was looking for the opposing question:

"I currently use small cell and would strongly recommend it" 

But I did not see it.  

Thus, it might appear from this poll that no one currently using small cell is recommending its use. The results however would reflect only that people currently using small cell "did not strongly recomend it's use" 

[ November 04, 2006, 03:29 PM: Message edited by: Pcolar ]


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

You know, it never occurred to me to include that option. I guess I just assumed that everyone currently using SC had had it recommended to them by another SC user. I don't want "natural sized" cell included because I feel that strain of bee is a confounding factor with foundationless bees (maybe even with SC bees).


----------



## Fusion_power (Jan 14, 2005)

I have to agree that this is a poorly planned poll. If you look at the results, its obvious some answers were made based on opinion, not real world results. Look at the percentage that has never used small cell, then look at the percentage that use/recommend small cell. Thats a skewed result if I ever saw one.

The only absolute conclusion you can reach with a poll like this is that most beekeepers who are currently using small cell are convinced that it works.

Fusion


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

Well, as with all polls, no absolute conclusion can be reached. Feel free to structure your own as you see fit.


----------



## pahvantpiper (Apr 25, 2006)

Tried to take the poll but question number 2 has no answer that correlates with my situation namely, I have never used small cell before but plan on using it in the spring. I have all the stuff in my shop just waiting.

-Rob


----------

