# Small Cell Studies



## WI-beek

"I wanted to discuss these because they are often mentioned in discussions about the use of small cell comb. This IS NOT a thread about the use of small cell comb in hives and pros and cons thereof. This thread is to discuss these studies only. The forum rules still apply."

Seriously! How can you discuss these studies without talking about the use of small cell comb?

I dont know how you can discuss these studies only without getting into to opinion and theory which moves on to........

So x me out for this if you wish. I think good science is just that, good science and if you dont get the answer you want after several valid trials you need to look for another answer to explain what you thought was true. These studies are fact. If you repeat them enough times you will most likely keep coming up with the same answer. Small cell is not keeping the mites under control. Something else is responsible for small cell beekeepers bees and mite coexisting. I have thought for some time that the answer may be with the mites, not the bees or small cell. If you only make splits from surviving colonies, you are also making splits from surviving mites. Hmm, could you be raising less virulent mites? 

Here you will find a Audio of lecture by Dr. Thomas D. Seeley that sums up what I am saying.
http://www.makingbeehives.com/blog/...eley-honeybee-biologist-at-cornell-university

Here is a direct link to the lecture. I dont know if this link will work so I posted the link to it above.
http://www.makingbeehives.com/arnot_forest_bees.mp3


----------



## beemandan

Solomon Parker said:


> Many of these questions have been asked many times over the years. Some have been answered, and some like #1 cause massive arguments still today.


Seems, in my opinion, to fit this topic as well.
I'm staying out of it this time.


----------



## Solomon Parker

WI-beek said:


> So x me out for this if you wish. I think good science is just that, good science and if you dont get the answer you want after several valid trials you need to look for another answer to explain what you thought was true. These studies are fact.


The trouble is, this isn't good science. Good science explains something. In these studies, small cell was treated like any other treatment. That's why we get the whole "I tried small cell and it didn't work" paradigm. Small cell isn't a treatment. One can't just stick it in there and expect it to work broadly like one of the miticides. That's what the studies prove. But really, that proves nothing toward the overall effectiveness of the treatment-free philosophy. Mite counts as the sole testing parameter show very little about the overall health of the hive, _especially over such a short time period and with such an arbitrary measure.

_"It is worth noting that Varroa densities in this study (3.3–5.1 mites per 100 bees, Tab. I) were not within the action threshold of ca. 13 mites per 100 bees shown for the region by Delaplane and Hood (1999)."

This further shows how irrelevant the results are. If survival was the test criteria, who cares how many mites there are? Survival is the only true test criteria. These studies did not test according to relevant criteria.


----------



## WI-beek

"It is worth noting that Varroa densities in this study (3.3–5.1 mites per 100 bees, Tab. I) were not within the action threshold of ca. 13 mites per 100 bees shown for the region by Delaplane and Hood (1999)."

This is out of date data. We now know that because varroa spread disease the the threshold for varroa is much lower than this. The standard recommendation for varroa population was suggested to not exceed 10% before. Many recommend that you dont let it get above 2% so you treat at 1%. I noticed a difference right away between USA recommendations and Europe. The Europeans have dealt with varroa longer than we have and understood that the spread of disease is potently more problematic than the damage from the mite itself. DWV is a good example and is something we can see, but what about what you cant see. 13% is way to high of an infestation.

I cant even believe that 13% was ever even a recommendation being that in three months you could have 100% infestation. The lower you keep varroa populations the less chance they have to get out of hand. At 13 percent they really have the ability to hitch hike etc. WOW!


----------



## Oldtimer

The nature of any properly done study, IS to distill out all the variables.

If that could be done, we would then know why some people succeed with small cell, and some fail.

These particular studies have not distilled all the variables, for example, they do not discuss wether the combs used contained residual insecticides, which may be a factor.

However, these studies were done using proper scientific investigative method, and should not be ignored. The problem with doing more studies, distilling out more variables, involves considerable time, and cost. Hopefully more work will be done, a better understanding will benefit all, more knowledge can only be good.

As per WI-beek, the mechanism for the survival of some bees living on small cell, may be different than what is commonly thought. And we just don't know at this stage, until all those variables have been seperated. How many small cell folks even know what strain of mite is on their bees? There is still work to be done towards a better understanding and more studies should be encouraged.


----------



## Kieck

> They take a complex issue, varroa parasitism, and distill it to simple variables, cell size and mite counts.


I believe the main reason for that distillation was the claims by "small-cell proponents" (for lack of a better name) that simply converting to smaller cell dimensions would eliminate _Varroa_ problems.


----------



## Solomon Parker

I'd say that would mostly be due to newbees who may take something they read and run with it. None of the long timers I know of make that claim.

In my experience, it's impossible to entirely separate small cell comb from all the other treatment-free management practices enough to say exactly how much it is contributing. I have one hive of eleven with visible mite problems and they're all on small cell. Before that, I haven't lost a hive obviously to varroa in at least four years. And this current one is not dead yet, so we'll see how much of an infestation it takes.


----------



## Kieck

No, I'm afraid that claim was pretty emphatic and clear-cut. If you search Beesource, I'm confident you'll find many posts from a couple to a few years ago that all state (paraphrasing, but along these lines), "Simply switching from 'large cell' to 'small cell' will allow you to keep _Varroa_-free bees with no other changes."

Of course, if you can demonstrate exactly how much small-cell comb contributes to mite reduction, you have data that directly refutes the studies you linked.


----------



## Roland

Wi-Beek wrote:

Hmm, could you be raising less virulent mites? 

I believe I postulated that a while ago and was ridiculed.

Maybe the answer may lie in the selection of small cell producing bees. It is not the size of the foundation that the bees are on, but rather the size of foundation that the bees prefer. Someone attempting to use small cell for an extended period of time would of course select the most successful hives on small cell, and be encouraging the genes that accompany it. With time, they would have a bee that is different than those that tried it for a short time.

Crazy Roland


----------



## WI-beek

"less virulent mites" 

What is sad is that if we find this to be true, it does not provide any real hope for us. Why? Lets say you hop on the treatment free train. Then say after five years your somewhat isolated yards start having a 80% survival rate because the colonies you have been making splits from had the less virulent strain of mites. Ahh, success! Hold on there buba! A new beek in the area moves in with 10 booming colonies of Russian bees that swarm six times each producing 60 swarms all over the area and lots of lazy drones that make them selfs at home in your colonies bringing very virulent mite genes back into the mix. By the end of the next season your colonies begin crashing, by the end of the next season its back to square one.

So at the end of the day we still end up needing a mite resistant bee or mite controls. I think we will have bees that do a good job at controlling mites on there own and treatments without serious side effects by 2020. I dont see anything wrong with keeping bees treatment free but I feel you leave yourself wide open for large scale disasters.


----------



## Solomon Parker

WI-beek said:


> "less virulent mites" What is sad is that if we find this can be true, it does not provide any hope for us. Why?


If this is true, and I'm not saying it is, then the only sustainable solution is for all colonies to be treatment free as ferals are. If we are breeding for less virulent mites, then that breeding program must be universal, just like burning AFB infected hives should be. The only way to move forward is to maximize the ability of the bees to deal with weaker mites and allow the weaker mites to kill all themselves off. The beekeepers who continue to treat are those who are harboring the most virulent mites and are preventing the host/parasite relationship from stabilizing.

But that's a pretty big if, and I don't buy it. We treatment-free beekeepers (who live in areas where there are already many different populations of bees, feral and kept, and with commercials carrying the most virulent pesticide resistant mites trucking through on the freeway a mere 1768 feet from my main apiary) should be seeing major mite-related dieoffs every other year. I don't see it.


----------



## sqkcrk

It was mentioned today at our meeting that Tom Seeley maintains that colonies w/ the less virulent mites will encounter problems when moved. Moved where more virulent mites exist, I believe. I think I have that right. Seeley will be coming out w/ an article in ABJ or Bee Culture soon, addressing this.


----------



## Michael Bush

>I believe I postulated that a while ago and was ridiculed.

I think many people have postulated over the years, including myself, that by treating we are breeding super mites and that is the opposite of what we need. However it would take losing the colonies that have the virulent mites to leave the less virulent ones, and I have never had those kinds of losses with any survivors left to breed from. Going to small cell while I still had commercial queens and no die offs is how I got to no Varroa issues. Breeding feral survivors is how I improved winter survival. So I don't see that the sequence of events in my experience supports the theory that either the genetics of the bees or less virulent mites are responsible for the resolution. Interestingly When Seeley took the feral bees from Arnot to an apiary he put them on large cell foundation and the results were what I would have predicted based on the cell size, while he did not expect it and attributed it to the difference in the mites. I have no doubt that it is not all one thing in the end. We need to breed better bees and weaker mites, however I had no survivors to breed either from until I got to small cell and natural cell size.

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


----------



## Fusion_power

I'm of the opinion that it is a combination of small cell and genetics..... for the simple reason that I lost colonies on small cell until I got enough tolerant stock. It is my opinion that treating perpetuates susceptible genetics and creates pesticide tolerant mites. But just try to get most commercial beekeepers to give up their treatments and see how fast they go beetle browed on you.

DarJones


----------



## Oldtimer

You never lose any hives Michael?


----------



## Michael Bush

>You never lose any hives Michael? 

To starvation? Yes. To dwindling and then a long hard cold snap? Sometimes. To Varroa? I haven't lost any since regressing. When I was losing them to Varroa it was obvious. Thousands of dead Varroa on the bottom board and Varroa feces in the brood cells. I always look for dead Varroa and Varroa feces when I lose a hive and I don't find but a few Varroa and little to no Varroa feces.


----------



## Michael Palmer

It seems to me that everytime a study comes out claiming small cell doesn't work, the SC proponents claim the study wasn't done correctly or didn't run long enough...or whatever. As co-chair of the 2012 EAS agenda, I offered one SC proponent the chance to run his own test...offered 2 years before the meeting next year. I've heard nothing. 

So, until someone who is convinced that SC in some way helps their apiary survive untreated, this is all still conjecture. I'm still waiting. How about it Solomon and others. When is someone going to do a small cell study that is done as the SC proponents require?


----------



## Solomon Parker

Michael Palmer said:


> It seems to me that everytime a study comes out claiming small cell doesn't work, the SC proponents claim the study wasn't done correctly or didn't run long enough.


In a scientific study, assumptions are the key. As a grad student, I know this because it's what I am engaged in for the better part of two years. Right now, I'm studying the effects of the land application of glycerol, a byproduct of biodiesel production. We make an assumption that the valid soil depth is 8 inches. Is that reasonable? While there are certainly effects in deeper soil over time, it becomes prohibitively expensive to study them. It depends on what you're studying. I'm primarily studying biomass growth and runoff, so 8 inches is pretty reasonable. However, mite counts are not a reasonable metric with which to study small cell effectiveness, nor is a time-frame of just a couple months. Ultimately, the only valid metric is survival. So it's not that "SC proponents" claim it wasn't done correctly, it's that somebody's missing the mark on what 'correctly' is. And since the studies 'prove' what most already believe, this seems to be overlooked.



Michael Palmer said:


> When is someone going to do a small cell study that is done as the SC proponents require?


You mean 'when is someone going to do a small study that is done as nature requires?' The only thing natural selection cares about is selection. Selection at this level is simple survival. You have to survive before you can become adapted to efficiently complete certain tasks. Natural selection doesn't care in the slightest what the mite count is on June 4, 2007. The information is irrelevant.

Personally, I'd love to participate in some sort of experiment, but I have 11 hives. I'm a full time grad student. I don't have the resources to do anything statistically significant. My area is not broadly conducive to beekeeping as the population of commercial beekeepers would suggest. Meanwhile, I have seen Mr. Bush's operation and it is exactly as he suggests, and many here have complimented me on being upfront and honest about fully divulging all the details of what I do, winning or losing. I know another treatment free beekeeper just about 5 miles from me who has about six hives and is treatment-free as well. I'm not sure if some of the visitors to this forum think we're just making it up or what. But for whatever reason it is working, _it is_ _working_.



Studies show that it isn't the foundation, we aren't treating, we've been told it can't be bee genetics, so I guess we must be pretty good at breeding weak mites. My goodness, what a crock of hooey.


----------



## WLC

Sol:

The key to a good scientific study is the right hypothesis and experimental design.

If you say it's small cell, genetics, or mite virulence, then you have to be able to test for it.

For example:

'No-treatment', small cell, Honeybee colonies will become resistant to mite pathogens at a greater rate than 'no-treatment', large cell Honeybees, due to a density dependent increase in retrotransposition/RNAi derived immunity.

That's a research hypothesis. Next comes the hard part, the experimental design needed to test the above hypothesis.

What usually happens is that both the hypothesis and research design get revised because of various constraints.

For instance, the density dependent retrotransposition/RNAi derived immunity can be difficult for many labs to test for, so they end up simplifying the whole thing.

What the small cell folks haven't been able to do is come up with a research hypothesis and experimental design that can support their claims.

That's the 'art' of it.


----------



## Michael Palmer

>>QUOTE=Solomon Parker.. So it's not that "SC proponents" claim it wasn't done correctly, it's that somebody's missing the mark on what 'correctly' is. And since the studies 'prove' what most already believe, this seems to be overlooked.<<

What are you talking about? All the criticism of the university studies have been that the experiments weren't done correctly, for long enough, or some other factor such as foundation positioning wasn't correct. All I'm saying is then...someone...do it correctly.


>>You mean 'when is someone going to do a small study that is done as nature requires?' The only thing natural selection cares about is selection.<< 

No, I'm not saying that...you are. I'm saying do an experiment that shows that any benefit is from cell size..


>>Meanwhile, I have seen Mr. Bush's operation and it is exactly as he suggests,...I'm not sure if some of the visitors to this forum think we're just making it up or what. But for whatever reason it is working, _it is_ _working_.<<

Well, I too have seen Michael's bees. I'm not denying his success. I'm saying anything about Michael or his beekeeping methods. Both of which are top shelf. I'm only asking that someone prove his success is because of cell size and not...as you bring up...less virulent varroa mites, or management. The fact that there were plenty of dead varroa on his bottom boards makes me think his success is more about less virulent varroa and not about cell size.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Michael Palmer said:


> What are you talking about?


When a sentence begins with "So" that means it's reliant on a previous point. It cannot be cherry picked from the paragraph.



Michael Palmer said:


> I'm saying do an experiment that shows that any benefit is from cell size..


 I'll say it again, I would love to, but I don't have the resources, and if I did with my limited resources, it would be criticized as not being statistically valid. You can't demand someone do something to prove you wrong and actually expect it to happen unless you provide the means.



Michael Palmer said:


> I'm only asking that someone prove his success is because of cell size and not...as you bring up...less virulent varroa mites, or management. The fact that there were plenty of dead varroa on his bottom boards makes me think his success is more about less virulent varroa and not about cell size.


Ultimately cell size cannot be completely separated in the equation in my view. If I did a test, there would be no mite counts because they are irrelevant. Survival is the only metric. The graph would be "Colony Survival vs. Cell Size".

The whole purpose to this thread was to address the accusation that small cell beekeepers are ignoring the 'scientific' studies that have been done. We're not. They are valid for whatever tiny set of specifications for which they were designed, but not for year 'round beekeeping in real life situations. _IF_ small cell comb increases the number of varroa, then our hives are for some reason able to survive higher numbers of varroa, and how is that to be explained?

And _if_ it is about less-virulent varroa, then the truth is that conventional beekeepers are banking more deadly varroa and keeping them around to the continual detriment of all of beekeeping and to the profit of chemical companies. If all bees were kept treatment-free, then deadly varroa would be like AFB, that one or two percent of hives that have to be destroyed every year only the destruction would be automatic and the equipment would not be destroyed as well. The idea that survival is due to less-virulent varroa still inexorably leads to the conclusion that all bees need to be kept without treatments.


----------



## Barry

Solomon Parker said:


> Survival is the only metric.


 If survival is the only metric, we'd have both treatment free and treated hives showing success. That much we already know. What we all would like to know is the why.


----------



## Michael Palmer

>>QUOTE=Solomon Parker... _IF_ small cell comb increases the number of varroa, then our hives are for some reason able to survive higher numbers of varroa, and how is that to be explained?<<

Yes, exactly my point. Why?

>>And _if_ it is about less-virulent varroa, then the truth is that conventional beekeepers are banking more deadly varroa...<<

But there are large cell beekeepers out there too, who haven't treated in years.


----------



## Oldtimer

Good point Barry. We are all on the same side. We'd all like some more definatives answers.


----------



## Barry

Michael Palmer said:


> But there are large cell beekeepers out there too, who haven't treated in years.


There are, and this has really piked my interest as to what really is going on.


----------



## sqkcrk

I believe, if their apiaries are relatively small and stationary, less virulent mites would be Seeleys' answer.

Aren't less virulent mites the ultimate goal which we should strive for so mites and bees can live together as they do in SE Asia?


----------



## WLC

You need something to measure like a good 'proxy' for mite virulence.


----------



## deknow

The studies that have been done were done by professionals whose job it is to design andperform such studies. If their claims are so poorly supported by the work that amatures can easily poke holes in them then they did a poor job.
Id be happy to discuss these studies ...especially the seeley study with anyone that would like to.....but such a discussion requires that one read the studies criticly first.
Mike, I understand your point....but the issue is the quality of the published studies, and how well the titles/claims are supported by the data. A bad paper is bad on its own merrits.

Deknow


----------



## WLC

Dean:

Sometimes, not only do studies test for the wrong hypotheses, they also reach the wrong conclusions for reasons that are more politics than science. That's how I found the proxy that can work for mite virulence and other pathogens as well.

The authors withheld the real findings, and substituted plausible ones, because they would conflict with another major project.


----------



## sqkcrk

What is that proxy?


----------



## Solomon Parker

Michael Palmer said:


> But there are large cell beekeepers out there too, who haven't treated in years.


Yes, I know at least one of them. So maybe small/natural cell helps, maybe it doesn't, we don't have a good study to tell. 

Here's another hypothesis, if larger cell hives can survive, and we know that they do, then why are we still stuck on the idea that it's the weak mites? What portion of it is hygienic behavior (genetics)? Can any combination of the factors kill off even the virulent mites or are they indestructible? If these super-mites are unbeatable with any combination of factors, hygienics, small cell, or other unrecognized factors, how are treatment-free operations still able to soldier on all these years?


----------



## WLC

It's a site where environmental RNAs, that the worker bees encounter, are integrated into the Honeybee genome. In effect, it serves as a temporary archive of pathogens.

It's a well known R2 retrotransposon insertion site in the 28srDNA of arthropods.

The famous EST QW33, from 'Changes in transcript abundance relating to colony collapse disorder in honey bees (Apis mellifera)', contains a well known R2 insertion site. They (the authors) failed to report the increased QW33 activity in CCD and virus/nosema infected bees as increased retrotransposition activity at this site. That would have made RNAi unsuitable for treating CCD.

If you want a proxy for mite virulence, that's where you would want to look.

Guess who has the right primer pair?

You can find the site for yourself in:

http://www.biomedsearch.com/attachments/00/17/06/96/17069639/imb0015-0657.pdf

Just consult Figure 6 on page 673.


----------



## Barry

Solomon Parker said:


> What portion of it is hygienic behavior (genetics)?


I'm most skeptical about this element of the equation, if it's part of it. I know Dee has placed 1/3 of her success on breeding, but I have never put any effort into this. I use whatever I get and have not noticed a change in effectiveness. I know Dennis has used a wide variety of commercial queens as well. i think something else is going on.


----------



## sqkcrk

Solomon Parker said:


> then why are we still stuck on the idea that it's the weak mites? What portion of it is hygienic behavior (genetics)?


Since you mentioned the word "stuck". Jim Fischer showed a photo of mites stuck in the surface wax of comb. I wonder how that happened.


----------



## sqkcrk

Barry said:


> I know Dee ... I know Dennis


Dee and Dennis who? That would be like me refering to Jim Tew as Jim, w/out context.

Lusby and van Engelsdorp?


----------



## Barry

In the context of those using SC, that would be Lusby and Murrell.


----------



## sqkcrk

I guess I'll have to googlesearch Murrell.


----------



## Fusion_power

I thought quite a while about how to set up a small cell vs large cell study. There are complexities that are hard to manage. Here are some thoughts on a way to do the job with a very high level of confidence.

1. Set up a total of 240 colonies split into 6 different apiaries. 120 colonies would be on small cell and 120 on large cell. All of the colonies in an apiary should be one cell size to minimize effects caused by varroa moving via drifting bees from overwhelmed colonies to nearby colonies. (reasoning, 240 colonies is enough to be statistically significant)
2. Get queens from three different sources, 80 Italians from a commercial queen breeder, 80 Carniolans from a commercial queen breeder, 80 queens from known long term survivor stock that is on small cell. Divide the queens so that an entire yard is all the same type. (reasoning, this will allow genetic variables to be calculated)
3. Setting up the colonies will be a pain, you MUST have a source of small cell bees to get them to draw out small cell foundation. Establish packages in all 240 colonies using commercial package bees for the large cell and using small cell bees for the small cell colonies. (reasoning, this will get consistent brood comb built to measure the effects)
4. Run the colonies for a minimum of 3 years capturing weekly mite counts. This infers a modified bottom board that allows mite counts. Do not treat with any miticides at all. (reasoning, the varroa cycle is arguably 3 years so you have to keep records for 3 years. The only way to ensure valid results is to use no treatments.)
5. As colonies die out, replace them with walk away splits so that the genetics in a given yard remain pretty much the same. (reasoning, if there are genetic effects, you have to maintain consistent genetics to differentiate from cell size effects)
6. Maintain detailed colony records on all 240 colonies so that anova can be calculated on relevant variables. This includes recording buildup, swarming, queen replacement, honey production, etc. (reasoning, There are 3 variables to resolve, cell size, genetics, and mite virulence. With enough colonies in the test and with detailed records on all of them, some simple math will show which are operative in long term survival)


There would be quite a bit more detail involved, but this should be a start.

Side note, Dennis Murrell used to post here quite a bit as BWrangler.

DarJones


----------



## Barry

I don't know, at this point, it seems a whole lot more reasonable to use existing hives and bees from someone and study them. No?


----------



## WLC

I would suggest keeping it do-able as well.

Your research question should come first anyhow.


----------



## Michael Palmer

QUOTE=Fusion_ 
1. Set up a total of 240 colonies split into 6 different apiaries. All of the colonies in an apiary should be one cell size

How do you account for dfferences in yards? One yard can do poorly while 2 miles down the road another of equal strength initially can do great. 

5 As colonies die out, replace them with walk away splits

But that's a managment plan that will effect the varroa populations. If they die out, should they even be replaced?


----------



## Solomon Parker

DarJones, I'd sign off on that. But it's probably bigger than necessary and it's easily involved enough to be somebody's Ph. D. project. It would be a full time job for two or more people. I kinda like Barry's idea. How feasible would it be for each of two dozen or more beekeepers to set aside ten hives to follow the exact same procedure qualified under the categories you suggest? The queens could be provided from common sources. The results could be agglomerated and I believe they would be more valid because they're being collected from a broader variety of locations.

A thought occurred to me a little while ago. The biggest thing this whole discussion proves is that the anecdotal evidence given is contradictory in every possible direction, including within the stories of some individuals.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Michael Palmer said:


> But that's a managment plan that will effect the varroa populations. If they die out, should they even be replaced?


Mr. Palmer makes a good point. However, I would think not replacing means you're testing the stock and less the method. Replacements should be noted of course.


----------



## Barry

I know it isn't "done that way", but I've always thought a research team from a university ought to send one student out to a SCer and simply study, take data, observe, etc. and verify that the beekeeper is successful not treating. Then, based on that data, decided what a study should look like and have at it, with existing hives.


----------



## Kieck

> The authors withheld the real findings, and substituted plausible ones, because they would conflict with another major project. -WLC


If you have evidence to back up your accusation, I recommend you post it to support this claim. Otherwise, I'd like to see this statement retracted. Such an accusation is extremely inflammatory and downright libelous to anyone involved in peer-reviewed research (as the authors of the papers are).


----------



## WLC

"If you have evidence to back up your accusation, I recommend you post it to support this claim. Otherwise, I'd like to see this statement retracted." 

Kieck:

It happens all the time. 

The authors consulted with Gillespie about QW33 who would have told them that it contained the famous R2 insertion site and that polyadenylation was a hallmark of retrotransposition.

So, they certainly did withhold the information because of another project. The Beeologic/Monsanto project. 

A project that was launched because of the discovery of immunity by retrotransposition/RNAi in the Honeybee.

Unless of course, you think that they're simply incompetent and have no business doing genomics research.

I could live with that.

That site is a hotspot for Honeybee molecular immunity, and it is also a critical marker for those interested in proving the efficacy of treatment free beekeeping and the use of small cell/natural comb.

Or, would you prefer to relegate these folks to counting mites and dead colonies instead?


----------



## Kieck

> The authors consulted with Gillespie about QW33 who would have told them that it contained the famous R2 insertion site and that polyadenylation was a hallmark of retrotransposition. -WLC


But that's not a finding of the research conducted in these papers. It could possibly be a note in the discussion at the end of one or more of the papers, but it's not a finding. 

You claimed they withheld the real results of their results (the results of the data collected in the field) and replaced those results with "more plausible" results. You've accused them of falsifying data, in essence, or of deliberately modifying their data to fit with a hypothesis that they prefer.



> A project that was launched because of the discovery of immunity by retrotransposition/RNAi in the Honeybee. -WLC


Such things may actually run concurrent with the findings of these papers. Immunity this way would be to viruses vectored by _Varroa_ mites. These studies found that smaller cell sizes do not reduce mites numbers in hives. Very simple finding. An explanation for why so-called small-cell hives might continue to survive despite mite numbers being just as high as in so-called large-cell hives might rely on just such transpositional immunity. That still doesn't change the numbers of these studies and goes beyond the scope of the projects in these papers.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Kieck, so basically what you're saying is:t:

I can understand your confusion.


----------



## Fusion_power

I have to toss a monkey wrench into WLC's tub. You obviously have a hobbyhorse to ride re RNA transposition. Unfortunately, it meets reality head on in the varroa mite. If RNA transposition were part of the equation with honeybees, then rationally you would have colonies that could acquire immunity to the viral assault. That would leave the mites to deal with. If unchecked, the mite load in the colony would spiral out of control until there were more mites than bees. Then it would climb higher still until each bee was inundated in mites. Just when do you think the bees start to die? If RNA transposition were a cure all, then feral colonies would now be immune to just about everything. Why aren't they immune to AFB? EFB? Sacbrood? BPV? IAPV? add as many others as you like.

At one time, Penicillin was considered a wonder drug. Just take a little and it would cure what ails you. Today we know that the efficacy of penicillin is limited and that all subsequently developed antibiotics are similarly limited. You can bet that RNA transposition will also be limited.

Enough OT.

DarJones


----------



## beemandan

Barry said:


> I know it isn't "done that way", but I've always thought a research team from a university ought to send one student out to a SCer


You do recall that the UGA study was conducted with the active participation of Bill Owens (aka Billybob)? You remember him, don't you? 
And I swore I wouldn't get sucked into this again......


----------



## WLC

You need a proxy for mite virulence.

Something that you can measure simply or in greater depth using the same marker.

I'll avoid getting into the backstory, but measuring the proxy will avoid false positives, that you can get when using standard methods for measuring virus loads (AKA-virulence)and pathogens, by using a single primer pair that measures the status of the Honeybee's molecular immunity.

It can answer the fundamental question of how small cell (and treatment free beekeeping) can positively affect the Honeybee's immunity.

There are already more than enough studies that miss the mark.

It's time to aim for the heart of the matter with a 'robust' and flexible methodology.


----------



## Barry

Yes, the part you quoted was done, but what I went on to say was not, AFAIK. Did Berry spend a couple of years observing Bill's bees _before_ the study? Did she verify how the bees were dealing with Varroa? If she found the varroa level in his hives to be no different than her LC bees, why do a study on mite loads? Commonsense would say there is something else at work and the study should have been done on another aspect. I know of no published statements by her that say "going into this study, the mite counts in Bill's hives were such and such over a two year period.

I drew you in and didn't even try! :banana:


----------



## beemandan

Barry said:


> Did Berry spend a couple of years observing Bill's bees _before_ the study?


Why would she? She trusted (and I'm sure still does) Bill's reporting. While I don't think Bill was doing any varroa testing, I expect that he presumed that his mite populations were low. Much of the impetus for the study was a result of Bill's experience. Bill had considerably more than two years with sc. There was never any doubt that the results were a disappointment to both Jennifer and Bill. But they were obligated to report them honestly. Last I heard, following the study, Bill was going to use up whatever remaining sc foundation he had and then go traditional.
The entire idea of following the colonies for x number of years is purposeless. They set out to determine if, as was commonly reported, small cell reduces varroa mite loads. Under the conditions they had...it did not. Six months, ten years, it doesn't matter. The trial was designed to eliminate as many variables as possible. It did a pretty good job. No real world testing can eliminate everything. The longer a trial goes on, the more variables enter in. The small cell folks complained about all kinds of ‘faulty trial’ conditions. Then the Florida group with Jerry Hayes and Amanda Ellis eliminated many of those. Then the Seeley group eliminated more. 
The research folks spent valuable time, energy and money studying the small cell proponents’ main argument. Small cell failed that test. Now those same small cell folks want these researchers to perform countless, extended trials for every imaginable combination of variables that they can dream up. It ain’t gonna happen. The honey bee research community is strapped for funding…..always has been…and now even more so. They aren’t going to invest more in pure speculation.
If anyone has a pet theory and can finance or conduct their own trial, then that is what they need to do.


----------



## deknow

> The small cell folks complained about all kinds of ‘faulty trial’ conditions. Then the Florida group with Jerry Hayes and Amanda Ellis eliminated many of those. Then the Seeley group eliminated more.


Is it time to actually discuss the studies yet? That does seem to be the topic of the thread.

Is it your contention that the Seeley study is the most refined of the studies, and that the results/claims are robust and defendable? Have you read the study?

deknow


----------



## WLC

Do you mean this one?

http://www.springerlink.com/content/8g697443p6274022/

Dean:

Did any of the studies cited in Seeley measure virus levels or immunity in the Honeybees in any way, shape, or form? Or, did they simply count mites/dead colonies?


----------



## beemandan

deknow said:


> Is it your contention that the Seeley study is the most refined of the studies, and that the results/claims are robust and defendable?


No


deknow said:


> Have you read the study?


Yes


----------



## Barry

Thanks WLC, I've been looking for that one. Let the discussion on the studies begin.


----------



## Barry

beemandan said:


> No


Oh, so they're not robust and defendable. Elaborate.


----------



## beemandan

Barry said:


> Oh, so they're not robust and defendable. Elaborate.


The part I was referring to was 'most refined of the studies'. When I quoted Dean, I should have removed the 'robust and defendable'. My fault.


----------



## WLC

This one? (Berry)

http://www.ent.uga.edu/bees/documents/m08138.pdf

Or, this one? (Ellis)

http://www.springerlink.com/content/lk80j0017v01w026/

Which one is refined?


----------



## sqkcrk

The whiter one, of course.


----------



## deknow

...id like to discuss the seeley paper....its the most recent, tom has an excellent reputation for doing good work. Wlc, thanks for the link..I didnt know it was freely available.
Deknow


----------



## K Wieland

Very interesting indeed, and I would like to discuss it as well.

1.I didn't understand the part about cutting out the drone cells. It was my understanding that the mites prefer the drones (is this true?) and so the drones are sacrificial.
2. As he noted, the small cell seemed to do poorly. Can this alone explain the difference? Hives under stress are naturally more susceptible to mites, right? 
2. A followup study would be interesting to see a test of foundationless vs standard frame, with no drone removal.


----------



## hpm08161947

I would have thought with no drone larvae available, the mites would have been placed at a disadvantage. Seemingly not. Perhaps his control was LC with no drone cells... guess I need to reread.


----------



## Barry

Haven't finished reading it, but so far I have a couple of things that give rise.

One on wax comb, the other on plastic.
Study done for such a short period.
The whole measuring bees part I don't get. How long after bees emerged were they measured? Why measure bees? A more accurate measurement of bee to cell ratio would be to measure the bee before it emerges.


----------



## Michael Bush

Dee proposed long ago that one, if not the main effect, of large cell is the pseudo drone effect. Which is that the Varroa mistake the worker cells for drone cells and therefore infest both drones and workers. 

I have stated here on beesource before ( http://www.beesource.com/forums/sho...es-small-cell-really-work&p=486705#post486705 ) that perhaps the cause of higher counts during the spring with small cell in the experiments that have been done, is because there are a lot of drones reared in the spring and the mites on small cell are more efficient at reproducing during that period because of the abundance of drone cells. As the drone cells fall off more later, those get infested even more and probably result in drone mortality at that point, but that may actually mean the Varroa are less successful because they are killing their host, and since they aren't infecting the workers (which they are not mistaking for drones) they are not less successful later in the year so that the Varroa population curve may spike in early spring and drop off by fall. I do not cull drone comb at all, and I have a LOT of drone comb because I do foundationless and never throw out drone combs and yet in the fall I have trouble finding Varroa. I think it was a huge mistake for Seeley to remove all the drone comb and drone cells. It removes one of the primary and likely theories on how small cell works. But counting mites also leads to erroneous conclusions unless you track the population over a couple of years minimum. But I think counting mites is a mistake. Counting survivors when not treating would be a more useful test.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Michael Bush said:


> ... perhaps the cause of higher counts during the spring with small cell in the experiments that have been done, is because there are a lot of drones reared in the spring and the mites on small cell are more efficient at reproducing during that period because of the abundance of drone cells.


As I mentioned before, I see this in my hives. I have crawlers in the spring, but later in the year, they disappear.


----------



## Oldtimer

Actually that's an interesting theory Michael. Should be easy enough to test, just via some brood sampling.

Howzabout doing it, and reporting back?


----------



## Michael Bush

>Howzabout doing it, and reporting back? 

I'm still out of the country and will be doing major catch-up when I return, so I'm sure I won't have time. But the theory is consistent with the counts that Seeley did with no drone brood (no difference in SC and the mites had no choices) and the counts that Berry got when she did not remove drone brood (more mites in SC hives but that was in only two months in the spring).


----------



## Oldtimer

Hmmm.... Well I'll try it with mine then, although at this point I only have 2 sc hives, and last time I checked the brood could not find a varroa. But during the season I'll do running brood samples, and if there's anything interesting I'll start a thread on it. I've allowed each hive to build two drone combs, so it's doable.

The only potential weakness in the theory is that it would rely on drones dying in the cells. Otherwise mite numbers would just continue to increase ad infinitum until the hive was overun. 

But anyhow the idea is definately worth testing & I'd encourage anyone else who can, to try some tests also and report back, to provide some more data.


----------



## Michael Bush

I pretty much have to check for mites in June if I want to see any... but if you start with very low numbers and the spike in June and fall off then you have few at the beginning again. I have them inspected every year and only if I have them inspected late does the inspector find any. Which is consistent with my experience as well.

Inspection certificates since 2004:
http://www.bushfarms.com/beescerts.htm


----------



## Oldtimer

I'm on the other side of the world from you. Different seasons. 

Do you have brood through the winter?


----------



## Michael Bush

>Do you have brood through the winter? 

Some of the time. They tend to raise a little patch and then they take a break and then raise another little patch up until pollen starts coming in.


----------



## beemandan

The whole measuring head and thorax thing was to address the contention that in the smaller cells the pupae size restricted movement of the male mite, who was therefore unable to feed. The study suggests that the size difference would not have created sufficient restriction. 

I do think the size may be important. Bee size is genetic. I have any number of traditional cell hives that have bees of widely varying size. Some quite small and many of their sisters large. Yet I’ve often heard small cell beekeepers talk about their noticeably smaller bees. I regressed a number of hives some years ago and I was unable to see any difference in bee size . Based on Seeley’s head and thorax measurements (they evidently didn’t measure abdominal size), the size difference on sc was around 2 – 3%. To my way of thinking, assuming that the same percentage applies to the abdomen, this would not be a visible difference….certainly not enough for a beekeeper to talk about his little bees.

Dennis Murrel (sp?), Kirk Webster and even Dee Lusby have spoken of a major collapse before becoming successful with sc. So, is it possible that during the conversion to small cell, following the collapse, the only bees that will be successful are the genetically smaller bees and that those bees, as a result of their reduced size have a shorter pupation period? And were this the case, would those same genetically smaller bees fare just as well on traditional cell? It is simply that the sc beekeepers forced out the larger bees.

Just one of my pet theories.


----------



## Michael Palmer

beemandan said:


> ...Kirk Webster...have spoken of a major collapse before becoming successful with sc.


Kirk Webster has a major crash about every other year, and rebuilds his apiary from what is left of his production hives and nucleus colonies.


----------



## beemandan

Michael Palmer said:


> Kirk Webster has a major crash about every other year


Whooops! 
Ok...it should read....Dennis Murrel (sp?) and even Dee Lusby......


----------



## Barry

beemandan said:


> The whole measuring head and thorax thing was to address the contention that in the smaller cells the pupae size restricted movement of the male mite, who was therefore unable to feed. The study suggests that the size difference would not have created sufficient restriction.


I understand the reason for measuring. Why did they measure the bees at some time (this time frame is not given) after they emerged? Why would you not measure the bee while still in the cell before other factors come into play? My experience is that I will see significantly smaller bees in the spring and fall, but during the summer flow months, all bees look the same size.


----------



## beemandan

Barry said:


> Why would you not measure the bee while still in the cell before other factors come into play?


I can't imagine that it would make a dramatic difference. It would complicate the study significantly though. They would have to go into the hives many more times to determined and mark new eggs, then return and find those specific aged pupae....and what age would they choose? Or would they have to test multiple ages. 



Barry said:


> My experience is that I will see significantly smaller bees in the spring and fall, but during the summer flow months, all bees look the same size.


Do you believe that you can visually identify a 2-3% difference as 'significantly smaller bees'.

I know I won't be missed but must go....and likely won't be back before next week....


----------



## Kieck

Sclerotized parts of insect exoskeleton don't change size. The width of the head remains the same throughout adulthood for insects. Same is true for hard parts of the thorax and abdomen. The width of the first abdominal tergite is the same from the first day after exclusion to the last. I think the argument about measurements is a digression from this discussion.


----------



## deknow

Kiek, you are entirely correct and that was very well put...but I don't think it's a digression of any kind...if we are going to discuss studies, we have to understand them.

deknow


----------



## Solomon Parker

beemandan said:


> 'significantly smaller bees'.


I wouldn't say that I've seen uniformly smaller bees, but I will say I have regularly seen individual bees which where significantly smaller.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Link to an earlier study which did show positive correlation between cell size and and varroa infestation.

http://funpecrp.com.br/gmr/year2003/vol1-2/gmr0057_full_text.htm


----------



## sqkcrk

If small cell combs produce smaller bees, wouldn't they be proportionally similar sized as large cell comb, developing bees to comb? So varroa would still be able to occupy the cell w/ the bee. Or am I missing something?


----------



## deknow

ok, I do have some notes I made, but can't find them at the moment...so lets cover some of the issues with the study.

1. Although the author(s) cite some research as background, it is worth noting that there is no mention of anyone claiming actually using SC with any kind of result in the field. Obviously the authors are aware of "SC beekeepers", and of the claims of success...yet, it is never mentioned. This is unfortunate, as what has been written, discussed, and debated among beekeepers is very relevant to the research at hand. 

2. ...For instance, only one possible mechanism of effectiveness (less room for mites in the small cell) is considered...one of which I know no SC beekeeper I know thinks is the only mechanism (or even part of the mechanism) at play. ...more on this as we proceed.

3. It's rather obvious that no beekeepers (or researchers) consider wax comb (built by bees with or without foundation) and molded plastic comb as equivalent. ...if we did, no one would have an issue with replacing their best wax comb with HSC. This was the most surprising part of the study....with no mention of any issues wrt the experimental model due to the use of plastic comb...again, more on this as we continue.

4. The bees used in the study were taken from colonies that "scored highly on a varroa mite drop test conducted 6 weeks earlier [before the packages used in the study were shaken from them]. So to highlight the issue here, they chose the most mite infested colonies they could, then allowed the mites (and associated problems) to fester for 6 weeks before shaking packages and beginning the study. This seems more like a way to test a "treatment" (shaking the bees onto broodless comb of varying sizes) for varroa infestation rather than a test to see if "small cell comb controls" mites....this is like testing cancer controls on patients that have the worst cases...and letting each case get worse for 6 weeks before treating. Certainly no one that claims any success with SC comb claims to have success doing what was done here....it is a test of something, but it is a straw man argument to imply that they are testing the same thing beekeepers are doing...even in part.

5. WRT the claim made in the introduction:


> "As a rule, if a colony of European honeybees does not
> receive mite control treatments, the mite population
> will grow from just a few mites to several
> thousand mites in 3 to 4 years, ultimately killing
> the colony "


...is mite treatment the only thing between a dead colony and a live one over a 4 year period? Could the researchers (or have the researchers) reliably keep a colony alive with no manipulations, no feed, no management other than the application of mite treatments...for 4 years?

6. This one is more of a question....in materials and methods, they state:


> "feeding them with a 50/50 (v/v) sucrose solution
> brushed onto the wire screen of one side of each
> package cage. "


....I thought that brushing syrup on a screen like this damages the feet and tongues of the bees inside the cage, and that this was considered poor practice.....anyone know more?

7.


> "There were no drone cells in any of the
> frames of comb used in this study. "


...
and later...


> "When we took our monthly measurements of the
> colonies, we cut out any drone comb that the colonies
> had built, usually along the bottoms of the frames. At
> most, this involved removing 25 drone cells per
> colony per inspection; none of the drone comb
> contained drone brood. In this way, we prevented
> drone rearing in our colonies and this meant that all
> the mite reproduction in our study colonies occurred
> in cells of worker brood. "


Ok, so a few things are being reported here:
A. That in a colony with NO DRONE COMB AND NO DRONE BROOD that, at most, 25 drone cells were produced a month.

B. That in these cells, no drones are ever reared...in a colony with no drone brood.

C. That removing all the drone comb once a month (comb that never shows any sign of being used to rear drones) that drone rearing is prevented?

...all of this seems hard to believe...or the colonies were under some kind of stress that prevented them from producing drones....such a stress should be looked into as a possible issue with the study, not to be seen as a normal situation.

8.


> "We measured the
> mean width of the cells in each hive by measuring the
> width of ten cells in a straight line (inclusive of wall
> widths) in the center of one side of each frame of
> comb. "


....to me, this reads that they measured 10 cells in the center of each comb (where we know the cells tend to be smaller)....and called it the "mean width". "Mean" can describe a few (related) concepts, but it is beyond any reasonable assumption to clam that measuring 10 cells gives you a "mean" for the entire 2 sides of a comb.

9.


> The colonies in the hives with the
> plastic, small-cell combs grew noticeably less
> rapidly than those in the hives with the
> beeswax, standard-cell combs.


Of course, most of us with actual experience with HSC would have predicted this...and could have even suggested ways to mitigate this effect of molded plastic fully drawn comb...cell size may have been a factor here (I don't have experience with fully drawn, molded LC comb and acceptance), but certainly the brand new plastic is a variable that is outside what is being claimed to be tested...but firmly in the way of obtaining data to support the claims of the study

More later...but this should start some things rolling....

deknow


----------



## Solomon Parker

deknow said:


> 2. ...For instance, only one possible mechanism of effectiveness (less room for mites in the small cell) is considered...one of which I know no SC beekeeper I know thinks is the only mechanism (or even part of the mechanism) at play. ...more on this as we proceed.


I am one of the beekeepers for which at play the mechanism is not. This mechanism has perplexed me because it doesn't make logical sense. Is this assumption stating that a hard bodied little mite which has been shown to be quite strong and resilient at holding on to bees vigorously attempting to shake them off is having trouble fitting into a cell filled with what is essentially a blob of viscous fluid? I would never expect that any blob of viscous fluid able to make the transition to exoskeletoned insect would be able to do so in such a confined space as would not fit a mite. That's my logic. I could be wrong.


----------



## deknow

Sol, I suggest you read the studies that are footnoted on the issue of "mite crowding" (I think I found them all for free when I looked them up). I understood better when I read them.

deknow


----------



## Solomon Parker

Is this what you were referring to? 

"Low mite reproductive success in cells containing pseudo-clone was mainly as a result of increased mite mortality. This was caused by male protonymphs and some mothers becoming trapped in the upper part of the cell due to the pseudo-clone being 8% larger than their host and not due to their short developmental time. "


----------



## deknow

...I should say that I don't think "mite crowding" is terribly important, but reading those studies, at least you know what they are talking about.

deknow


----------



## Oldtimer

Could you reference that Sol?


----------



## Solomon Parker

Martin S.J., Kryger P. (2002) Reproduction of Varroa destructor in South African honey bees: does cell space influence Varroa male survivorship? Apidologie 33, 51–61.


----------



## deknow

I've got a ton to do today and over the next few days, but I will do my best to contribute the best I can here...I think this is an important discussion, mostly because it is important that everyone read a study critically before accepting its conclusions.
In this case, I must admit to personally feeling badly about the study...Tom has a well deserved reputation for good work, this falls far short. The glaring errors (like using SC plastic vs LC Wax, abuse of the term 'mean', and the issues with the drones) should have been examined in the review process...it certainly took a long time for this study to come out, there was plenty of time to at least acknowledge the problems (when I talked to Tom about the study before it came out, he seemed surprised that I had issues with using HSC vs wax comb). This is a failure of the review process more than anything...the research community needs to clean up its act, these problems are obvious. The whole point of the review process is to make sure this doesn't happen.

One other comment I have on this is that you might note that the manuscript editor for the study was Marla Spivak. When I met her a few years ago, she stated outright that even regressed bees could not make small cell comb without foundation. I was running sound for her talk the next day, and I offered to bring in some small cell foundationless comb (from Massachusetts, that the bee inspector knows are not Africanized)...she said, "no thank you". When this is the attitude, Truth is not served.

There are a lot of other problems with the study...length of time, etc....some of this can be argued back and forth, but plastic comb is not wax. Bees on new HSC are slow to utilize the comb. You can't prevent all drone production by inspecting once a month. Sick bees do not make for a good study.

deknow


----------



## Kieck

Let's back up a minute in the discussion and evaluation of these studies.

First, these are attempts to answer the question, "Does cell size affect mite populations?" Not, "Why does cell size affect mites?" or, "How does cell size affect mites?" but just, "Does cell size affect mites?" The others are excellent follow-up questions, assuming it does show an effect, but they are beyond the scope of these experiments.

Then, this question arose from the claims at the time (maybe those claims are no longer made, but running an experiment and getting it published like this takes quite a while) that simply switching to small cell would cure mite infestations. HSC was proposed frequently as a simple way to effectively cut down on mites. Starting with large numbers of mites is the only way to test that hypothesis and obtain publishable results (an essential part of peer-reviewed academia in our current system). Remember, too, that these published results were peer reviewed.

I hope some current trials that address some of the concerns raised here will result in publishable outcomes. I suspect the results will be criticized here as well if they are published.


----------



## WLC

After having looked over the studies, I think that it's safe to say that mite numbers/density aren't significantly affected by small cell foundation.

Others using small cell have said that their bees on small cell are mite resistant.

I take that to mean that they have developed a yet to be characterized form of immunity to the pathogens carried by mites.

That requires a very different kind of experimental design.

If you were to ask me today if it is do-able, I would say it is.

You have to ask the right question first.


----------



## Oldtimer

deknow said:


> In this case, I must admit to personally feeling badly about the study...Tom has a well deserved reputation for good work, this falls far short. The glaring errors (like using SC plastic vs LC Wax, abuse of the term 'mean', and the issues with the drones) should have been examined in the review process
> deknow


To be fair, it was a study of the claims of the sc community, that sc bees on small cell can survive varroa.

While issues such as drones, and plastic comb, would best have been dealt with and standardised between sample and control, these issues were not really part of the debate at the time. I suspect they used plastic comb, to ensure standard sc size.

Case in point, when I started converting bees to sc, I had initial problems getting the bees to draw sc comb properly, and it was suggested to me by many, that I use plastic comb. At no point was there any mention there may be some difference in effect, between plastic comb and wax comb. I ran a thread on the whole process at the time, and the discussion can be viewed on beesource. There was similarly no more than passing discussion on drones, it did not seem to rate as important.

So the researcher hears the claims being made, and decides to examine them. After the study/s, new claims come out, by those who just cannot believe the study got it right and look for some new variable. Perhaps further studies will include or standardise these variables also. However a study including every percieved variable, plus the time frame, and number of hives that's being demanded, is going to be insanely expensive, I'll be surprised if it happens.


----------



## Michael Bush

>To be fair, it was a study of the claims of the sc community, that sc bees on small cell can survive varroa.

No, it was not. If it was that then you would measure the number of colonies that survive instead of measuring bees and counting mites. That is the study I would like to see, one that measures survival and productivity.

>While issues such as drones, and plastic comb, would best have been dealt with and standardised between sample and control, these issues were not really part of the debate at the time. I suspect they used plastic comb, to ensure standard sc size.

I'm sure that was their intention, yes.

>Case in point, when I started converting bees to sc, I had initial problems getting the bees to draw sc comb properly, and it was suggested to me by many, that I use plastic comb. At no point was there any mention there may be some difference in effect, between plastic comb and wax comb. 

The long tern success of small cell is not a problem with plastic. But HSC has been written about many times by many uses and all have said it sets them back two weeks. This needs to be taken into account in a study. Randy Oliver's study on small cell documented this as well. 

>There was similarly no more than passing discussion on drones, it did not seem to rate as important.

The drone comb issue was written about at least a decade ago by Dee Lusby, who leaves an inch gap at the bottom of the foundation to allow drones and recommends a target of 10% drone comb and has talked about the importance of drone for mite control for at least that long. Her writings are on the POV section of Beesource.

>So the researcher hears the claims being made, and decides to examine them. After the study/s, new claims come out, by those who just cannot believe the study got it right and look for some new variable.

Maybe you could specify what you think those "new claims" are. Dee wrote about the psudodrone issue more than a decade ago. Any issues of drift which have been brought up were brought up years ago and written about and posted on my web site back in 2005. 

> Perhaps further studies will include or standardise these variables also. However a study including every percieved variable, plus the time frame, and number of hives that's being demanded, is going to be insanely expensive, I'll be surprised if it happens. 

It is impossible to take into account all the variables that influence the outcomes of a hive. There is not just what is in the hive but the 8,000 acres of ecology around the hive. The secret, in my opinion is to stop trying to take all those into account and make the study large and long term enough and stop trying to measure the minuet and instead measure survivability and productivity, which are the real issues. Sometimes you need to back up and see the forest instead of studying the cells of the leaves under the microscope. Sometimes you start at the forest and work your way down to the cells of the leaves under the microscope because the trail leads you there.

I understand the obsession of trying to test mechanisms, that is the hopeful end of the scientific method is to prove the mechanism, but first you just need to see if it works. Seeley was trying to prove or disprove a mechanism (reduced space interfering with Varroa reproduction). I think he should see if the colonies on small cell survive and thrive in the long run rather than measuring bees and counting mites. All cultures through all of time that we have any records have used willow bark (salicylate aka a variation on aspirin) as an analgesic. We still do not understand exactly how it works, and had no CLUE how it worked until the 1970s. Not understanding the mechanism does not discount getting benefit from something. I know of no study on the mechanism of smoke in calming bees, yet humans have been using it for at least 7,000 years and probably much longer, for that purpose. We have no clue how gravity works. But we know it does and we use it to our advantage. Finding a mechanism is not the first step.


----------



## Oldtimer

Michael Bush said:


> Maybe you could specify what you think those "new claims" are. Dee wrote about the psudodrone issue more than a decade ago. Any issues of drift which have been brought up were brought up years ago and written about and posted on my web site back in 2005.


 The researchers were likely aware of Dee talking about her "pseudodrone" theory. That's not what I was referring to, and regarding drone drift, personally I don't know if it's as important in the overall scheme of things as people might think.
As to the "new claims", there's been at least one come up which was not taken into account in the studies, and is new to me also. It's your own Michael, being that in hives with comb at 4.9 the mites go to the drone comb to the point of killing the drone larvae, and themselves, while sparing the worker brood. As you thought of this some years ago it's not new to you, but it's new to many. I've read Dee on "pseudodrones", but didn't pick that up from it. Although to be fair, I've probably not read every last thing she's ever written. The researchers probably haven't either, they may read a lot of literature, but they are doing their own work and reaching their own hypothesis.



Michael Bush said:


> I understand the obsession of trying to test mechanisms, that is the hopeful end of the scientific method is to prove the mechanism, but first you just need to see if it works. Seeley was trying to prove or disprove a mechanism (reduced space interfering with Varroa reproduction). I think he should see if the colonies on small cell survive and thrive in the long run rather than measuring bees and counting mites


 OK well if seeing if it "works" is the only test you want, it's been done. You did it and claim few/no losses. Others have done it and claim large, or total, losses. So that test has been done, result inconclusive. That's why researchers want to look at the mechanism, and why it is right to do so.


----------



## Barry

Oldtimer said:


> However a study including every percieved variable, plus the time frame, and number of hives that's being demanded, is going to be insanely expensive, I'll be surprised if it happens.


It won't. This is why I said "a research team from a university ought to send one student out to a SCer and simply study, take data, observe, etc. and verify that the beekeeper is successful not treating. Then, based on that data, decided what a study should look like and have at it, with existing hives." Why would they do a study based on "claims of the sc community"? Researchers need to get past their ego and actually go see an apiary and beekeeper that is claiming success using SC. They go and observe firsthand hives that have "CCD" to try and gather data.


----------



## WI-beek

"Get past your ego and actually go see an apiary and beekeeper that is claiming success using SC. They go and observe firsthand hives that have "CCD" to try and gather data."

How would you know that SC was the responsible factor for survival? It could be less aggressive mites, mite resistant genetics, ...... To study the sc theory do you not again end up testing small cell itself for the reason behind success? The variables need to be sorted out, and sense made of them, dont you think? They have jumped to several conclusions about the responsible factor of CCD yet no conclusive reason can be made with certainty. 

I think it would be great if small cell comb is great tool for mite control or for somehow giving honeybees an ace up their sleeve to combat or co-exist with varroa. I hope for the sake of beekeepers, better long term trials, observations etc. are done to put this thing to rest one way or the other. Like other people out there, I seek evidence through science, trails, or what have you. 

What is kind of odd is that those who have success with small cell dont invite science to their apiaries and offer to conduct the trials. Why not take 20 colonies of small cell bees that are claimed to survive varroa, raise queens from these split the mothers 50/50 into two groups, plus their daughters, and conduct a trial with 50 on small cell and 50 on normal foundation? Four years later, lets see the results. Im not trying to say this has not been offered, and Im not trying to stir the pot, but if sc is a magic bullet, why haven't any stepped up and said, Ill prove it? I cant imagine someone or group would not take up the offer and even fund it.


----------



## Oldtimer

Barry said:


> Get past your ego and actually go see an apiary and beekeeper that is claiming success using SC. They go and observe firsthand hives that have "CCD" to try and gather data.


Barry. Get off the grass, or whatever you've been smoking.

I don't live in the US where all the sc apiaries are. In my country there are to my knowledge, two sc apiaries. One is mine, two hives, and the other belongs to someone else. I was talking to him yesterday and his sc apiary has gone from 50 hives a year ago, to 5 now.

If you are so keen for me to see a successful apiary get me a ticket to wherever you think one is. But I won't be putting up the money, I'm attempting to get my info by talking on beesource.

If you have some kind of a problem with that, your site, kick me off.


----------



## MARBIS

Barry said:


> Get past your ego and actually go see an apiary and beekeeper that is claiming success using SC


Wow, that is how you treat one of the most civil and knowledgable members of the beesource.
Could you please erase my name from beesource membership list, and all my posts. Thank you.


----------



## Michael Bush

>OK well if seeing if it "works" is the only test you want, it's been done. You did it and claim few/no losses. 

Exactly.

>What is kind of odd is that those who have success with small cell dont invite science to their apiaries and offer to conduct the trials. 

I have.

>Why not take 20 colonies of small cell bees that are claimed to survive varroa, raise queens from these split the mothers 50/50 into two groups, plus their daughters, and conduct a trial with 50 on small cell and 50 on normal foundation? Four years later, lets see the results. Im not trying to say this has not been offered, and Im not trying to stir the pot, but if sc is a magic bullet, why haven't any stepped up and said, Ill prove it?

So you think I should condemn half my hives to death to prove something I already know to someone who doesn't really want to know. i have offered samples of natural comb to scientists who claim that is not the natural size of comb and had no takers. I've requested to be involved in studies and received polite declines. But I have no desire to take half my hives and put them back in the environment where they all died every time I tried it before.

>Get past your ego and actually go see an apiary and beekeeper that is claiming success using SC.

I can't say what Barry meant, but I read this as addressed to the generic class of "researchers", not someone in particular...


----------



## WI-beek

"So you think I should condemn half my hives to death to prove something I already know to someone who doesn't really want to know. i have offered samples of natural comb to scientists who claim that is not the natural size of comb and had no takers. I've requested to be involved in studies and received polite declines. But I have no desire to take half my hives and put them back in the environment where they all died every time I tried it before."

You only have 40 colonies? I have always assumed you had more! No punt intended.

Dont really want to know, seriously? I think I speak for most beekeepers when I say "we all would like to really know if small cell affects varroa"!

If you took 20 colonies, raised enough queens from their mothers (80) to make 80 splits (each colony split into 5) and you ran 50 small cell, why would those 50 be condemned to death. Maybe the other 50 would, but other than foundation, and 10 colonies of bees, I dont see the huge loss. If you offered to fund these original colonies, and if someone would fund the rest of the project, I see opportunity, not loss. The knowledge given to the beekeeping world would be great. I personally think if you made the offer, someone or an institution would fund the research.

Im not saying you owe the proof. I just have a hard time believing with the amount of sc beekeepers out there who are so sure that sc is so effective and others so skeptical of it, that there has not been on study or trial that I am aware of that backs it up. I think I would offer science the proof if someone would fund it or I had the resourced to do so myself.

Please dont take this personal Michael, because its not on my end.


----------



## Michael Bush

>You only have 40 colonies? I have always assumed you had more! No punt intended.

I might. I've been away for a while, but last I saw there were more than that.

>Dont really want to know, seriously? I think I speak for most beekeepers when I say "we all would like to really know if small cell affects varroa"!

I already know. So I should let 20 of my colonies die to show you something you could prove to yourself by risking the same number.

>If you took 20 colonies, raised enough queens from their mothers (80) to make 80 splits (each colony split into 5) and you ran 50 small cell, why would those 50 be condemned to death. Maybe the other 50 would, but other than foundation, and 10 colonies of bees, I dont see the huge loss. If you offered to fund these original colonies, and if someone would fund the rest of the project, I see opportunity, not loss. The knowledge given to the beekeeping world would be great. I personally think if you made the offer, someone or an institution would fund the research.

Even easier is to take 20 packages of commercial queens, (which will come already innoculated with virulent mites) put them on Mann Lake PF100s (or PF120s), don't treat them, but manage them otherwise as far as making sure they don't starve and doing splits so they don't swarm and see how many are alive in four years.

>Im not saying you owe the proof. I just have a hard time believing with the amount of sc beekeepers out there who are so sure that sc is so effective and others so skeptical of it, that there has not been on study or trial that I am aware of that backs it up. I think I would offer science the proof if someone would fund it or I had the resourced to do so myself.

I agree. The results were so overwhelming in my experience that it's hard to believe anyone could manage to make it fail in any long term study... but no one has done a long term study. They have merely put them on small cell for a few months and counted mites.


----------



## WLC

"They have merely put them on small cell for a few months and counted mites."

That is the issue. You can't expect the same results that you'd find in properly regressed hives.

Why didn't they use existing small cell (and other) hives in the study? It can be difficult to compare any differences in the apiaries where they are kept. But, it is possible.


----------



## Barry

WI-beek said:


> How would you know that SC was the responsible factor for survival? It could be less aggressive mites, mite resistant genetics,


How would one know "CCD" was the responsible factor for colony loss? It could be a lot of other factors. That didn't stop researchers from actually going to the beekeeper and inspecting the hives.


----------



## Barry

WI-beek said:


> What is kind of odd is that those who have success with small cell dont invite science to their apiaries and offer to conduct the trials.


How do you know this to be the fact? I know Lusby's have had an open invitation to science.


----------



## Barry

Oldtimer said:


> If you are so keen for me to see a successful apiary get me a ticket to wherever you think one is.


I see my remark was not taken as meant to be. I was talking about researchers, not you. When I said "Get past your ego and actually go see an apiary and beekeeper that is claiming success using SC. They go and observe firsthand hives that have "CCD" to try and gather data." I was addressing that to researchers. I edited it to make it clear. Sorry for the misunderstanding!


----------



## WLC

What if it has nothing to do with small cell, but is in fact genetic?

"Three QTL in the honey bee Apis mellifera L. suppress
reproduction of the parasitic mite Varroa destructor."

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ece3.17/pdf

Don't forget that many of the same folks who use small cell have also selected for treatment free bees.

You wouldn't be able to tell the source of the resistance by counting mites.

PS-Now the treatment free movement has genetic evidence for their claims and some candidate markers to search for. Congrats.


----------



## Barry

Michael Bush said:


> i have offered samples of natural comb to scientists who claim that is not the natural size of comb and had no takers. I've requested to be involved in studies and received polite declines. But I have no desire to take half my hives and put them back in the environment where they all died every time I tried it before.


I thought you had said this before, but wasn't sure. I wanted to mention you as well.



> >Get past your ego and actually go see an apiary and beekeeper that is claiming success using SC.
> 
> I can't say what Barry meant, but I read this as addressed to the generic class of "researchers", not someone in particular...


Good, I'm glad at least someone understood it that way.


----------



## Roland

Barry said:

Researchers need to get past their ego. 

I agree, go tell your Ms. Berrenbaum. I invited her to discuss my success with CCD three years ago, instead she got a grant which proved I was not wrong(different than proving I was right).

Crazy ROland


----------



## WLC

That would be one of the authors on the paper that witheld the finding I was referring to previously.

You're not going to get any help here in the U.S. . It's 'locked up'.

You need to look to Europe, perhaps the authors of the paper I linked to above are the folks you're looking for. Although, I think they are more interested in varroa resistance than small cell itself.

Email em. Tell em what you've got.

Dieter Behrens, Institute of Biology,
Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg,
Hoher Weg 4, 06099 Halle (Saale), Germany.
Tel: +49 345 5526235; Fax: +49 345 552726;
E-mail: [email protected]

What's the worst thing they can say besides 'nein'?


----------



## Roland

I can support WLC's claims. Most of the useful Peer review papers have come from Europe. Can't think of a pivotal paper from the U.S.A. Makes you wonder.

Crazy Roland


----------



## Kieck

> Even easier is to take 20 packages of commercial queens, (which will come already innoculated with virulent mites) put them on Mann Lake PF100s (or PF120s), don't treat them, but manage them otherwise as far as making sure they don't starve and doing splits so they don't swarm and see how many are alive in four years. -Michael Bush


This doesn't provide the control needed to determine if the Mann Lake PF100s (or PF120s) are responsible for their survival, or if it's something else. The point of the studies in this tread is to attempt to unravel if cell size influences mite numbers. What you've proposed was attempted in the studies linked in this thread. Those very studies are being blasted now as "not really getting at what was going on" with those bees. At the same time, mite numbers were not lower in those experiments simply from switching to smaller cell sizes.



> That would be one of the authors on the paper that witheld the finding I was referring to previously. -WLC


The "finding" that you claim was not a part of the experiment presented in the paper. Nothing was "withheld," so far as I know. If you have evidence that the authors falsified parts of their research, you should present that evidence to the publications that printed the papers. Otherwise, please stop making these sorts of libelous statements with regards to things like this.



> Most of the useful Peer review papers have come from Europe. -Roland


Odd, then, that so many of the Nobel Prizes in science go to researchers in the U. S. If you mean in apiculture specifically, I think you should go back and read a number of the peer-reviewed papers. Unfortunately, most folks don't spend a lot of time reading peer-reviewed manuscripts because of the technical nature of the writing in them. They're not easy to read.


----------



## Michael Bush

>This doesn't provide the control needed to determine if the Mann Lake PF100s (or PF120s) are responsible for their survival, or if it's something else. 

There are plenty of plastic foundations available that are 5.4mm.

>The point of the studies in this tread is to attempt to unravel if cell size influences mite numbers. What you've proposed was attempted in the studies linked in this thread. 

No. It was not. That was fully drawn plastic comb. There is no 5.4mm fully drawn plastic comb.


----------



## Solomon Parker

I don't think I'm being unreasonable when I say that a fair study would include the following:

Same type of frames/comb for both (wood/wax, wood/plastic, or plastic)
Year 'round study.

A fair study must replicate real world conditions, not simply eliminate a lot of variables. The study is after all purposed to represent some real world application. Real world conditions include beekeeping in every month of the year and for years in a row.


----------



## WLC

"The "finding" that you claim was not a part of the experiment presented in the paper. Nothing was "withheld," so far as I know. If you have evidence that the authors falsified parts of their research, you should present that evidence to the publications that printed the papers. Otherwise, please stop making these sorts of libelous statements with regards to things like this."


Kieck:

There's nothing libelous about pointing out that the EST, QW33, they correlated with CCD (their result) was in fact a marker for R2 activity in the 28S rDNA of CCD bees.

They simply chose to report it as rRNA degradation because of ongoing research projects, like the Beeolgics RNAi project.

You have a naive view of how peer reviewed research actually works. It's far more political than you can imagine. I'm sure that one of the reviewers, Gillespie, had his arm twisted.

If they did report it as retrotransposon activity, it would have opened a major can of worms.

For instance, RNAi for CCD would have been scuttled because retrotransposon activity in CCD bees would mean that RNAi was suppressed, hence the treatment would be ineffective.

It also means that research on RNA viruses could be showing false positives because of possible RNA virus integration into the Honeybee genome (Maori's result). Which would make feeding dsRNA to bees to elicit RNAi mediated immunity a moot point (they already do it naturally).

Finally, it would also give the location of potential lucrative transgene targets away.
How could they sell out to Monsanto then?

To get back to the thread: Small Cell Studies...

The same type of politics can most certainly occur there.

Successful Small Cell studies would impede other ongoing research projects, like hygienic bees. And, there's no real money in it. Small Cells and Natural Comb are dirt cheap in comparison.


----------



## Kieck

> No. It was not. That was fully drawn plastic comb. There is no 5.4mm fully drawn plastic comb. -Michael Bush


I understand your position, and I believe you're right. However, what you stated in the post earlier was that someone should simply put bees onto Mann Lake PF100s (or PF120s) and watch them for four years. That's different that establishing an appropriate control group at the same time.

But, as I understand you now, I think we're in agreement on this one.



> A fair study must replicate real world conditions, not simply eliminate a lot of variables. -Solomon Parker


For the most part, I agree with the post that included this snippet of a quotation. However, I disagree with the idea that they should "not simply eliminate a lot of variables." If the idea is to test a single variable (which it is in this case), they need to eliminate all other variables between the two groups.



> There's nothing libelous about pointing out that the EST, QW33, they correlated with CCD (their result) was in fact a marker for R2 activity in the 28S rDNA of CCD bees. -WLC


I went back and reread the three papers cited for discussion in this thread. I found nothing about EST or QW33, or any rDNA or retrotransposon activity. Would you be willing to find it in the paper of these three that you object to and copy it here, please?


----------



## deknow

We are into our holiday markets, so my time is limited....there is a lot to post, but it will have to wait.

For those not familiar with Honey Super Cell (the plastic comb used as "small cell" comb), it is molded, fully drawn comb....it is not a frame with "plastic foundation", but the cells are fully drawn out...the bees generally put a wax around the cell edges but do not extend them much.

This is not simply a plastic version of wax comb.
Thermodynamic properties of the plastic are certainly different than that for wax...but that is the least of it.

Cell walls are very thick...thick enough that 4.9mm cells have a center to center spacing of 5.4mm wax cells. If the density of cells and brood has any effect, they have been eliminated with the use of HSC...and let's not pretend that there is an intentional effort to separate the interior cell size from cell spacing/density for the purpose of testing "small cells only".

The bottoms of the cells are flat, and do not extend into the opposite side of the midrib like comb does.

The cells are slightly tapered (to allow the mold to release from the comb).

...and none of this is simply the difference between wax and plastic. All of these factors are introduced into the experimental group and not the control. This is exactly what good research does not do....introduce a number of unquantified variables into either the experimental group or the controls.

You cannot dismiss the difference between HSC and wax comb as any kind of superficial nit picking....it is bad research plain and simple, and what is most surprising is that the researchers didn't seem to know this.

I've got to get back to work....but will post more when I can. Mostly I'm pleased that it seems that a few people are reading the study rather than just supporting it because it is peer reviewed.

deknow

deknow


----------



## Roland

I wrote:
Most of the useful Peer review papers have come from Europe. -Roland

Kieck wrote:
Odd, then, that so many of the Nobel Prizes in science go to researchers in the U. S. If you mean in apiculture specifically, I think you should go back and read a number of the peer-reviewed papers. Unfortunately, most folks don't spend a lot of time reading peer-reviewed manuscripts because of the technical nature of the writing in them. They're not easy to read.

I will stand corrected:

Most of the useful APICULTRAL Peer review papers have come from Europe. 
The key word is USEFUL, as in information that helped me. If there is a US paper that is of practical value, please enlighten me. Until then I will be watching for European peer review articles, because they seem to write what they see, not what someone wants them to write. 

Crazy Roland


----------



## WLC

Kieck:

Surely:

http://news.illinois.edu/websandthumbs/robinson,gene/0809pnas_ccd.pdf

You have to keep in mind that when Monsanto purchased Beeologics recently, the credibility of many key U.S. Honeybee researchers took a severe blow.

Quite a few of them were directly involved with the RNAi field trials on Honeybees.

It's a bias and an undeclared conflict of interest.

This gives the treatment free/small cell beekeepers justification for being critical of any U.S. based research being done on small cell (or anything else).


----------



## beemandan

_the credibility of many key U.S. Honeybee researchers took a severe blow.
Quite a few of them were directly involved with the RNAi field trials on Honeybees.
This gives the treatment free/small cell beekeepers justification for being critical of any U.S. based research being done on small cell (or anything else). _

Let see....The UGA study has Jennifer Berry and Bill Owens, the Fl study Jerry Hayes and Amanda Ellis and the Cornell study was Seeley and Griffin.
Which of these are you suggesting are suspect?


----------



## Kieck

> Surely:
> 
> http://news.illinois.edu/websandthum...09pnas_ccd.pdf
> 
> You have to keep in mind that when Monsanto purchased Beeologics recently, the credibility of many key U.S. Honeybee researchers took a severe blow. -WLC


This paper is not one of the three in the discussion here. We're discussing cell size and the influence of cell size on _Varroa_ populations within hives here. Not immunology and the role of genetic vaccines.

As far as "Beeologics" is concerned, Beeologics is a spin-off company that came about from some research. I do not understand how the purchase of one company by another casts any aspersions on people who are not affiliated with either company. And that's way off topic here.



> Quite a few of them were directly involved with the RNAi field trials on Honeybees. -WLC


Hayes is apparently on the technology advisory board for Beeologics. I'm missing where the conflict of interest comes in. I don't believe anyone is claiming that cell size influences susceptibility to viral infections, and the genetic vaccines deal with infections by viruses. The experiment is to determine how cell size affects mite populations in hives. 

In case someone is missing it, a few virulent ("having viruses") mites could easily be more damaging to a hive than many avirulent mites. 



> This gives the treatment free/small cell beekeepers justification for being critical of any U.S. based research being done on small cell (or anything else). -WLC


I always question research done by a company that wishes to sell me something. Why not question all of the RNA work that you've cited?

In my experience, people are always most critical of research results that do not confirm what they have believed or wish to believe. Sometimes that criticism is completely justified. Sometimes the criticism is really made because people wish to continue believing things that are not supported by evidence.


----------



## deknow

Oldtimer said:


> To be fair, it was a study of the claims of the sc community, that sc bees on small cell can survive varroa.


It would have been a better study if that were true, but I don't think that is a fair reading of the study. The introduction refers to:


> One possible nonchemical
> method of mite control that has been
> much discussed and debated (e.g., Erickson et al.
> 1990;Johnsen2005) is to reduce worker cell
> width from the current size of 5.2–5.5 to 4.9 mm.


...this has nothing to do with anyone in the "SC community" or any claims coming from the SC community. The Erikson study did involve Dee Lusby, but all that is being referenced here from that study is that SC has been discussed and debated....21 years ago.



> While issues such as drones, and plastic comb, would best have been dealt with and standardised between sample and control, these issues were not really part of the debate at the time. I suspect they used plastic comb, to ensure standard sc size.


These are not irrelvant issues...for instance, one possible (perhaps probable) mechanism that _might_ contribute to SC working or appearing to work is the higher density of brood in smaller cell comb...but HSC has the cell size of SC comb, but the center to center spacing of 5.4mm comb. The cells are also flat bottom, don't intersect one another, and the plastic has very different thermal properties than wax...especially plastic as thick as used on these frames.

Would one expect that wax comb constructed like this (tapered cells, flat bottoms, cell walls as thick as .01" (wax cell walls are around .0025") to perform identically to wax comb constructed as the bees do? Why would the plastic equivalent in SC be considered a legitimate measure of the effect of cell size?

WRT drones, have you ever had a healthy colony that didn't try to raise drones?...that wouldn't raise _any_ if cells are destroyed once a month? This is either misreporting or they were dealing with some stressed out bees all the way around...they report explicitly that no drones were raised in any of the control or experimental colonies.




> Case in point, when I started converting bees to sc, I had initial problems getting the bees to draw sc comb properly, and it was suggested to me by many, that I use plastic comb. At no point was there any mention there may be some difference in effect, between plastic comb and wax comb. I ran a thread on the whole process at the time, and the discussion can be viewed on beesource. There was similarly no more than passing discussion on drones, it did not seem to rate as important.


I didn't read through the whole thread, but I did notice on this page:
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?250294-Small-Cell-Hive/page9&highlight=regression
that there at least two people talking about reluctance of the bees to use plastic...neither was talking about HSC in particular, but the reluctance of the bees to use plastic
...perhaps if you had read through the archives a bit more you would have found reference...certainly if you had read our book you would have seen:


> Even though you have given the queen no other options, she will probably be reluctant to lay in the HSC and it may take a few weeks before you se any sign of brood. Be Patient. Eventually she will give in and lay. Meanwile, the workers will have begun to outline the cells with their own wax and fill them with pollen and nectar.


and from January on Beesource:
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?249416-Natural-Cell-Hive/page8


> HSC works, but the bees are somewhat resistant to using it...when a package is installed on it, they will draw comb anywhere possible before using the HSC...it seems to take about 2 weeks for a package to start laying in it...and that 2 weeks is critical with a package.


...and this has been reported (by myself and others) since 2008 on the organic list.:

..I'm sorry I don't have time to say everything every time it comes up on beesource, and until we started using the PF100's last year, we felt that HSC was the best option. We've told hundreds of beekeepers in person about issues with HSC, thousands online (here and on other forums), and thousands through our book. 



> So the researcher hears the claims being made, and decides to examine them.


...yet, the researcher doesn't mention (never mind cite) "these claims"....they cite way out of date "research" and make no attempt to discover what beekeepers who claim success are actually doing.

It's as if I heard someone say that aspirin cures a headache...instead of talking to someone that has taken asprin for a headache or read the label, I just decide to try it...and decide that the side effects outweigh the benefits...because I used it as a suppository rather than as a pill taken orally. If you talked to someone that has taken asprin, you might learn that you should drink plenty of water with the pill, and that snorting it is unpleasant (I assume). This is just common sense. 

I think Barry is right, this has to do with Ego. The researchers simply do not want to give any credit to anyone but themselves. I've had one researcher say to my face that if SC is ever to be considered "Dee Lusby has to get out of the way". ...and as I said before, Marla Spivak (who was involved in the writing of Seeley's study) was of the firm opinion that even regressed bees cannot build SC comb without foundation....her opinion was so firm that she didn't want to see SC foundationless comb built in Massachusetts. Neither of these positions is even slightly objective, and I've witnessed them both first hand....it is not rumor or assumption on my part.



> After the study/s, new claims come out, by those who just cannot believe the study got it right and look for some new variable.


Despite what you and Kiek say in this matter, no one with any credibility ever said that no matter what your management practices, that simply adopting SC will cure your mite problems....it's claimed all the time that the beesource archives are filled with such things, and while certainly people have said such things, one learns quickly to "consider the source"...even on beesource. I challenge you or Kiek (or anyone) to find a post from a credible source.....I'll drag Barry into this, and let him be the arbitrator of credibility...and I will send a free copy of our book to anyone that can find an example "A credible source stating or suggesting that no matter what your management practices, switching to small cell will cure your mite problems".

If you think there are "new variables" being introduced by SC proponents, please list them so I can prove to you that they are not new.

I should not have to point out to a researcher of the skill and expertise of Tom Seeley that measuring 10 cells on one side of a frame does not give you anything you can call a "mean" in any kind of scientific paper. I should not have to point out the differences between plastic comb and wax comb. I should not have to point out that something is funny going on if both your control and your experimental hives don't even try to produce drones.



> Perhaps further studies will include or standardise these variables also. However a study including every percieved variable, plus the time frame, and number of hives that's being demanded, is going to be insanely expensive, I'll be surprised if it happens.


All I'm asking for is studies who's data actually supports the conclusions. The peer review process is supposed to prevent obvious gaps...obviously this didn't happen in this case...these are glaring errors in the experimental model, and at least they should have been pointed out as areas for further study in the writeup. Regardless of any conflict of interest or publication pressures, the content of this study speaks for itself.

I try to imagine if I had done this same study and come up with opposite conclusions....would no one point out that plastic is different than wax, that 10 cells does not constitue a "mean"...etc. (hey, in Randy Oliver's "SC Study" which also used HSC but found that despite no treatment that the HSC hives "refused to die".....he speculates that the offgassing of the food grade polypropolene could be affecting the mites...as it couldn't possibly be the cell size, or the more obvious lack of drone comb in the HSC hives)..

deknow


----------



## deknow

WI-beek said:


> What is kind of odd is that those who have success with small cell dont invite science to their apiaries and offer to conduct the trials. Why not take 20 colonies of small cell bees that are claimed to survive varroa, raise queens from these split the mothers 50/50 into two groups, plus their daughters, and conduct a trial with 50 on small cell and 50 on normal foundation? Four years later, lets see the results. Im not trying to say this has not been offered, and Im not trying to stir the pot, but if sc is a magic bullet, why haven't any stepped up and said, Ill prove it? I cant imagine someone or group would not take up the offer and even fund it.


I can't afford to fund it. I get no grants, no research money...heck, the person that controls the EAS research budged wrote our publisher (Penguin, the largest in the world) and tried to get our book pulled from the shelves and rewritten by a panel of experts (chosen by him)...and of course threatened that not complying would result in litigation. Despite the fact that Kirk Webster's articles have been well recieved in the bee journals over the years, publication of them stopped when his article was titled "The Best Beekeeping Meeting I Ever Attended" and reported on the Northeast Treatment Free Beekeeping Conference. We have had some wonderful support from several researchers...good ones are out there.

But remember that it is difficult for me to make any money (even pay expenses) for a proper study (I'd have to use it to publish a book...a journal article only pays a few hundred dollars...note that the new advanced book edited by Diana Samantaro lists for $100)...no one gets paid for simply "being right"....I'm investing that money into my business and operation....I'm pretty open about what I'm doing and why I think it is important. Do you have extra money to run research? Extra time? Why not ask researchers to do research on their own time and personal budget?

In any case, this is like, "you don't like how I do dishes...do them yourself". The research has not been well done, and the general attitdue seems to be to accept their conclusions without question...if we don't demand better from the researchers, we will not get better from them.

On the other hand, the researchers are being paid...to design and perform research. They are being paid to do it well...and part of doing it well is doing your homework so you don't make a mistake that would have been easy to aviod.

deknow


----------



## deknow

Kieck said:


> If the idea is to test a single variable (which it is in this case), they need to eliminate all other variables between the two groups.


...the use of HSC for the experimental group, and wax comb from foundation in the control is adding many variables between the groups...HSC that had been used for a season would have been better...but as Michael said, PF100's and other 5.4 plastic frames (I'd go with the other Mann Lake...I have a few for some planned experiments) are better for this kind of test. I'm not sure, however, how useful it is to determine mite counts in colonies that don't seem to have drones being raised...most of my hives raise drones, and they undoubtedly have some impact on the mite population.

deknow


----------



## deknow

Ok, also from the study. Either a sloppy write up, or they didn't really do what they said they did. If they had actually followed the procedure they describe for measuring the HSC, they would have come up with a result of about 5.4, not 4.82 (4.82 sounds like they measured inside the bottom of the cell, not across the tops and dividing). Something is wrong.


> We measured the
> mean width of the cells in each hive by measuring the
> width of ten cells in a straight line (inclusive of wall
> widths) in the center of one side of each frame of
> comb. For the seven hives with standard-cell combs,
> the mean cell widths were 5.38, 5.40, 5.40, 5.36,
> 5.39, 5.38, and 5.38 mm, hence 5.38 mm on average.
> For the seven hives with small-cell combs, the mean
> cell widths were all the same: 4.82 mm. Thus, there
> was a mean reduction in cell width in the small-cell
> combs of 0.56 mm, or 10.4% (0.56/5.38=0.104).


----------



## Kieck

> Despite what you and Kiek say in this matter, no one with any credibility ever said that no matter what your management practices, that simply adopting SC will cure your mite problems....it's claimed all the time that the beesource archives are filled with such things, and while certainly people have said such things, one learns quickly to "consider the source"...even on beesource. I challenge you or Kiek (or anyone) to find a post from a credible source.... -deknow


I took just a minute and easily found this:

http://www.beesource.com/forums/sho...d-Renowned-Bee-Researcher&p=542609#post542609

Read post #306 in this thread in particular. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, the archives abound with such claims. I personally do not question the credibility of Dennis.


----------



## Kieck

> Something is wrong. -deknow


They had seven means for "large cell": 5.38, 5.40, 5.40, 5.36, 5.39, 5.38, and 5.38 mm.

That gave them a mean of the means of 5.38 for "standard cell," as they called it.

They had seven means for "small cell": 4.82, 4.82, 4.82, 4.82, 4.82, 4.82, and 4.82 mm.

That gave them a mean of the means of 4.82 for "small cell."

I'm missing what they did wrong here.


----------



## deknow

Kieck said:


> ...
> They had seven means for "small cell": 4.82, 4.82, 4.82, 4.82, 4.82, 4.82, and 4.82 mm.
> 
> That gave them a mean of the means of 4.82 for "small cell."
> 
> I'm missing what they did wrong here.


The problem is this:


> We measured the
> mean width of the cells in each hive by measuring the
> width of ten cells in a straight line (inclusive of wall
> widths) in the center of one side of each frame of
> comb.


The cell walls in HSC are really thick (as opposed to being almost unmeasurable in newish wax comb). The interiour of the cell is about 4.9...but if you measure 10 cells in a straight line INCLUSIVE OF WALL WIDTHS, you won't get 4.9...youwill get closer to 5.4. I'll see if I have a ruler around and shoot a picture if I can. In order to come up with the 4.82 number, I believe they would have to measure the inside bottom of the cell (which is smaller than the top)...if they followed the procedure they claim the followed, they would not have gotten the (correct) result that they report.

deknow


----------



## deknow

Kieck said:


> I took just a minute and easily found this:


I ask for a specific quote. I understand what you are saying about this post, but Dennis does not say or even imply that SC will overcome mites in all cases...he is describing his experience, which he gained using his management practices. This may like splitting hairs, 
but saying "acupuncture has helped me reduce chronic pain" is not the same as saying "no matter what your pain is and who you are, acupuncture will reduce it". Beesource is full of anacdotal claims, I'm not sure why this one should be treated as some kind of absolute statement about SC regardless of all other factors....Dennis was just highlighting that he didn't think that genetic factors were too significant in his case.

deknow


----------



## Kieck

OK, here is a specific quote:



> I just haven't had any significant problems using available bee stock on natural/small cell. So, I select what I want based on criteria other than mite tolerance.
> 
> Before getting my bees on natural comb, bee stock made all the difference. I had bees that were almost mite tolerant and could carry a tremendous mite load before showing any symptoms and collapsing. And I had some that were better raising mites than bees. They would show symptoms and then collapse at mite loads a magnitude below my more tolerant bees. Most of the bees were somewhere in between. -BWrangler


You asked for one example. Here's one. Read the meaning of it, and don't nitpick the details of the writing, and I think most people can recognize this as one example of a person advocating cell size modification as the way to overcome _Varroa_ problems. The claim is and has been -- as it's always been stated to my understanding -- that small cell eliminates _Varroa_ problems. Maybe not in every case, maybe not with certain qualifications, but in general.


----------



## deknow

Here is a photo of a frame of HSC being used. The filled in cells are where the pins push the comb from the mold.








Note that the thick lines between the cells are not merely "fat rims" on cells, but are thick all the way to the bottom.

I don't have a ruler handy, but a 2" buisness card (which should cover 10 cells in comb that measures 5.08...more than 10 cells for 4.9....on HSC, it barely extends beyond 9 cells).


----------



## deknow

Kieck said:


> You asked for one example. Here's one. Read the meaning of it, and don't nitpick the details of the writing


Whoa there...you want me to read into it what you read into it? ...sorry, I can only read what is on the page.



> , and I think most people can recognize this as one example of a person advocating cell size modification as the way to overcome _Varroa_ problems.


Of course he is...but no one claims that if you take asprin everyday that you won't get a heart attack...or that you will reduce your chances of having one if you eat 3 meals a day at mcdonalds simply by taking asprin. Dennis is already coming from a more "natural" approach, and his own experience is all he is claiming.



> The claim is and has been -- as it's always been stated to my understanding -- that small cell eliminates _Varroa_ problems. Maybe not in every case, maybe not with certain qualifications, but in general.


You state that the archives of beesource are full of these claims...but you can't (or won't) quote it....I think (and I have always thought when you bring this up) that you made a lot of assumptions about what people were saying. I can't speak for anyone else, but I try really hard to write what I mean and to be clear. I assume Dennis was as well.

deknow


----------



## WLC

Beemandan:

I think that we've already heard the criticisms of the work of the small cell investigators from the treatment free/small cell folks.

They simply counted mites and not much else. What, no Nosema, AFB, etc. ?


----------



## WLC

Kieck said:


> This paper is not one of the three in the discussion here. We're discussing cell size and the influence of cell size on _Varroa_ populations within hives here. Not immunology..


Says you. We are discussing why they never examined virulence or immune function.

That's why I brought up the R2 assay as a proxy for just that.



> As far as "Beeologics" is concerned, Beeologics is a spin-off company that came about from some research. I do not understand how the purchase of one company by another casts any aspersions on people who are not affiliated with either company. And that's way off topic here..


Hold the phone. The key researchers in Honeybee Pathology are off doing product developement for Monsanto. Of course it will affect who is available or even willing to work on Small Cell, etc. . 





> I'm missing where the conflict of interest comes in. .


They're riding the gravy train. No one is going to stop that train or kill the golden goose.

You really have no clue that they have the green light from Monsanto to go "all the way" with RNAi and even transgenic bees. 




> In my experience, people are always most critical of research results that do not confirm what they have believed or wish to believe. .


The R2 insertion site sequence was clearly identifiable in QW33. They couldn't miss it with Gillespie or Lipkin as reviewers.

Regardless, small cell proponents are at least aware that there are other options besides 'counting mites' for future studies.

Just don't expect any new research to come out of the usual sources here in the U.S. regarding small cell and treatment free beekeeping.


----------



## beemandan

WLC said:


> I think that we've already heard the criticisms


You've suggested dishonesty. I'm simply asking which one(s) you are accusing.
It's really a straighforward question....


----------



## Kieck

> . . . or that you will reduce your chances of having one if you eat 3 meals a day at mcdonalds simply by taking asprin. -deknow


To the best of my knowledge, the claim is that all else being equal, taking aspirin daily will reduce the chances of a person having a heart attack.

A similar claim seems to have existed for small cell: all else being equal, smaller cells reduce mite populations.

The results of the three experiments cited here do not bear out that hypothesis. Unfortunately, these experiments do not seem to control "all else," so some difference may arise from variables that were not controlled in the tests.



> You state that the archives of beesource are full of these claims...but you can't (or won't) quote it.... -deknow


I've tried with one example. I just don't feel the need to sift through numerous posts about cell sizes here on Beesource to try to address this. Anyone with enough interest can read in the archives and reach his or her own conclusions about the statements made about small cell.



> We are discussing why they never examined virulence or immune function. -WLC


We were? I thought we were discussing experimental design of the three papers cited in the original post of this thread.

But to take that line of thought, I expect they never examined virulence or immune function because they were attempting to measure the effect of reduced cell size on mite populations. They also didn't look at the effects that promiscuity by queens have on honey production. That, too, seems outside the scope of the experimental design in these papers to me, but maybe I'm mistaken?



> The key researchers in Honeybee Pathology are off doing product developement for Monsanto. -WLC


Small bunch of people that make up "key researchers," I think. And I'm still unclear as to why you would want pathologists researching population dynamics of a parasite anyway. Sure, there's some crossover, but I'm not convinced that the "key researchers" potentially available for researching small cell are included in the group associated with this business.



> You really have no clue that they have the green light from Monsanto to go "all the way" with RNAi and even transgenic bees. -WLC


Wait. . . so you're suggesting that they deliberately withheld information in peer-reviewed research that RNAi could be the miraculous "cure" beekeepers are seeking so no one would know about it, and, not knowing about this information, would see no reason to purchase products from this company?

Personally, I would see a conflict of interest if such unrelated information was presented in the three papers cited at the beginning of this thread. It would make me suspect they were trying to sell me a product. But "hiding" information about the potential benefits of a product sold by a company seems like a poor way to demonstrate worth to that corporation (and therefore payments from that company).



> The R2 insertion site sequence was clearly identifiable in QW33. They couldn't miss it with Gillespie or Lipkin as reviewers. -WLC


I don't know who reviewed the three publications cited originally. Usually reviewers are kept anonymous. However, even if they were reviewers of the papers, reviewers do not get to insert unrelated information into research manuscripts. And, again, that information is not a result of the experiments in the studies.


----------



## Oldtimer

deknow said:


> I ask for a specific quote.
> 
> deknow


Perhaps then you can help us all out Deknow. Your searching skills are obviously superior to mine.

I have seen a statement made by M Bush, along the lines of " When I treated my bees I had 100% losses. Then I stopped treating and went to small cell, and had no more losses".

That's not the exact words, so I don't know how to search for this, and numerous other similar statements. But I know they are there, I've read them and that's why I started small cell. 

And I'm by no means singling out M Bush, others, from "experts", to raw beginners, have made similar type statements.
It may be that they just don't feel the need to cover the same old ground in every post, and so did not put all information in every post on the subject. Never the less, this is the impression that has been given and I have to say I'm surprised you've missed that. Not everybody me included, reads everything ever written.

Since you've harangued me on the need to search the archives, I assume you would be the expert. Please have a look and see what you can find.

Thanks.


----------



## WLC

"You've suggested dishonesty"

Beemandan:

From the small cell researchers that count mites? That's silly.

I'm suggesing that none of them have done anything more advanced than counting mites. The small cell advocates have their own criticisms.

Let's put it this way, in the case of treatment free/mite resistant bees, there was a linkage map search for the genes responsible. This hasn't occurred in the U.S. . We get 'mite counts'.

Kieck:

Did you actually read the papers I linked to? I linked to 5 different ones. 3 for small cell, 1 for CCD, and 1 for mite resistance. The 3 small cell ones basically just count mites. The CCD one illustrates why Honeybee research isn't pure basic research and can be linked to product development. The one on linkage maps for mite resistance genes illustrates that the advanced research on treatment free isn't done here in the U.S. and why any advanced small cell studies won't be done here either.

"reviewers do not get to insert unrelated information into research manuscripts."

But, they can keep it from getting into a paper.


----------



## Michael Bush

>I have seen a statement made by M Bush, along the lines of " When I treated my bees I had 100% losses. Then I stopped treating and went to small cell, and had no more losses".

I've certainly never said that. I have said I lost them all TO VARROA before regression as evidenced by the tens of thousands of dead Varroa on the bottom board and Varroa feces in the cells of dead hives and I had no losses FROM VARROA after regressing as evidenced by a lack of any significant number of (I have to hunt to find any) dead Varroa on the bottom boards, a lack of Varroa feces in the cells etc. of dead hives. I have certainly had the usual winter losses from them getting stuck on brood, starving, etc.


----------



## deknow

Kieck said:


> To the best of my knowledge, the claim is that all else being equal, taking aspirin daily will reduce the chances of a person having a heart attack.


...this is a bit OT...but the risks and cost of taking small doses of aspirin are minimal...as far as efficacy, it is definitely seen as beneficial for someone that has had an episode...but for those that have not there seems little if any benefit...but again the cost and the risk is small.

But, let's take your statement as fact for the sake of argument....all else being equal, taking aspirin daily will reduce the chance of a person having a heart attack. Now, for those in the highest risk groups (diabetes, overweight, high blood pressure, smoking, diet, etc)...all of these factors greatly outweigh whether or not the person is taking a baby aspirin or two every day. The Seeley study picked the hives with the highest mite infestation...let the mites and associated viruses work for an additional 6 weeks, then shook packages to do the study....it's like testing aspirin by finding the worst overeaters, moving them into the food court for 6 weeks, then seeing if aspirin will reduce their chance of having a heart attack....it might, it might not....but it sure isn't the best way to prevent a heart attack...and it certainly isn't the best way to measure to see if aspirin can help prevent heart attacks in general.



> A similar claim seems to have existed for small cell: all else being equal, smaller cells reduce mite populations.


...it may seem that way to you, but no one seems to be able find such a claim.



> The results of the three experiments cited here do not bear out that hypothesis. Unfortunately, these experiments do not seem to control "all else," so some difference may arise from variables that were not controlled in the tests.


That's a gross understatement....we can look at the other studies as well if you like, but in this discussion, those that were insistent that the studies were good science either didn't read the Seeley study with any kind of critical eye or didn't read it at all. I've taken great pains to point out _some_ of the problems with the study...they are extensive, and most of them should be obvious to anyone reading closely.



> I've tried with one example. I just don't feel the need to sift through numerous posts about cell sizes here on Beesource to try to address this. Anyone with enough interest can read in the archives and reach his or her own conclusions about the statements made about small cell.


We've come to this exact impasse before.....you've made very specific accusations, cast them towards the "SC community" at large, and can't/won't back them up. When you did give an example, you want the reader to ignore what is actually written and make assumptions about what is "meant". I do understand not wanting to waste time looking through the archives to find a specific post or statement...but you have tossed this accusation out many times without ever citing a specific statement or post that supports your claim. Where's the beef?

deknow


----------



## deknow

Oldtimer said:


> I have seen a statement made by M Bush, along the lines of " When I treated my bees I had 100% losses. Then I stopped treating and went to small cell, and had no more losses".


Michael has already clarified his own statements. Many of us feel that SC has greatly helped...in our case, we weren't treating and didn't have bees alive in the spring until we went to small cell.



> And I'm by no means singling out M Bush, others, from "experts", to raw beginners, have made similar type statements.


Given that everything said on beesource is archived and searchable, I find it hard to accept that there is so much misinformation from "the experts" given, yet it can never be cited...only alluded to. If you have a beef with what someone said, let's hear it...that's part of "discussion".


> It may be that they just don't feel the need to cover the same old ground in every post, and so did not put all information in every post on the subject.


..do you think that every post should (or could) contain all information?



> Never the less, this is the impression that has been given and I have to say I'm surprised you've missed that.


...all I can think of is lottery scratch tickets. It says right on the ticket what your odds are. No one selling the ticket lies to the customers....yet the customer always has the impression that they are going to win. Sometimes a false impression is the fault of the person with the impression...people hear what they want to hear.



> Not everybody me included, reads everything ever written.


Nobody can...but you can't expect the world to stop and have your questions answered to your satisfaction 100% of the time on your schedule. In the end, if you miss or misunderstand something, it is your problem...so if it's important, it's worth some work to get to the bottom of things as best you can.



> Since you've harangued me on the need to search the archives, I assume you would be the expert. Please have a look and see what you can find. Thanks.


...so, how much time do you think I should spend looking through the archives for something I don't think exists? BTW, if you win the book, I'm happy to cover the shipping to New Zealand.

deknow


----------



## Oldtimer

OK Thanks Michael, I couldn't remeber exactly what you said and didn't want to put words in your mouth so that's why I said your statement was "along the lines of", I was hoping you could jump in.

So I can quote you from the above post QUOTE "I have said I lost them all TO VARROA before regression as evidenced by the tens of thousands of dead Varroa on the bottom board and Varroa feces in the cells of dead hives and I had no losses FROM VARROA after regressing as evidenced by a lack of any significant number of (I have to hunt to find any) dead Varroa on the bottom boards, a lack of Varroa feces in the cells etc. of dead hives."

We know you have lost bees to other causes you have mentioned that previously.

So to make it clear for DeKnow, you have said you lost all your bees to varroa before they were regressed, and after you regressed them you lost none of them to varroa as evidenced in the way you said. 

I think that will answer DeKnows need for a quote.


----------



## Oldtimer

deknow said:


> ...so, how much time do you think I should spend looking through the archives for something I don't think exists? BTW, if you win the book, I'm happy to cover the shipping to New Zealand.
> deknow


Bizzare. You still say you don't think the quote exists, when Michael has just said it. He's said it here on this thread, and it is in reference to when he has said it elsewhere. Others have said similar also not just Michael. I think everybody else is well aware of this as shown by what people have said here.

As to how much time you should spend searching the archives, why ask me? You want the quotes, you find them. I've done enough for you.

If you wish I'm sure Michael can be of further assistance, he'll better know where his stuff is than me.

Also, I see that your last post is once again, devoted to trying (and failing) to contradict everything I said, rather than focusing on the thread topic, which is Small Cell Studies. Looking at the way this is going, seems you kind of arguing for the sheer sake of it again. Me, I would prefer a worthwhile discussion.


----------



## deknow

...ok, so let's extend the analogy a bit.

Karry Mullis (inventor of PCR analysis) claims to have had the idea while on LSD.

There is good evidence (although nothing rock solid) that Watson and Crick were using small doses of LSD in the lab when they figured out the double helix structure.

Steve Jobs claimed that taking LSD was one of the 3 most important things he had ever done.

Red sox pitcher "Spaceman" Lee pitched a major league no-hitter while on LSD.

John Coltrane recorded Om while the whole band was on LSD.

The Beatles.

So...a number of respectable and productive citizens count LSD as a contributing factor in their success...in science, technology and art.

Therefore, if one wants to be successful, one should take LSD. Is that the message? ...or can one talk about what works for them without making it some kind of universal prescription that cures all ills?

But no, that quote shows Michael talking about what worked for him...and it's backed up by an incredibly detailed website _and_ book that talks about all the other things he does.


deknow


----------



## Oldtimer

And it's one of the quotes you said didn't exist.  No amount of LSD will change that. 

But hey. It's OK to admit you made a mistake.

You've been persistantly asking for a quote. You've been shown one, thought that's what you wanted, why keep arguing? Flogging a dead horse comes to mind.

Does your arguing have to be endless, or could you get past it and talk about Small Cell Studies.


----------



## deknow

Oldtimer said:


> Bizzare. You still say you don't think the quote exists, when Michael has just said it.


Do you think Michael said that no matter what your management practices are, switching to small cell will solve your mite problems?



> I've done enough for you.


I'm scratching my head trying to figure out what this means.



> Also, I see that your last post is once again, devoted to trying (and failing) to contradict everything I said, rather than focusing on the thread topic, which is Small Cell Studies.


errr. I was replying to your post number 139...which had nothing to do with small cell.
I'll also point out that the topic of the thread isn't "small cell", it's "small cell studies"...and no one has gone into more detail with any of the studies here in this thread than I have.



> Looking at the way this is going, seems you kind of arguing for the sheer sake of it again. Me, I would prefer a worthwhile discussion.


What do you want to discuss? If the topic is small cell studies (which it is), then read the darn studies and discuss them....in fact I made a point today of putting enough time aside to address some of these issues properly....yet no one wants to discuss the misuse of the term "mean", the use of the sickest bees for a short term study, or the facts that you can't prevent drones by inspecting once a month and that colonies that don't produce drones have something going on that is worth noting. There has been some willingness to discuss HSC, but thus far no one has been willing to admit that it is not equivalent enough to the wax LC comb for any proper data to be gathered.

deknow


----------



## Michael Bush

I'm not sure why all the nit picking here... but I've certainly never suggested you can have healthy bees by using small cell and continuing to treat for anything and everything nor do I know any small cell beekeeper who would, and I think that is Dean's point. In fact I think I've repeatedly made the point that I don't think having really healthy bees is possible while treating (and upsetting the entire ecology of the hive). I was not treating for years before when i was losing them and was not treating while using small cell. So I was certainly not treating and I would expect that to cause many issues with the overall ecology of the hive. On the other hand the only difference between when I was not treating on large cell and not treating on small cell was the small cell. That may have been the only difference between my two groups, but if you are doing other things that would certainly change the outcomes in some ways. Whether it would change the outcome of mite numbers I don't know. I never compared treating small cell to treating large cell, although I did compare treating and not treating large cell to not treating small cell...

http://www.bushfarms.com/beesmorethan.htm
http://www.bushfarms.com/beesfoursimplesteps.htm#ecology

But the only thing that tipped the scale on Varroa for me was small cell (while not treating). I think Dean's point is you shouldn't take small cell out of the context of not treating and expect the same results as small cell beekeepers who are not treating are getting.

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


----------



## deknow

Oldtimer said:


> You've been persistantly asking for a quote. You've been shown one, thought that's what you wanted, why keep arguing? Flogging a dead horse comes to mind.


Yes, I've asked for a quote...:


> "A credible source stating or suggesting that no matter what your management practices, switching to small cell will cure your mite problems".


...is that what you think Michael said?



> Does your arguing have to be endless, or could you get past it and talk about Small Cell Studies.


At this point, I'd rather see if anyone else wants to actually read these studies and come up with their own critique, or wants to discuss some of the many issues I've already focused on. But to complain that I'm not talking enough about the studies is absurd.

deknow


----------



## deknow

BTW, Oldtimer, you had a good point at the beginning of the thread.....the issue of whether the comb is contaminated with miticides. I think its a fair assumption that the LC wax comb from foundation used in the Seeley study did have miticide residues (the Penn State data showed all samples of foundation contaminated). I doubt there were miticides in the food grade polypropolene HSC.

deknow


----------



## Oldtimer

deknow said:


> At this point, I'd rather see if anyone else wants to actually read these studies and come up with their own critique, or wants to discuss some of the many issues I've already focused on. But to complain that I'm not talking enough about the studies is absurd.
> 
> deknow


Well stop arguing stupidities then.

I know what Michael said and I've told you what Michael said. I'm not going to interpret what Michael said. I believe I know what he meant, but I'm sure telling you would open a whole new can of worms and frankly, I cannot be bothered. You asked for a quote, I gave you a quote, which referenced others. Get used to it.

Is the thread about Small Cell Studies, or about what somebody thinks Michael said?

And hey. Never stop learning.


----------



## Oldtimer

deknow said:


> BTW, Oldtimer, you had a good point
> 
> deknow


Amazing.


----------



## Michael Bush

The miticide issue had not crossed my mind, but it certainly could be significant, especially when, rather than trying to establish a healthy ecology in a hive, you are merely counting mites... someone, Sol I think, was mentioning elsewhere how someone he knew noticed that wax moths seem to like Sol's uncontaminated natural comb better than his own (which had miticides in it). This could easily make you think contaminated comb is a good thing, when it may actually be an indication that it is very bad for insects...


----------



## Oldtimer

Michael Bush said:


> I'm not sure why all the nit picking here... but I've certainly never suggested you can have healthy bees by using small cell and continuing to treat for anything and everything nor do I know any small cell beekeeper who would....


What's all the nitpicking? just trying to show one simple, small, easy thing, to a guy who cannot accept the obvious. 
As to treatment, I don't think treatment was part of the recent discussion.

Also Michael, I've read several of your statements about losing bees to varroa while treating, and changing nothing other than going to small cell, (and not treating obviously), and then not losing any to varroa. The other qualifiers like varroa on bottom boards etc. were not always mentioned.

If DeKnow can't find them maybe you can. Me, I don't need to find them. I don't know where they are, but I do know what I've read, as obviously do most others.


----------



## deknow

Oldtimer said:


> Well stop arguing stupidities then.


I hope this does not get deleted.

Excuse me...you have been hollering at me to discuss the studies...I did a quick read through the entire thread...aside from a passing comment about contaminated wax, and a brushing off of plastic comb and drone issues as being irrelevent (and newly invented) factors, you have posted nothing about the studies at all...except for saying that these studies were done using proper scientific methods or some such.

If you want to discuss the studies, have at it...but you will have to read them first.

deknow


----------



## deknow

WRT your "quote"...I will do what I said I would do...defer to Barry. If he says your quote meets the criteria I laid out, I will send you a book.

deknow


----------



## Michael Bush

>Also Michael, I've read several of your statements about losing bees to varroa while treating, and changing nothing other than going to small cell, (and not treating obviously), and then not losing any to varroa. The other qualifiers like varroa on bottom boards etc. were not always mentioned.

When I say I have not lost them to Varroa, I don't always see the need to expand on "how" if it's not relevant to the discussion and my ability to discern this is not in question.


----------



## Oldtimer

deknow said:


> Excuse me...you have been hollering at me to discuss the studies...I did a quick read through the entire thread...aside from a passing comment about contaminated wax, and a brushing off of plastic comb and drone issues as being irrelevent (and newly invented) factors, you have posted nothing about the studies at all...except for saying that these studies were done using proper scientific methods or some such.
> deknow


OK. So according to you, I've discussed contaminated wax as it relates to the studies. Plastic comb issues as they relate to the studies. Drone issues as they relate to the studies. And whatever you say I said about studies being done using proper scientific methods or whatever.

I don't have a problem with that.

What is a problem, is you constantly demanding a particular quote, and then wasting two pages of stupid arguing cos you didn't like it when someone gave it to you. i just decided that I gave you the quote, and if you want to try to fudge it, I'll clarify. Unfortunately that's taken two pages. Your choice not mine, rest of the time I was discussing study related stuff.

If you want to discuss Small Cell Studies, please go ahead.


----------



## Oldtimer

Michael Bush said:


> >Also Michael, I've read several of your statements about losing bees to varroa while treating, and changing nothing other than going to small cell, (and not treating obviously), and then not losing any to varroa. The other qualifiers like varroa on bottom boards etc. were not always mentioned.
> 
> When I say I have not lost them to Varroa, I don't always see the need to expand on "how" if it's not relevant to the discussion and my ability to discern this is not in question.


Nor did I call your ability into question. I have never met you and have no idea what your ability is.

Just your most recent quote on the subject was rather more qualified than some of the others. I accept there are reasons for that, as I have already said. I drew attention to that as DeKnow was asking me to interpret what you said. No need, what you said is clear. To avoid further argument with him I'm just drawing attention to what you said, rather than interpret it which I'm sure would be seized upon as an opportunity for further argument.


----------



## Barry

We're getting sidetracked here. I believe if everyone steps back a little, one can make sense of this.

Dean first wrote, "stating or suggesting that no matter what your management practices, switching to small cell will cure your mite problems." When I went back and read this, I realized I had missed the part "no matter what your management practices." I believe Oldtimer and Kieck are assuming (rightfully so) that those using SC are not treating. It is also assumed in the post of Dennis' that Kieck linked to that no treatments are being used. Same for my post right after Dennis'. Taking that "treatment' element off the table, I believe it's not out of line for one to then read that the mite problems were "cured" once implementing SC. Technically Dean, you're right, but I think the spirit of what Kieck and Oldtimer are saying is basically on target.

But let us move past this.


----------



## Oldtimer

EDIT - Since posting I see Barry has posted before me.

So I've wiped my post, and hope this can be an end to this rather silly argument.


----------



## WLC

"...Karry Mullis (inventor of PCR analysis) claims to have had the idea while on LSD..."

Now, I'm not saying that anyone is on LSD...

Have any of the Small Cell studies out there ever used PCR to detect pathogen presence/levels in the test and control hives?

I'd find it to be strange if PCR wasn't used in any SC study at all.

Yes, I use PCR regularly.


----------



## deknow

..I'll stick to what I said I would do...Oldtimer, send me your mail address in a PM.

With that said, I don't agree at all Barry. I can say that my small business was successful because I hired a manager with a business degree...and that might be the key to my success....I might have failed without doing so....perhaps I almost did before I hired an MBA. It does not follow that your business will be successful if you simply hire someone with a business degree.

There are a lot of relevant factors that go into managing bees....and lots of places to make mistakes and misunderstand.

Recently there was a discussion (I think it was on beesource) where someone reported that the bees built on plastic foundation before working foundationless frames...this seemed contrary to what many of us have experienced and the poster was questioned...turns out, a new box with a mix of plastic foundation and foundationless was placed on top of the existing colony...the cluster isn't going to move to the top of the box (leaving brood and stores behind), so they work _up_ the foundation first. If you put the box under the colony, the results would likely be different.

We often read about beekepers who said foundationless didn't work for them...then we realize that they placed an empty box (with only frames and comb guides) on the colony...and they built a mess from the bottom up. If they were using foundation this would work fine..without foundation it is a disaster.

I recently cut some PVC pipe to use vertically as entrances in some nucs. They looked great (it was a neat idea...I will post about it later), but after I had installed 3 of them I noticed a bee falling out of the tube...I checked and discovered that the bees feet wouldn't stick to the tube I had made the entrance out of!

One local beekeeper killed 2 queens installing bees on HSC....he faced the screens into the plastic comb and the queen could not be fed.

A state bee inspector told me about a long abandoned hive he had found....he shored things up and tried to keep them in his apiary...they died. When I asked if they had been treated at all he said absolutely not...knowing the beekeeper I asked, "not even fumidil"?...the answer was, "well, fumidil...."

Another (now former) beekeeper lost his bees....and blamed the top entrance (which i had given him). This entrance had a slot for plastic queen excluder material (specifically for keeping the queen in a hive when introducing a package on HSC). Turns out, he had left the queen excluder in the entrance full time (he thought it would prevent robbing).

There are a slew of common mistakes...overfeeding, underfeeding, overexpansion, underexpansion, breaking up the brood in an effort to get more foundation drawn, inspecting every day, not inspecting at all, performing aroma therapy on the bees (yes, I've been told this), overharvesting, buying/using old equipment/comb, oversplitting, unidentified swarming, robbing....

There is a lot more than "treatment vs treatment free" going on, and it is pretty much impossible to make any reasonable assumptions about what is being done properly over the internet. There are lots of beekeepers who are or are trying to be treatment free that don't manage their bees well (or they use techniques that are dependant on other techniques...(a drone trapping frame doesn't do much good unless there aren't many drone cells in the hive, otherwise the bees aren't compelled to put drones in the drone frame...a drone trapping frame isn't very usefull in an otherwise foundationless hive), and for them, switching to small cell won't "cure what ails them"....anymore than eating a couple of baby aspirin won't prevent a heart attack if you weigh 350lbs, eat crap, and smoke. There are also, I'm sure, beekeepers that are using small cell _and_ "soft treatments" or "natural treatments"...these are just as devistating (if not more) to the microbial culture than the hard chemicals....we certainly had a few posting about such things before the natural forum was revamped into the treatment free forum.

deknow


----------



## deknow

WLC said:


> I'd find it to be strange if PCR wasn't used in any SC study at all.


No, PCR has not been used in any SC study that I'm aware of. There is some good research using PCR going on wrt treated and untreated bees....most of the untreated bees (from colonies that have been untreated long term) are small cell, and I imagine that if there is anything startling that they will try to break things down a bit.
You will note that the bees rarely (if ever) pack pollen into drone sized cells. This this is a multistage fermentation process, it's possible that the cell size (surface area, mass, etc) has some impact on how these microbial cultures work.

deknow


----------



## Michael Bush

>Nor did I call your ability into question. I have never met you and have no idea what your ability is.

I did not think you did. I'm merely pointing out my motivations for specifying HOW I tell they did not perish from Varroa on the occasions where I have done so and when I have not. I specify anytime I think there is room for ambiguity or misunderstanding. Since we were "clarifying" things I made an effort to state things as fully as I could. It gets too long winded to specify everything all the time. I did not intend to imply that you were questioning my abilities.


----------



## beemandan

Michael Bush said:


> On the other hand the only difference between when I was not treating on large cell and not treating on small cell was the small cell.


You have a safety net when you make a statement like this. Your writing does not fall under the scrutiny of peer review. And so it goes unchallenged. The folks conducting the three studies in question had no such freedom. They had to make sure their experiments could be reproduced by others. They had to make every reasonable effort to eliminate or mitigate variables. They operated control and experimental colonies simultaneously to help assure that other factors weren’t influencing the outcome. 

Yet Michael can make such an absolute statement in a public forum and his words are taken by many as unquestioned fact. No page after page of nitpicking and sniping.

The three studies set out to determine if small cell reduced mite populations. Each study has the potential for unconsidered variables. The researchers made an effort to reduce those. Each had different possibilities. Taken as a whole, in my opinion, they represent a well documented body of evidence that strongly suggests that small cell does not reduce varroa infestations. The wise thing to do, again in my opinion, is use the results to illuminate the path to a genuine understanding of the success that some small cell beekeepers’ have..


----------



## Kieck

Recognizing some flaws in the studies, I think the three studies cited in the first post of this thread show some valuable data. As has evolved in this thread, they certainly refuted the idea that cell size alone with no regard to other factors can cut down mite populations. All three showed no real difference in the short term in mite populations in hives with "standard cell" and "small cell" combs. Definitely repeatable, and they did show that other factors must have an influence _if_ cell size has a real effect.

Maybe when everything is teased apart at some point, we'll learn that it isn't cell size at all but something else that has made the difference.


----------



## Barry

deknow said:


> There are a lot of relevant factors that go into managing bees....and lots of places to make mistakes and misunderstand.


This holds true regardless whether one uses SC or not. What is so different when it comes to SC? I remember very well the discussions I had with Ed and Dee when I was considering a wholesale shift following the ideas they wrote about. I told them I had my existing hives that had been treated for many years. They both said the important thing for me to do was to get all my bees started on clean 4.9 wax and stop treating. To this day, that is all I have done. Beyond this, I'm sure many of those who are using SC have done all kinds of different things; getting deep into queen/bee genetics, diet, etc. But it started with using 4.9 cell size. I'm extremely interested in a well done long term study that looks at small cell because that is basically the only thing I have changed in my beekeeping. I have yet to see a study done well enough to convince me SC has no positive effect on mite reduction. I know what I went through to get established, and it didn't happen in one season. But I'm small potatoes. I'd like to see researchers spending time studying the beehive dynamics of the likes of Dee or Michael who have more than a hundred hives.


----------



## sqkcrk

Dee might, but Michael doesn't, I believe.


----------



## Solomon Parker

beemandan said:


> They had to make every reasonable effort to eliminate or mitigate variables.


This is still being debated. At this point in the conversation, you should back this assertion with facts.



beemandan said:


> Yet Michael can make such an absolute statement in a public forum and his words are taken by many as unquestioned fact.


"Many" is a weasel word. It is ultimately meaningless unless you provide names.


beemandan said:


> No page after page of nitpicking and sniping.


This is an out and out falsehood. Absolute lie. Just ask Michael. There have been "many" pages of nitpicking and sniping. Check the archives previous to about April of this year.



beemandan said:


> The three studies set out to determine if small cell reduced mite populations. Each study has the potential for unconsidered variables. The researchers made an effort to reduce those.


Again, you'll have to supply some evidence because evidence to the contrary has already been produced. At this point in the conversation, you'll have to better than just stating your point. These gentlemen were up all night (oldtimer all day) debating this. We all deserve better at this point.



beemandan said:


> Taken as a whole, in my opinion, they represent a well documented body of evidence that strongly suggests that small cell does not reduce varroa infestations.


Again, you haven't demonstrated this. You've just stated it. You're going to have to present evidence that the time was sufficient, that the differences in comb don't matter, and that the lack of drones is meaningless. That's the evidence that's been produced, to oppose it at this point requires evidence showing otherwise.


----------



## beemandan

Barry said:


> I have yet to see a study done well enough to convince me SC has no positive effect on mite reduction.


And we’re discussing THREE, separate, peer reviewed studies….all of which come to the same conclusion. Do you think that your unwillingness to be convinced may no longer be about the studies?


----------



## Barry

You've been asked to defend the shortcomings that have already been pointed out.


----------



## beemandan

Solomon Parker said:


> This is still being debated.


I'm not going to get drawn into a petty argument about semantics. I'm not going to spend the next week...month...year...chasing down quotes that will never satisfy you. 
Life is waaaayyyy too short.


----------



## Oldtimer

Solomon Parker said:


> This is still being debated. At this point in the conversation, you should back this assertion with facts.


Just when I thought we were happy families again!:scratch:

Sol I think you could relax a little, for example, saying "They had to make every reasonable effort to eliminate or mitigate variables", IS a fact. IE, it's a fact that is what they should have done. Asking him to "back this assertion with facts", is an impossibility. How? What facts?

I think what's wrong with this thread is there's a lot of arguing about arguing. And I know I've been part of that. But you're allowed to when you're right!  ( Runs for cover, LOL!  )


----------



## Solomon Parker

Oldtimer said:


> Sol I think you could relax a little, for example, saying "They had to make every reasonable effort to eliminate or mitigate variables", IS a fact.


Okay, I guess I was being too kind. Dean spent a number of lengthy posts pointing out how they did not "make every reasonable effort to eliminate or mitigate variables." My bad.

I'm not arguing about arguing, I'm arguing about what Dean pointed out, that the studies were orders of magnitude too short, and that unexplainable variables were introduced like Honey Super Cell and a strange lack of drone brood. As far as I can tell, and I read every post, no one has hardly attempted to show that these last two factors should be reasonably discounted. All I've seen is 'I didn't know HSC had any effects.' I started this whole thread to demonstrate that small cell beekeepers are not ignoring the studies, but that the studies are discounted by their own details. And the response is essentially 'they are peer reviewed, so they're valid and you should apply them to your life.' It hasn't been shown, much less proven that these have any efficacy to real life.


----------



## Oldtimer

OK well if the studies have been done as poorly as claimed, then perhaps this should be raised with the authors?

But got to say, Beemandan does make a good point, you now have 3 studies, showing that small cell ALONE, and I think alone might be the operative word, and used in the way they used it, did not reduce mites. So. We need to find out what's happening with the beekeepers who are "successful" as against the ones who aren't.


----------



## deknow

errr, I discussed this briefly with Tom Seeley...the paper had not yet been published (I had not read it). I want to qualify this by saying it was a brief conversation at a restaurant, not an exhaustive one on one.

First, he wasn't sure off the top of his head what cell size had been used as a control...he thought 5.2. 

Second, he didn't seem to understand that HSC vs wax comb was an issue...you would think that after writing:


> The colonies in the hives with the
> plastic, small-cell combs grew noticeably less
> rapidly than those in the hives with the
> beeswax, standard-cell combs. For example, by
> the middle of August, the mean numbers of
> frames of adult bees and frames of brood in the
> small-cell colonies were only 4.2±0.7 and 3.0±
> 0.4, whereas in the standard-cell colonies they
> were 7.7±0.8 and 5.5±0.5.
> To compensate for the difference in mean
> colony size between the treatment groups, we
> divided each colony's mite drop count by the
> number of frames of adult bees. This yielded a
> value of mites/sticky board/48 h/frame of bees.
> The results are summarized in Table II


...that he would not be surprised that someone was questioning HSC vs wax.

Lastly, he stated outright that if SC has an effect he would expect to see it in a short term study.

In addition, as I've pointed out earlier, the "manuscript reader" (Marla Spivak) has repeatedly refused to consider any evidence wrt small cell...she insists that bees shaken down onto foundationless only get a little bit smaller (true), but admits that she does not know what happens when _those_ bees are shaken down...and she has declined offers to supply her with small cell foundationless comb from non-africanized bees (which she clams doesn't exist).

deknow


----------



## deknow

..thus far I've only looked at the Seeley study in this thread....this is because it is the most recent, the one I've read most recently, and of the three studies, he has the strongest reputation.

I don't have time today (or probably tomorrow) to go into the other studies, but I'm simply not going to bother if we can't at least discuss and evaluate the criticisms I've already made.

3 flawed studies do not add up to "Truth". If you want to assign value to the 3 studies, you need to first assign value to each study and add them up....you can't simply mandate that their flaws cancel each other out.

I hate to be in the position of beating up on Tom Seeley...he is the most respected bee researcher in the U.S. in my opinion, and I take no pleasure in pointing out what is likely a (or the) low point in his publishing career...but more importantly, I think I've shown an almost complete failure of the peer review process to do what it is supposed to do....which requires that we no longer simply lean on the "it's peer reviewed" status of a study...including all 3 of these studies.

deknow


----------



## deknow

...I want to comment a bit further on this:


> The colonies in the hives with the
> plastic, small-cell combs grew noticeably less
> rapidly than those in the hives with the
> beeswax, standard-cell combs. For example, by
> the middle of August, the mean numbers of
> frames of adult bees and frames of brood in the
> small-cell colonies were only 4.2±0.7 and 3.0±
> 0.4, whereas in the standard-cell colonies they
> were 7.7±0.8 and 5.5±0.5.
> To compensate for the difference in mean
> colony size between the treatment groups, we
> divided each colony's mite drop count by the
> number of frames of adult bees. This yielded a
> value of mites/sticky board/48 h/frame of bees.
> The results are summarized in Table II


The HSC colonies grew slower and were smaller because of their reluctance to use the HSC...there are two aspects to this...
1. There was likely at least 2 weeks when the HSC queens weren't laying and the wax comb bees were right after the packages were installed (and we can all do the math...2 weeks of a new package not laying is a big setback).
2. The cluster doesn't grow to occupy entire combs all at once. I expect that there is a measurable reluctance of the bees to expand the cluster into unused HSC.
...so slow out of the gate and slow on the field. But brood rearing is an important component of mite reproduction...how can they simply ignore this and "compensate" with the numbers and consider this real data?

deknow


----------



## Fusion_power

Just because there were flaws in the study setup does NOT mean the conclusion reached was wrong. At this point, I would lean toward saying that there is more than just small cell involved in mite tolerance. This is based on personal experience.

I would also like to come down pretty hard on folks who defend their position no matter what. There has never been scientific progress without being ready and willing to toss out preconceptions. My favorite example of this is Chandrasekar whose own teacher cut his feet out from under him, but in the end, Chandra was right and his teacher went down in history as the man who was unwilling to see reality (see Black Hole Theory Chandrasekar Hoyle).

DarJones


----------



## Oldtimer

If brood rearing was slower in the sc hives, that would have slowed mite reproduction, so you would have expected less mites, not more than the hives on wax.

I'm wondering if they didn't take your bees DeKnow, because they didn't want to be using different strains, which could have been another variable. While some aspects of the research seem weak, there are probably reasons for it. One being, you cannot get lc plastic comb, to my knowledge anyway. So the alternative would be use sc wax. But then there would be all the drama of regressing the bees before the study could commence. And at the end of the regressing what if the comb was not perfect?

Be interesting to know why none of the colonies had any drones though. If it was as you suggested, stress, I can't imagine just what kind of stress it would take to cause this. Odd though. However, if none of them had any drones, that's one variable evened out.


----------



## Oldtimer

Good post Fusion Power.

Michael Bush thinks there may be more going on than just sc. He mentioned his drone theory, about drones sacrificially drawing mites away. What would be great, is if anyone else has something they think might be a factor, they share it.

As I've said, I'm just starting some sc hives, and I am REALLY hoping it's going to work. So, if there's other factors involved, I'd be very keen to hear them.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Fusion_power said:


> Just because there were flaws in the study setup does NOT mean the conclusion reached was wrong.


This is true. However, the introduction of plastic comb, which I assume was a shortcut to avoid all the stuff we talk about regressing and the time it takes and the seeming unwillingness to use established small cell bees, introduced a fatal flaw. At the very least, the lackluster brood production should have been discussed rather than seemingly passed off as a simple result of the study. Not only is there the stated conclusion that small cell does not help in the fight against mites, but not knowing anything about HSC, one would also assume that small cell bees expand slower. Fortunately, at least one of the other studies shows that brood production is faster with small cell.



Fusion_power said:


> At this point, I would lean toward saying that there is more than just small cell involved in mite tolerance. This is based on personal experience.


This is my experience in treatment-free beekeeping altogether. It's hard to separate the factors 100%, but I'm on small cell, and my hives haven't died of mites in the last four years. That is my experience.


----------



## Kieck

Let's return to the three papers posted at the outset.

The first one -- Berry _et al._ -- found a significant difference in mite populations between small cell hives and conventional cell hives. It just went the opposite from what might have been expected. Small cell colonies had more mites. Why might that have occurred?

I don't see the Seeley paper listed among the three. I do see one European paper.


----------



## Oldtimer

So in your experience, what factors would you suggest Sol?


----------



## Solomon Parker

Oldtimer said:


> Michael Bush thinks there may be more going on than just sc. He mentioned his drone theory, about drones sacrificially drawing mites away. What would be great, is if anyone else has something they think might be a factor, they share it.


That's the pseudo-drone theory of Dee Lusby, an explanation of the mechanism of the efficacy of small cell. It's not a separate theory of mite resistance, it's a theory of the mechanism by which it works. When I was helping Mr. Bush moving hives this summer, it was really easy to see where the mites were.  He uses a lot of Mann Lake PF-120 frames which have a thin top and bottom bar and are all plastic. According to someone's theory (Mike will know) a thick topbar eliminates drone comb between frames. Consequently, when you pull PF-120 frames out of a hive, there is very often drone brood being torn open there. It makes it really easy to see if there are mites in the drone brood, and sure enough, there were some. Not many, but there were some. I had to look for them. I did not see any chewing out of worker brood like I often see in my bees. I would characterize his mite levels as very low, like he does, and they all appeared to be in the drone brood.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Oldtimer said:


> So in your experience, what factors would you suggest Sol?


In what context? What would I suggest are the factors for survival?


----------



## Oldtimer

I think Bushes theory that I mentioned, is further reaching than Dees pseudodrone theory. But really Michael would have to clarify that.

I've read Dee on her pseudodrone theory. It's that the mites walk around the cell and measure the size. If the cell is bigger than 4.9 they think it is a drone even though it's a worker, or as Dee calls it, a Pseudodrone. Not that it's a drone. However Michaels is that the drones draw the mites away, eventually getting enough to kill themselves, and thus reduce mite numbers in the hive.

What would you suggest are the factors for survival? I was kind of asking what YOU think are the factors. Not what I think YOU think. What would you think I think you might think? :lpf:

Nah, just kidding. Just tell me what in your experience, you think.


----------



## Solomon Parker

In my humble view, the things I attribute for survival are genetics, clean wax, small cell (generally more natural sized comb). There are many other things I do, but I would not necessarily say they contribute to survival.


----------



## swarm_trapper

I tried the small cell once, had 100 hives with HSC frames, In one year after being run for honey production and pollination (they were treated the same as my other 800 hives except mite treatments) 95% were destroyed by mites the next spring. I guess that was my study lol the results were conclusive for me 
Nick


----------



## Oldtimer

Thanks swarm trapper. Something that's often ignored is the large numbers of failures there has been with small cell. But we rarely here from them. Exactly why we need to know what else is involved.


----------



## Solomon Parker

I don't call that a failure, I call that part of the process. But now I expect to be brow beaten by the non-crash fraternity.


----------



## beemandan

By the way, could anyone provide a link to the Lusby’s controlled studies? For folks to have completely adopted their results and for those same folks to defend them from these studies on every nuance ….they must be pristine.


----------



## Oldtimer

Solomon Parker said:


> I don't call that a failure, I call that part of the process. But now I expect to be brow beaten by the non-crash fraternity.


 Just wondering who this no crash "fraternity" would be? Perhaps you worry about stuff too much. If one exists, I think the no crash fraternity would be the likes of Michael Bush, and perhaps Barry. If you are expecting a beating perhaps you want to give them a stick to beat your brow with?


----------



## Barry

Oldtimer said:


> Exactly why we need to know what else is involved.


I agree. ST, please fill in the whole story with those hives. I know you're migratory. Where these hives mixed in with your other hives? Did you treat them at all? How were they started? How many of your "other" hives died that year? You know, all those things that potentially play into any hive loss.


----------



## Oldtimer

I'd also be interested what happened to the remaining 5. The "crash fraternity" (giggle), would say you should have bred from those.


----------



## Barry

beemandan said:


> For folks to have completely adopted their results


Do you mean "believe their results to be true?" I don't think anyone has "completely" adopted their reasonings. Many have adopted their management style. The "why" questions remain unanswered or scientifically proven.


----------



## Michael Bush

I was tired of talking about Varroa about a year after small cell resolved my Varroa problems... but here we go again.

Here is my issue with short term studies. I don't know (nor do I think anyone every will) ALL of the dynamics that go on in a bee colony in regards to Varroa. I do know from decades of watching bees that things often go in one direction until the bees suddenly, in a flurry of activity, change that direction through their intervening, but only after they decide to intervene. Any study that is only measuring mite counts and doesn't wait for the mites to start killing hives had not seen what will happen when things hit some critical mass. What the bees do with a problem when it is small compared to what they do when it's a bigger problem. I certainly do not claim to understand all of the ways in which small cell plays into Varroa and what mechanisms are at work. I do know that when I measured capping and post capping times small cell was a day shorter getting capped and a day shorter emerging. I also know that, although I see a few Varroa in drone cells, I hardly ever see any in worker cells. I also know I never saw them chewing out infested cells before I regressed. I also have seen Dennis Murrel's photos of dented mites that have been bitten and other reports of various hygenic behaviors not observed before regressing. I would not expect the bees to get mobilized on chewing out etc. until the mite levels triggered that and doing a very short study may not trigger any of those behaviors. The shorter capping time doesn't help that much when the varroa are in drone cells, of course. And if the mites all go to the drone cells they will be MORE successful at reproducing (during the time of drone cells) and do less damage to the workers, plus LESS successful at reproducing when there are not many drone cells in the hive as they have no where to reproduce. My point is that if you don't let things run their course, you will only be measuring how successful the mites are at a given point in time, and not what the ecology and dynamics of the hive are in the long term. Then we have the dynamics of the beeyard. Drifting etc. to take into account. That has concerned me from the beginning and I posted that concern on my web site and on here back as far as 2004 and 2005:

"...assumption is that huge numbers of mites hitchhiking in on robbers can't overwhelm a hive no matter how well they handle Varroa. Tons of crashing domestic hives were bound to take a toll. Even if you have a fairly small and stable local population of Varroa, a huge influx from outside will overwhelm a hive."

My point is that over the course of the establishment of a hive (which Walt Wright would say takes two years) the dynamics of that colony and it's flora and fauna change. A snapshot of mite counts in the spring is not a useful test of small cell.

But if ya'll don't mind I will just continue to do my small cell and not have Varroa problems and spend my time on beekeeping instead of Varroa... I like it much better that way. It costs me nothing (I don't buy small cell wax, I just buy PF120s and foundationless frames) and is less work, even if I didn't save all the work of treating. What's not to like?


----------



## Solomon Parker

beemandan said:


> By the way, could anyone provide a link to the Lusby’s controlled studies? For folks to have completely adopted their results and for those same folks to defend them from these studies on every nuance ….they must be pristine.


And that's what's called a straw man argument.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Michael Bush said:


> I was tired of talking about Varroa about a year after small cell resolved my Varroa problems...


I've been getting that way lately. How many times do you have to tell the same story before people believe you? Sometimes they just never will.


----------



## jim lyon

Soooooo, you guys all rested up and ready for another all nighter?


----------



## swarm_trapper

Ill answer any questions but it was three years ago so i might not remember every thing. The hives were made in the spring with three frames of large cell brood. Within two months the three frames were rotated out so it was all 4.9 small cell. They were for the most part kept in separate yards. But never too far away from other beehives (<2mi) they were built up and ran for blueberries in MI then to summer honey in MI then to CA for almonds. 

They died while waiting for the almond bloom. the other hives that were treated in the same holding yard i lost around 25%. And for every one wondering about those 5 magical hives that made it They were mixed into the operation, or combined to make the grade. 

That is what i remember of it, not really something you want to remember lol. Of course this isn't to say it wont work for some, sounds like there are others who it works for. 
I know Rob Bliss (his forum name is pahavanter i think) also ran a large small cell trial with HSC i would like to hear his thoughts on it. Dave Mendes a large FL commercial beekeeper (7000+ hives) used to use all? small cell but does not use it any more. Not sure on all the details. 
A sideline friend of mine in FL runs about 150 hives used all small cell but always had mite problems he also dosen't use it any more. 

These are my observations of course i don't have any fancy study's that show my results. Oh wait i do its called my total net income  and i can tell you small cell didn't help it out much. 
Nick




Barry said:


> I agree. ST, please fill in the whole story with those hives. I know you're migratory. Where these hives mixed in with your other hives? Did you treat them at all? How were they started? How many of your "other" hives died that year? You know, all those things that potentially play into any hive loss.


----------



## Oldtimer

Oh that's interesting. Didn't realise all those large scale trials had been done.

Glad to hear about it too. I get tired of being told that commercial beekeepers are from the old days, won't try anything new. Next person to lay that one on me is going to get a quote from your post slapped on them.


----------



## Oldtimer

swarm_trapper said:


> These are my observations of course i don't have any fancy study's that show my results. Oh wait i do its called my total net income


Ha Ha that's funny! 

Net income is the ultimate test in my books, too.


----------



## Oldtimer

Solomon Parker said:


> How many times do you have to tell the same story before people believe you? Sometimes they just never will.


If you really are seeking commiserations, the researchers who do these studies would be perfect, they must know the feeling well.


----------



## Oldtimer

Yup! i can feel an all nighter coming on! :lpf:


----------



## Solomon Parker

Be warned, it's hardly supper time for the Oldtimer.


----------



## Oldtimer

...


----------



## sqkcrk

Solomon Parker said:


> I've been getting that way lately. How many times do you have to tell the same story before people believe you? Sometimes they just never will.


Telling someone how to keep bees w/out chemical treatments is like making your Grandmothers' recipe for whatever. It never turns out like Grandmas', does it?

So, I can believe that what you say works for you, but, how do I get it to work for me? You could tell me everything you can think of about how you do what you do, but I am not going to be able to replicate it exactly. For one thing, I don't live where you do. It could be as simple as that. Your location.

Wintering in Brasher Falls, NY is different from wintering in Ithaca, NY. 250 miles apart.


----------



## Michael Bush

I have speculated (but have no actual experience at) what the results would be in the almonds with small cell (and published that speculation six or seven years ago). You have all of those infested hives all around, massive robbing and drifting. I'm not sure how much any hive can take of that. Just because your hive isn't raising Varroa doesn't mean it can handle a huge influx of Varroa from outside. I also wonder in the long run how much difference the thickness of the walls makes. I only really used the wax coated PermaComb to get them regressed and while I continued to use it, the majority of my combs are either natural comb or PF120s both have the .1mm thick walls of natural beeswax rather than .5mm walls of plastic. I don't have any theory as to why it would matter other than the density of the broodnest, but things often have unexpected ramifications.


----------



## sqkcrk

Michael,
Have you experienced obsewrving bees in almonds? I haven't. But, from all the photos I've seen, it appears to me as though one beekeeper takes his bees to his own holding yards before actually going into the groves and then those hives are taken to the groves and set out in plots of so many pallets at each drop. Photos I've seen show 6 or 8 pallets to a drop. (I wish I could get my apple people to see that first hand.)

So, if what I have seen from way over here is correct, ones' exposure is pretty much only to oneself. Isn't it? And, whereas the potential for robbing is greater w/ semiloads of hives in one area, when I have experienced semiloads in one yard robbing is no more a problem than yds of 40. So I wouldn't characterize robbing as massive. But, maybe your experience is different and more first hand.


----------



## swarm_trapper

i would say almonds for the most part is just most other places that i put bees. Orange, blueberries, squash, pepper, even summer honey there are always other beekeepers around with in 2 or so Miles. That is for the most part how it is in commercial beekeeping. If there are no other beekeepers around there might be a reason why lol. Now Dee Lusby is i think for the most part isolated that might be why she can get away with it? 
Nick


----------



## beemandan

Solomon Parker said:


> And that's what's called a straw man argument.


I’m afraid that I don’t know what that means. I’m sure it isn’t good….but frankly, I wasn’t making an argument. I was addressing a curiosity. I’ll try to address that one more time…


Barry said:


> Do you mean "believe their results to be true?" I don't think anyone has "completely" adopted their reasonings. Many have adopted their management style. The "why" questions remain unanswered or scientifically proven.


Let’s use your words Barry. I’m honestly not trying to be argumentative here. 
A sizeable number of beekeepers ‘believe that their result to be true’, sufficiently so, as to convert their entire beekeeping practice to small cell. Without a single controlled study, they accepted the Lusby’s on faith….I suppose. Dee said it was a product of cell size but the number of other possible variables is enormous. 



Barry said:


> The "why" questions remain unanswered or scientifically proven. .


 Agreed. So along come three independent studies that say that cell size, alone, doesn’t reduce varroa. That is all they claim. And yet considerable time, energy and ego are being spent to discredit these studies.

So, I’m genuinely not arguing. I am…and this is the point I tried to make in an earlier post….only curious as to why the same people, who would believe Dee Lusby, without any scientific support, would now argue about these studies. They don’t question Dee or her work. They simply investigated one avenue of her theories. 

So, call me a straw man (whatever that means), suggest that I’m lying (however you drew that conclusion)….it doesn’t matter to me. Just, please explain why these studies are so threatening.


----------



## Michael Bush

I don't know of anyone who believed the Lusby's without trying it. I certainly didn't. I thought, "if forcing them onto large cells is wrong, then forcing them onto small cells would be equally wrong" and I tried both small cell and natural comb. Once I was convinced the 4.9mm was not unnatural, and I found the PF120s, I did more small cell and continued to do more natural cell. As to working on Varroa, at the time I knew of absolutely no one who believed you could keep bees without Varroa treatments at the time and they were the only ones succeeding at all. So I had to try it. And it worked. For the first couple of years I counted mites to see if it was working. I've always been a skeptic and still am.


----------



## beemandan

Michael Bush said:


> I've always been a skeptic and still am.


The simple question, then, after reading these three studies, do you believe that small cell, alone, reduces mites?


----------



## Solomon Parker

Michael Bush said:


> I don't know of anyone who believed the Lusby's without trying it.


When I was doing my initial research in the fall of 02, I read all Dee's papers, talked to her on here, talked to you as well, and I was sufficiently convinced to try it out before I had any bees. Does that count? 

Ultimately though, as my beekeeping experience kicked off, I never saw anything I didn't expect except that my hives didn't die as quickly or as completely as I was told. I didn't lose all my hives, and after five years, I still had 30% of the originals, and that was on your average California commercial stock. 

I guess I'd say I'm an optimistic skeptic. I'll try anything. If it doesn't work, _then_ I'll quit.


----------



## Solomon Parker

beemandan said:


> I’m afraid that I don’t know what that means.


A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position, twisting his words or by means of false assumptions. 

By example, you made a string of them.



beemandan said:


> So, call me a straw man


No one called you anything, if they had, their post would have been deleted.



beemandan said:


> suggest that I’m lying


No one said you were lying.



beemandan said:


> Just, please explain why these studies are so threatening.


No one said they were threatened.

See how that works? You just made three false assumptions and presented them as if you read them off the page. Now, those attempting to answer your questions must address your statements by saying "I did not say that" wasting their time and energy fighting a 'straw man,' a false opponent created to deflect their energies.


----------



## beemandan

Solomon Parker said:


> No one said you were lying. .


No?


Solomon Parker said:


> This is an out and out falsehood. Absolute lie.





Solomon Parker said:


> See how that works? You just made three false assumptions and presented them as if you read them off the page. Now, those attempting to answer your questions must address your statements by saying "I did not say that" wasting their time and energy fighting a 'straw man,' a false opponent created to deflect their energies.


You like playing semantic games, I guess. I don’t. Ok…you didn’t call me a straw man…in the literal sense….
You win. I won’t be returning to this forum.
You can have your small cell 'yes men'.


----------



## Solomon Parker

I did say that "Yet Michael can make such an absolute statement in a public forum and his words are taken by many as unquestioned fact. No page after page of nitpicking and sniping." was an out and out falsehood and an absolute lie.

My statement that "no one said you were lying" was false. I sincerely apologize and ask your forgiveness.



Semantics: "The individual meanings of words, as opposed to the overall meaning of a passage." I'm arguing just the opposite actually.


----------



## Fusion_power

Semantics is what turns a piece of half raw castrated bull meat into a sizzling hot juicy rib-eye steak. They are one and the same thing but the meaning is drastically different because of the words used. You can guess which part of that statement describes the current state of this thread.

I personally feel this conversation went overboard to the point of driving folks away from beesource. That is a very undesirable outcome. Both sides of this issue need to be present if anything valid is to be achieved.

I would present the following facts
1. There have been three published studies of small cell as a control for varroa
2. All three studies have given the same result, it does not work.
3. All three studies were flawed in one way or another because of setup, time frame, or other variables
4. Anecdotal support for small cell working is available from at least 3 valid sources.
5. Commercial beekeepers who have tried small cell on a large scale have consistently had crashed colonies within 2 years of setup.

When you put all of that together, there is ONLY one conclusion. Something besides small cell is at work. Instead of beating each other up, why don't we focus on finding what is actually operating to help small cell colonies survive.

DarJones


----------



## sqkcrk

We know what Tom Seeley would say, don't we? Something about the mites being less viriulent? Which suggestion is rejected by scers. If I understand things correctly.


----------



## Solomon Parker

sqkcrk said:


> Something about the mites being less viriulent?


As I've mentioned before, IF this is true, then the only solution is to act as though we're dealing with AFB. We must go treatment-free 100% and wholesale and allow every hive with these virulent mites to die in one fell swoop. That's the only viable solution in the long run. It's that or centuries of treating to hold back mites that when given the chance will kill themselves.



sqkcrk said:


> Which suggestion is rejected by scers.


I don't buy it because my hives don't die from mites. I know for a fact that there are all sorts of bees around here from all sorts of places, feral and commercial. Like someone said, there would be big crashes every other year as these virulent mites find their way into our untreated hives. Every time I purchase a hive from elsewhere, it should cause a wave of destruction. As it is, new hives seem to live or die on their own. That's my experience.


----------



## sqkcrk

Makes sense to me. Your experience. Therte is probably alot of ther less viriulent mites argument that I don't know or understand.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Now if the mites carry some sort of virus that causes hives to go queenless in November or causes perfectly healthy clusters of bees to not be able to find honey two inches above them, that mite I could definitely be interested in eliminating. I'm not sure if small cell helps in the virus department.


----------



## Michael Bush

>The simple question, then, after reading these three studies, do you believe that small cell, alone, reduces mites? 

Let's try it the other way. I believe based on my experience that you can't get mites under control without small cell. The studies are far too short to be relevant. I always believe my own experience over anything else. That's what a skeptic does... test it yourself.

In the long term if we stop treating we will get less virulent mites. Many people, including me and Dee Lusby that I know of, have been saying this for a decade. But for that to be the mechanism of my success with Varroa it would require a huge die off, which did not happen. The same with saying it's the genetics of the bees. That would also require a big die off which didn't happen.


----------



## sqkcrk

So, is there any beekeeper of 500 cols or more who fits the bill? Who has gone sc and treatment free? Maybe two or three in the United States who would talk to us?


----------



## Solomon Parker

As far as I know, there's only Dee, and nobody accepts her results because they claim she has africanized bees.


----------



## sqkcrk

Well, why is there only one? Being as there is only one, doesn't suspicion make sense regardless?

Were I the only beekeeper in the country w/ hives producing 300lb crops year after year for 30 years, I bet you'd be suspicious. So, when someone makes claims which don't jibe w/ the experience of masses of others don't you think suspicion is understandable?

Is there really no one else?


----------



## Barry

beemandan said:


> Without a single controlled study, they accepted the Lusby’s on faith….I suppose. Dee said it was a product of cell size but the number of other possible variables is enormous.


What are those other possibilities? I'm not being argumentative either. I didn't accept Lusby's on faith. I had to do the work myself to see firsthand what would happen with my bees in my location doing what they did. That is no longer faith, that is reality.



> So along come three independent studies that say that cell size, alone, doesn’t reduce varroa. That is all they claim. And yet considerable time, energy and ego are being spent to discredit these studies.


That's all they claim, but they base that on a very different management practice from mine. The real shortcomings of these types of studies is inherent in their very narrow focus and time. No where will you find it said that one can put SC into their hive and within a few months they will have reduced varroa with bees being able to manage them. The whole hive as an organism gets left out. It doesn't come close to anything I have or went through to get where I am being treatment free.



> Just, please explain why these studies are so threatening.


They're not threating to me. They don't hold much weight in value to me because I don't manage my bees like they did in their studies. Perhaps SC alone isn't they answer. Perhaps it's just a trigger in the hive organism that brings out other factors.


----------



## camero7

I think there are several factors that make Dee's operation a success. Most importantly she does not migrate her bees. They are stationary. If you've watched some of the videos of her working her hives, you know they have some African genes in them.I believe that small cell is beneficial for those who do not move their bees. But I strongly believe that those who pollinate or chase the bloom will fail without monitoring and treating hives when varroa loads exceed threshold levels.


----------



## Kieck

> I know for a fact that there are all sorts of bees around here from all sorts of places, feral and commercial. Like someone said, there would be big crashes every other year as these virulent mites find their way into our untreated hives. -Solomon Parker


I find this extremely interesting. See, to my way of thinking, this statement refutes the "drifting bees carry mites to other hives" objection that was raised in previous discussions of at least one of these small cell studies.

In the interests of disclosure here, I should point out that I've been shifting to almost exclusively foundationless frames from "conventional cell." I did not treat from 2003 to 2008 with conventional cell, and I haven't treated since switching to foundationless. I don't consider myself "treatment free" simply because I still would rely on a rescue treatment if mite populations started climbing. I just haven't needed to treat in that amount of time. I haven't been suffering losses due to mites since 2003, either.

I have no good hypothesis for why I haven't needed to resort to an acaricide in that amount of time.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Kieck said:


> See, to my way of thinking, this statement refutes the "drifting bees carry mites to other hives" objection that was raised in previous discussions of at least one of these small cell studies.


I don't follow your logic. What I am saying is that the 'virulent mite' theory were true, those mites would from time to time be carried to my hives where they would propagate and cause crashes. 

Unless you mean that if the 'virulent mite' theory were true and mites were not being carried to my hives then that means mites aren't carried. Is this what you mean?


----------



## sqkcrk

Kieck said:


> I just haven't needed to treat in that amount of time. I haven't been suffering losses due to mites since 2003, either.


There are probably other questions I could ask which might shed some light on why your case is as it is, but, how many colonies do you run? Where are your bees from? Packages, nucs, swarms? Do you buy queens or raise your own?


----------



## Oldtimer

Solomon Parker said:


> I don't buy it because my hives don't die from mites. I know for a fact that there are all sorts of bees around here from all sorts of places, feral and commercial. Like someone said, there would be big crashes every other year as these virulent mites find their way into our untreated hives. Every time I purchase a hive from elsewhere, it should cause a wave of destruction. As it is, new hives seem to live or die on their own. That's my experience.


It would be interesting to know how many hives you have bought, and how many splits you have made, and how many swarms you have collected, over the years, and how many hives you have now.


----------



## deknow

I'm going to be a bit blunt:

If the goal here is to discuss the studies, then some reasonable percentage of the participants actually have to read the studies.

If we are going to discuss the merits and/or deficiencies in these studies then the reading has to be done with a critical eye.

I think I have demonstrated with the Seeley study that we can't simply rely on peer reveiw or "trust in the scientists", no matter who they are, to vet out obvious problems...again, the reading has to be done critically.

Most of these studies are not that hard to read (for me, the statistical math is the part I understand the least well).

The study (especially the study on bees) has not been performed/written that a reasonably intelligent person can't find some flaw or weakness....if you are reading a study and do not see any problems you are not reading very carefully or critically.

It seems to me that very few people have read any of the studies. It is a useless discussion if what we discuss is what we all "heard about the studies"...which is what appears to be happening.

It seems to me that virtually all of the points I've made in regard to the Seeley study (which I did read) have been ignored. It's a shell game...I point out serious flaws (really serious flaws) in one study, and instead of acknowledging the weaknesses, other studies are referred to. The problem is that these other studies are seriously flawed as well...they have the same credibility as the Seeley study (they are published in peer reviewed pulblications)...their authors are a little less famous that Tom Seeley....yet we are to assume that they provide "proof" because people who are unwilling to actually read and/or discuss them say they must...because they also are published.

Oh well.

deknow


----------



## Oldtimer

Kieck said:


> In the interests of disclosure here, I should point out that I've been shifting to almost exclusively foundationless frames from "conventional cell." I did not treat from 2003 to 2008 with conventional cell, and I haven't treated since switching to foundationless. I don't consider myself "treatment free" simply because I still would rely on a rescue treatment if mite populations started climbing. I just haven't needed to treat in that amount of time. I haven't been suffering losses due to mites since 2003, either.


Very interesting post. There is also at least one other conventional cell beekeeper I know of who does not treat for mites. As these folks don't seem to talk about it much I'm sure there will be more out there. Love to know how it actually works, perhaps sc cell is not even needed. Who knows?


----------



## Solomon Parker

Dean makes a good point. Let's keep the discussion toward the merits of the small cell studies. That's what this thread is for. I was ridiculed in the first few posts that this thread should not be about small cell in general, but about the studies. They should be able to be critiqued without discussion of 'what's your opinion as to why small cell works' and 'how many hives do you have.' I'm happy to answer any and all personal messages in private. But let's stay on the studies that have been published and that have been linked to within this thread.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have to admit, when I read through the portion that mentions the plastic combs, it didn't catch my eye because I have never used them. That's why I focused on the length of the study and the testing metric.

What about the study I posted which does show a confirmatory correlation between smaller cell size and varroa populations? Or is that to be simply discarded because africanized bees were involved?


----------



## Kieck

> I don't follow your logic. -Solomon Parker


Let's see.

The claim I heard when the Berry study first started receiving publicity was that having small cell hives among "large cell" hives would not show a decrease in mite numbers because drift among colonies would "level" mite populations among hives. This criticism was offered up as an explanation as to why mite infestations were actually higher in small cell hives in the study than in the conventional cell hives by them.

If your hives are surrounded by various other sorts of hives, and if "mite leveling" works the same in your area as was suggested as a criticism for the Berry study, you should have just as many mites in your hives as all those other colonies around you do. To my way of thinking, that means your bees and your management techniques might not be offering you any advantages with regards to mites.

Or, it could mean that "mite leveling" was overemphasized as a criticism.

I'm not sure. I don't know the circumstances. But I do believe that your experience suggests that effects to mite populations from drift may not be a strong criticism of the study.

(Edit)



> It seems to me that virtually all of the points I've made in regard to the Seeley study (which I did read) have been ignored. -deknow


Maybe that's because the Seeley study isn't included among the three listed at the outset for discussion here?


----------



## Barry

One of the biggest problems I have with these studies is their short time frame and always running LC bees right next to the SC bees. I'd like to see separate yards used as a control to sharing the same yard. Everyone I know that has had good success with SC did not keep LC at the same time in the same place.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Kieck said:


> Let's see


I'm still not sure how that is connected to the post about more/less virulent mites. The sentence you quoted is directly related to the virulent mite theory. It's a hypothetical. I'm not even talking about mite leveling, I'm talking about the idea that if just a few of these virulent mites gets into my yard, I should have crashes. That's why I'm saying that I don't buy it. I don't necessarily buy mite leveling across much distance either. If I have two hives on the same pallet, I might expect mite levels to be similar or for mites to flow from one to the other.



Kieck said:


> Maybe that's because the Seeley study isn't included among the three listed at the outset for discussion here?


I must apologize again. In the OP, I accidentally specified that the thread was to address "these studies" which could be interpreted to mean just those original three that I linked to. What I meant by 'these' was 'studies related to small cell beekeeping.' That's what I meant to discuss. In that context, Dean's posts are all legitimate. I'm assuming most everybody interpreted that way, but I apologize for any misunderstandings.


----------



## Oldtimer

Sol, more and less virulent mites are not hypothetical, in your country, they are fact. You have mites of several different known strains, and the japonica one is regarded as less virulent. Highly likely there are also several sub strains that have not even been identified.

In my country, we only have the one strain, unfortunately, the most virulent. Also interesting that nobody in my country is treatment free, in the fullest sense of the word, and had them survive more than 2 years.

Regarding the bee drift idea, it may be important during robbing etc. But the primary way mites spread is at flowers. This is not always easily seen as one bee may visit hundreds / thousands flowers. But large enough varroa mite numbers to be easily seen have been reported on your own US cotton crops.

And yes, I know cotton is wind pollinated. But bees will happily pollinate it also.


----------



## hpm08161947

Oldtimer said:


> You have mites of several different known strains, and the japonica one is regarded as less virulent. Highly likely there are also several sub strains that have not even been identified.


OT... when you say strain.. I am assuming that you mean species. Which makes me wonder how hard it is to identify a species of mite. Seems like IDing the species of mite in all these studies would be very important. Of course... I guess I am assuming that some are more virulent than others.


----------



## Roland

HPM08.... I believe he used the right terminology, strain. All of the mites are of the same species, because they can interbreed. A Human parallel would be blonds, red heads and brunets(sp?). They may all be Human, but we all know it is not wise to anger the Red heads.

Crazy Roland, son of a Red Head.


----------



## Oldtimer

I'd go with Roland, in this instance I think strain would be the correct word. Not an expert though. I guess it's like bees. Would italian, caucasion, and african bees be different strains, or different species? I guess it would be strains.

Yes it would be useful to ID the mites involved in not only studies, but also if the less virulent ones are in fact the ones infesting the hives that are coexisting with them, ie, the "successful" treatment free people.

Yet another variable for researchers to worry about!


----------



## sqkcrk

If we could isolate and propogate less virulent strains of Varroa mites could we put them in our hives? Do more virulent strain mites displace the less virulent strain mites?


----------



## Oldtimer

I've read that only one strain will inhabit a hive, that seems to be the common wisdom, but I suspect it is might just be chat site banter. 

To me, it doesn't really add up you can only have one. What happens if a mite of a different strain arrived in a hive. The other ones would kill it? Doubt it.

I've searched (in the past), but have not been able to find a proper study on it, and not sure if ones been done, so maybe nobody really knows for sure.


----------



## hpm08161947

Has it been established, that different strains have different levels of virulence?


----------



## Oldtimer

No it's heresay. However there is anecdotal evidence for it, just hasn't been proved in a study.


----------



## hpm08161947

Sounds like it is also anecdotal that hives are infest by one strain of mite at a time. Perhaps that would be an easy one for some researcher to tackle first.

All in all... it seems like there are a lot areas that have been discussed here that are ripe for research or additional research. Wonder if anyone has anything currently going on. Seems like there would have to be.


----------



## Michael Bush

>Do more virulent strain mites displace the less virulent strain mites? 

The more virulent strains would be the ones the reproduce more... meaning the only apparent mechanism for less virulent strains to out survive them is by NOT killing their host while the virulent ones kill their host, meaning it is only by the colony dying that you breed out the virulent ones.


----------



## Oldtimer

Michael are you sure of that, or is it just something that appeared logical?

When I had to study up two particular strains, one more benign than the other, I didn't see anything about different rates of reproduction.


----------



## Fusion_power

The concept is proven in epidemiology. Look up syphilis and how it affected humans 500 years ago vs how it affects us today. The strains around today are definitely less virulent. The only explanation of the difference is that the more virulent strains killed their host which ended their ability to reproduce.

DarJones


----------



## Oldtimer

Hi Fusion Power, for sure, I’m aware and agree with what you say.

However this is not quite what I was asking Michael. 

In evolutionary theory, a less virulent pathogen that allows it’s host better health, will be likely to do better itself.

However this does not have to exclude other mechanisms for virulence, or confine them solely to rate of reproduction.

Really I’m just picking Michaels brains, maybe he knows something about this I don’t, if so, I’d like to hear it.


----------



## Michael Bush

I based the assumption on my experience with Varroa, which is that the reason for the demise of the colony appears to be the rate of reproduction. So it seems "virulence" would be the mites that reproduce at a rate to survive the treatments and still outbreed any of the other mites. Which is why I've been saying for years that treating is the path to super mites and wimpy bees. You breed mites that can reproduce enough to survive the treatments and bees that cannot withstand the mites. What else would "virulence" be in this scenario? I doubt that one would eat more hemelymph or pass any more or less viruses.


----------



## Oldtimer

Thanks, and I don't know what other mechanisms might cause more or less virulence. I was just seeing what you based your statement on, I'm always seeing if I can learn something.


----------



## Oldtimer

hpm08161947 said:


> Sounds like it is also anecdotal that hives are infest by one strain of mite at a time. Perhaps that would be an easy one for some researcher to tackle first.
> 
> All in all... it seems like there are a lot areas that have been discussed here that are ripe for research or additional research. Wonder if anyone has anything currently going on. Seems like there would have to be.


There has been some research into this done by an Australian scientist doing some work in PNG. I watched a very interesting u tube video showing him at his work, and taking various mite samples back to the lab for analysis to see what strain they were. Showed him analysing them in the lab and pointing out the differences, fascinating. Didn't show if he got more than one strain in one hive though. But likely, somebody out there has done some of this work probably just not published.


----------



## Kieck

Fascinating turn taken in this discussion now, I think. Before we get too far down the road, I'd like to clarify a couple things.

First, the "strains" of mites being discussed here are really subspecies (based on the naming conventions). "Races" or "subspecies" can be used somewhat interchangeably. Just like honey bee subspecies, mite subspecies can interbreed, and show some evidence of separation along the lines of a continuum. You can recognize differences between a "pure" representative of one subspecies and a "pure" representative of a second subspecies, but you may not be able to identify every individual to the subspecific level definitively.

And, once they interbreed, how do you recognize one from another? Think of it in terms of honey bees: you cross Italian bees with Carniolan bees. The resulting bees belong to which subspecies? 

So, assuming that _Varroa_ interbreed freely within a hive, each hive would end up with a single gene pool of mites. If something prevents that interbreeding, and if selective pressures foster isolation of different forms within a hive, you could end up with different subspecies or strains of mites in a single hive.

Next, with regards to virulence, the term that I should have used in earlier posts was "viruliferous." Viruliferous mites are ones carrying viruses. Even a very low population of viruliferous mites in a hive could pose a far greater threat to that hive than a larger population of aviruliferous mites.


----------



## jim lyon

How do varroa interbreed? My understanding is that they are, in effect, inbred.


----------



## Michael Bush

If only one Varroa enters the cell before capping they are inbred. If two or more Varroa enter the cell before capping and those Varroa are not full sisters, then you get interbreeding.


----------



## jim lyon

But of course. Then could the offshoot of that be though that it takes a fairly heavy infestation for interbreeding to take place but not too much so that the less virulent mites (and the hive) are able to survive. Eureka! Perhaps survivor hives are then in effect infested with less virulent mites? Hmmmmm


----------



## Kieck

> In evolutionary theory, a less virulent pathogen that allows it’s host better health, will be likely to do better itself. -Oldtimer


I'm not convinced of this corollary. It certainly doesn't seem to hold true for parasites. Parasitoids abound among insects, and parasitoids operate by killing their hosts as a result of their parasitism.

The question, really, is whether the pathogen can reproduce and pass genes into the future. Whether the host survives or dies is less important than the ability of the pathogen to pass genes to future generations.


----------



## Fusion_power

> The question, really, is whether the pathogen can reproduce and pass genes into the future. Whether the host survives or dies is less important than the ability of the pathogen to pass genes to future generations.


This is not direct cause and effect. It gets down to the mechanism involved. If a parasitic wasp lays eggs on a caterpillar and the eggs hatch and the wasp larvae feeds, the caterpillar will surely die. What happens next is that the wasps mature and go out hunting new hosts. The key is that the parasite must be able to go to a new host and begin feeding. This is a balanced parasite/host cycle.

If that cycle is interrupted because the parasite can't get to a new host, then the parasite dies. The concept under discussion is whether phoretic mites are able to move from a dead colony to another colony where they can continue to feed and multiply. Unfortunately, my experience with varroa is that they have multiple mechanisms for moving from colony to colony, especially when the colonies are very close together. For this reason, I am highly skeptical of claims for less virulent mites.

From what I have been able to observe, a huge amount of varroa tolerance gets down to enhanced grooming behavior combined with enhanced removal of infested brood.

DarJones


----------



## hpm08161947

I have been reading this thread pretty carefully the last few days... it's rather interesting, but I believe I am still somewhat confused. I keep coming back to something I think I read, that being, "Interbred mites are more virulent than inbred mites". If there is evidence for this.... then does this give a mechanism for LC to be a better breeding place for interbred mites? There would be more room.... (I guess)... so more chance of more mites being capped there in.... (I guess),


----------



## Kieck

I don't believe that interbred mites are necessarily more or less virulent than inbred mites. If you inbreed from virulent mites, you'll get virulent mites. If you interbreed virulent mites and avirulent mites, you should get a range of virulence in the mites in that population.


----------



## Oldtimer

Since the discussion's gone this way, here is a link to an interesting video of the Aussie scientist working with varroa in PNG. Shows him id'ing mite types (or strain species sub species, whatever the boffins would call it  ), including doing DNA sequencing. It's an hour, but some of it is about other things. So you can skip the preliminaries by going to minute 5, and the really interesting stuff starts at minute 13.30. Some time later it leaves PNG and the more interesting stuff.

Here it is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VF__ezaP3-0


----------



## hpm08161947

OT - Thanks... that was an extremely interesting video. It gave me an hour of educational entertainment. I particularly found the part about the dissapearance of the Leatherwood forests from Tasmania to be interesting.. if sad.


----------



## Oldtimer

Yes. I love natural history docos. But the pillage and plunder of our planet is always heartbreaking. In the above case, some people permanently destroying something that's been there since the dinasours, to put a few weeks pay in their pockets.


----------



## Roland

Mr. Bush wrote:

If only one Varroa enters the cell before capping they are inbred. If two or more Varroa enter the cell before capping and those Varroa are not full sisters, then you get interbreeding.

I agree, and believe that this is a weakness on their part to be exploited. Inbred individuals will not have the vigor of hybrids.

Fusion power wrote:

The concept under discussion is whether phoretic mites are able to move from a dead colony to another colony where they can continue to feed and multiply. Unfortunately, my experience with varroa is that they have multiple mechanisms for moving from colony to colony, especially when the colonies are very close together.

So if you could control your drone population(assuming no colony deaths), you could limit the movement of phoretic mites, and compound the inbreeding issue. The old 1/2 of 1/2 is 1/4 trick. What a crazy thought......

Crazy Roland


----------



## Oldtimer

I don't think drifting is confined to drones.

Sometimes people drop around to the house to ask something about bees. Some people were there wanting to find out how to mark a queen. There were 1/2 dozen or so hives on the front lawn so I scooped maybe 30 bees off a landing board and took them into the shed for people to practise marking on. 

The ones that didn't get beaten to death during the marking process , were marked, and released. I was quite surprised over the next few weeks, I found marked bees in every one of those hives. I had to conclude there is actually a heckuva lot of worker drifting going on, the hives were at least 2 - 3 yards apart each.

The other surprising thing, was just how long a bee can live. Quite a few months later I was still finding marked bees.


----------



## JD's Bees

The Hive and Honey Bee Revisited, pg.202 note 42 "When bees are moved for pollination the figures approach 25% of the foragers were reared in other colonies."

The Hive and the Honey Bee, pg.298 "Raushmeyer (1928) studied drifting of bees in German bee houses and found that, when there are no orientation landmarks, bees drift in extraordinarily large numbers (up to 50%)."

So depending how the yards are set up, hives in rows and painted the same color, drifting could be quite high.


----------



## Roland

Oldtimer and JD, I agree that workers drift. Now do the test with Drones. I bet you wi9ll find that the drift is higher. As anexample, we had a yard with a few Cordovan and NWC hives. It was easy to see which drones came from which hives. They seem to wander at will, whereas the workers seem to TRY to return to the proper hive, if they are adequately marked.

I still bet that the mites can inbreed towards less virulence faster than the bees can breed resistance, purely on the life cycle time. Change can only occur with a new generation, and the mites are alot faster at that.

Crazy Roland


The


----------



## jim lyon

Perhaps a more revealing study than that of small cell would be one in which inbred and crossbred mites could be compared and analyzed for virulence. 
A: By keeping mite levels at low levels over an extended period of time and maximizing inbreeding mite virulence would eventually be reduced or:
B: When varroa populations explode and there is massive crossbreeding that the mites in the surviving hives become dominated by a less virulent strain. Thus giving rise to the theory that those non-treated hives that eventually recover and seem to be able to better deal with mites is perhaps more a result of a slightly different strain of mite than what many consider "survivor genetics"?

Or are there way too many variables for this hypothesis to even be testable?


----------



## Kieck

You might be on to something, Jim. Controlling the variables to actually test the hypotheses would be the difficult part, but could likely be done if someone put the time and effort into it.

Supporting these hypotheses, of course, could take some of the credit/blame away from cell size with regards to hive survival and mite populations.

I'd like to get back to discussing and critiquing the papers at the outset of this thread. I'm still curious why mite populations in small cell hives during Berry _et al_'s study were higher than in the other hives. Seems like an odd effect given the hypothesis and the independent variable (the "cause" in the experiment).


----------



## K Wieland

How many hives were tested? Wasn't it only one? It seems the hive in question was suffering in general, as he notes it probably wouldn't have survived the winter. Does that explain the high mite count?


----------



## Solomon Parker

Let's read the studies before commenting on them.


----------



## Oldtimer

No there was more than one, and there's been several studies, all finding small cell didn't work. Re your comment on the hive "suffering", they've tried mixing all the bees together before the experiment and then putting them in the different hives, to ensure bees and mites are spread randomly. Still didn't work. They've tried using plastic comb to ensure cell size, and they've tried small cells built out of natural wax, still didn't work. They've tried regressing bees during the experiment, and they've tried using bees that were already small cell bees at the beginning of the experiment. Still didn't work.


----------



## K Wieland

Thanks - as Solomon mentioned I need to reread the studies mentioned.


----------



## Barry

Oldtimer said:


> they've tried...
> They've tried ...
> and they've tried ...
> They've tried ...
> and they've tried


They've just never tried doing it the way "we've" done it.


----------



## Oldtimer

I think they're trying to figure out what that is. I know I'd like to know. The definitive "whatever it is you do", to make small cell work.


----------



## Barry

Anyone planning to start a business for the first time would seek out those who are already running that business successfully, to gain as much insight into it as possible. Researchers would do well to follow the same path.


----------



## Oldtimer

Well let's be honest, a successful small cell beekeeping business is pretty hard to find. The definition a researcher might consider valid would be someone who is successful enough with their bees, to actually live off their bees. Like other beekeepers do.

If all you had to do was switch to small cell and everything's solved, everybody would be doing it by now. Commercial beekeepers, everybody.

The candidates for a successful small cell business that come to mind would be Bush, deKnow, Lusby. Bush apparently has hardly looked at his hives in two years and has around 50 that have survived. DeKnow buys honey from others and re-sells it, and I won't go into Lusby, don't want to look totally negative, but I'll say a researcher may have reasons not to go there.

But don't kick me, cos I'm trying to be honest. I wouldn't be trying small cell myself if I wasn't hoping it will work. But I'm honest about my beekeeping and got to say it's often frustrating trying to get a full and honest answer to some of the major questions.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Oldtimer said:


> Bush apparently has hardly looked at his hives in two years and has around 50 that have survived.


 I'll testify in court that many of the dead colonies were due to extraneous conditions. When we went out to inspect the yards, the first two sets we found were dead and most of the hives had the lids blown off and were rained and snowed into. It was obvious what killed them. Other yards like the ones next to a tree line and the one that is completely surrounded by woods fared much better. Michael's losses in the last three years cannot be taken in the same context as anything else, unless you want to consider commercial beekeepers who tried to go treatment free in the same period. Then he rates pretty well.



Oldtimer said:


> DeKnow buys honey from others and re-sells it,


This is a gross simplification. I'm sure he'll be in soon to correct the record.



Oldtimer said:


> don't want to look totally negative,


Not looking very positive.



Oldtimer said:


> But I'm honest about my beekeeping and got to say it's often frustrating trying to get a full and honest answer to some of the major questions.


You've gotten nothing but honest answers. Perhaps it's explanations you're looking for. In that case, the 'science' isn't explaining much.


----------



## Oldtimer

Solomon Parker said:


> Not looking very positive.


Exactly.

But hey, didn't really want you to get hung up on that, just the world is hardly teeming with successful small cell beekeeping businesses. If that's not positive, well it is what it is. Not positive, if you say so.

And you are right, explanations is what I'm looking for. Same as every serious beekeeper is.


----------



## hpm08161947

My impression (entirely from reading) is that the Lusby operation is about 700 hives, non migratory, out in the desert. Please feel free to correct me (you guys won't need any encouragement  )

Is honey her main source of support? Or is it breeding stock? She is the largest commercial SC operation that I have heard of. Never heard of a +500 migratory one... guess there could be one.


----------



## Barry

Oldtimer said:


> Well let's be honest, a successful small cell beekeeping business is pretty hard to find.


That's evidence that you miss applied my example. To add another sentence after my last one in the post above: Anyone planning to do a study on SC would first meet with, and learn firsthand what it looks like from those doing it.


----------



## Oldtimer

HPM I would like to fill you in, but that would be "not positive". 

Much as I think some things would be better out in the open, I am very aware of the feelings of others, strongly held, plus the fact that wether I am right or wrong, I can always be accused of being "not positive", and not wanting to look like a troll.

Also, I'm hoping for a positive outcome from this discussion that will be of benefit to me and others, rather than a factional argument, and it doesn't take much to get one going around here!


----------



## Oldtimer

Barry said:


> That's evidence that you miss applied my example. To add another sentence after my last one in the post above: Anyone planning to do a study on SC would first meet with, and learn firsthand what it looks like from those doing it.


Barry I'll accept that if that's what you meant I'm fine with it.

I think my comments were valid but all the same hoping this discussion will yeild useful discussion.


----------



## Barry

I think your comments are valid as well, as are Jim's, just not what I was expressing. Perhaps a new thread to discuss the business aspect of SC is the right way to proceed. Jim, can I move your post to start a new thread?


----------



## Oldtimer

It won't be a very big thread LOL!


----------



## Barry

The trick is to give it a very controversial name, like "SC business plan is small sell"


----------



## Oldtimer

That should attract the punters!


----------



## jim lyon

Barry said:


> The trick is to give it a very controversial name, like "SC business plan is small sell"


. 
I don't think I can top that, get er goin Barry, I'm gonna go find me a helmet and flack jacket before I get any more involved.:lookout:


----------



## deknow

Barry is spot on wrt how one would run their own business.

Oldtimer, having worked at least a little with SC and regression, would you think that one could (from LC bees on LC comb) simply put wax SC foundation in the honey supers, have the bees draw and fill all this comb (in the honey supers) as SC comb with zero drone cells, extract the honey, and have perfect SC frames devoid of any larger cells to start a colony the next year? 

I'm assuming you did enough research to realize that this is not how to regress your bees...not a good use of your resources....not likely to put you in a position to be able to fairly evaluate anything about SC.

This was exactly the plan that the grant for the Seeley study called for. My guess is that the first two years were basically wasted trying to get some comb drawn via this method. Although I don't wish to be overly critical, this was a waste.

http://cris.nifa.usda.gov/cgi-bin/starfinder/10824/crisassist.txt



> All combs will be built by providing colonies with honey supers filled with frames of either small-cell or standard-cell foundation. The bees will build these combs while filling them with honey. At the end of the summer, we will extract the honey from these combs so that they can serve as brood combs the following summer.


Oldtimer, read below..."at this point, no way has been found to get bes to reliably construct combs of small cells."

No matter how you slice it, Tom didn't do any homework, and wasted two years of work (grant money, and an undergrads' time) where a half hour phone call to even the most ardent detractors of small cell would have helped them come up with a better plan. What a waste for no good reason. You certainly wouldn't waste your own time in that way...you bothered to start a thread and ask questions before you started.



> MPACT: 2007/10/01 TO 2008/09/30
> The principal outcome over the past year has been a Change in Knowledge. Specifically, I have learned just how difficult it is to get honeybees to build combs made of smaller than usual cells. This is an important finding, because beekeepers are being encouraged to have their bees build combs with small cells as a means of controlling the mite Varroa destructor, and beeswas comb foundation is being sold to guide the bees to build these combs, but at this point no way has been found to get bees to reliably construct combs of small cells. I now know that I cannot recommend this approach to Varroa control. There has also been a Change in Action. Because I've not succeeded in getting my bees to build combs filled with small cells, I've decided next summer to perform the key experiment of this project (setting up paired colonies, with one colony in each pair living on combs of small cells and the other colony living on combs of normal cells, then comparing the two types of colonies in terms of the growth of their populations of the mite Varroa destructor) using combs of small cells manufactured of plastic, rather than built by the bees of beeswax. This will at least enable me to test the critical hyptothesis: a colony living on small-cell combs will have a lower population growth rate of the Varroa mites than will a colony living on regular-cell combs..





> PROGRESS: 2007/10/01 TO 2008/09/30
> OUTPUTS: The principal output over the past year has been an Activity: developing further the methods for getting the bees to build combs with small cells (4.9 mm diameter), rather than their normal size cells (5.4 mm diameter). The key experiment of this study calls for setting up paired colonies, with one colony in each pair living on combs of small cells and the other colony living on combs of normal cells, then comparing the two types of colonies in terms of the growth of their populations of the mite Varroa destructor. I have tried various methods for getting bees to build small-cell combs but have not yet found a method that results in combs filled with small cells. Instead, I get combs that are a weird mixture of small cells and quite large cells. So, despite my best efforts over the past two summers, I have not yet performed the key experiment. Given that I have just one more summer of support in this project, I will perform the key experiment next summer using combs of small cells that are made of plastic and that are commercially available. Doing the experiment this way is not ideal, for these combs are too expensive for general use by beekeepers, but using them will enable me to test the still untested (but widely believed) hypothesis that small-cell combs lower the population growth rate of the Varroa mites in a honeybee colony. We shall see!


It's all very disapointing.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Has anyone contacted Seeley about these points? I bet we could get in touch with one of the students and get some more details as well.


----------



## Barry

"All combs will be built by providing colonies with honey supers filled with frames of either small-cell or standard-cell foundation. The bees will build these combs while filling them with honey. At the end of the summer, we will extract the honey from these combs so that they can serve as brood combs the following summer."

There's just no excuse for this. Truly a waste of time and resources.


----------



## deknow

I spoke with him in person before the study was published (it was taking longer in review than he had expected, and he hadn't gotten it back yet)....he seemed surprised that there would be any question about using plastic (note that in the documentation above, he only seems to see a problem with the cost), and was pretty confident that any effect would be seen in a couple of months. At that point, I hadn't read the study, and was pretty surprised that he was using HSC and calling it equivalent to wax.

But this is now published in a peer reviewed journal.

deknow


----------



## Solomon Parker

Barry said:


> Truly a waste of time and resources.


It seems to me that it speaks to the mindset with which many people approach small cell beekeeping. It's the idea that nothing else has to change, that it's another treatment, just put it in and it works (or doesn't as the case may be). 

Let me be clear, in case anyone may be reading this and not know what we're talking about. Normally, with conventional sized comb, placing foundation in the super to be drawn by the bees is common practice. The cells are large enough that the bees will usually draw them for honey storage with no complaint. Small cell does not work that way. If the bees are not in the mood to make brood comb (i.e. spring, in the middle of the broodnest, or they have been shaken onto foundation), they will not make brood comb consistently on small cell wax foundation. They might on PF-1xx's but I don't yet have enough experience to make that claim. This is why I liken small cell to being foundationless. With small cell, the bees have a much more powerful impetus to simply make whatever they want. Even with an established small cell hive, you're only going to get a few perfect combs each year. Because when they're done building brood, they're gonna build honey storage and wax foundation doesn't have the ability to force the issue.


----------



## Roland

Sol - your experiences do not match mine. ON A GOOD FLOW, and a populace hive, 5.1 foundation was drawn out as well as normal cell, and 4.9 drawn with some mistakes, but still a functional frame. Our suspicions where that the A.m. melifera(sp?) was more inclined to make small cells than lingusta(sp?). 

Crazy Roland


----------



## Solomon Parker

And this was in the honey super?


----------



## Oldtimer

Hi DeKnow, well I see your post 294 is addressed entirely to me again. There are other people in the discussion also.

The only comment I'd make on what you've asked me is that the Seeley study is not the only study, and other methods have been used in other studies, the result has been the same though. But since you seem to be talking to me in particular, my position is I'm not a defender, or an attacker, of these study / studies. I'm neutral, I'm happy to learn from them, whatever may be learned. And regardless of this or that method used, and wether we say this study was wrong here and this study was wrong there, results are similar.

I think it's because that magic thing, whatever it is that happens or doesn't happen, in the hives of successful small cellers, but not in the hives of the failed small cellers, has not been isolated yet.

But hey, first things first. I pm'ed you my address for the book, but have not heard anything back yet.


----------



## Fusion_power

Roland, Mellifera is no more and no less adapted to small cell than Ligustica. All of them have been affected by 100 years of beekeepers using large cell and selection for larger bees. The result is that most bees have the wrong size yard stick to use when measuring cells as they build comb. Did you know honeybees use their forelegs as calipers to size cells? One caveat is that if you are using Mellifera obtained from feral colonies, you might indeed get better comb building on small cell since they tend to have a much greater range of size than selected stock from queen breeders.

One of my early observations was that a colony that is adapted to small cell really does have smaller bees. I have a control colony from small cell stock that is currently on large cell combs. They still produce small bees and you don't have to do more than just look at them to know they are small. The difference is most visible just after a new bee has emerged.

This is why I suspect that small cell comb selects for smaller bees that have shorter development time and therefore biases the colony toward less efficient reproduction by varroa mites.

DarJones


----------



## Solomon Parker

You put small cell bees onto large cells? Surely Alastair will want to hear all about this!!!


----------



## Barry

I find it's more complicated than this. I can easily see smaller bees seasonly. Fall and early spring you will see a size difference in the bees. However, once brood rearing gets well underway and nectar starts coming in, you will not see any difference in bee sizes, even tho brood is still being reared in those small cells. Yet it's said that bees will not change in thorax size from pre emergence to post uncapping.

Interesting that you say: "The difference is most visible just after a new bee has emerged."


----------



## Oldtimer

From my limited experience, I've noticed the same thing.


----------



## Oldtimer

Solomon Parker said:


> You put small cell bees onto large cells? Surely Alastair will want to hear all about this!!!


It's something that's been discussed in the past. I'm not going to put sc bees on lc, but rather I'll let sc bees build natural comb to see what size the worker cells turn out in my area after the bees have regressed from small cell a few times. But it's just a purely academic investigation, not really much practicle value to it.

But first I need bees that are truely regressed to small cell, my oldest sc hive is not a year old yet so the NC experiment will have to wait probably a couple of years.


----------



## camero7

I run PF-100's and foundationless interspersed in many of my hives. I see different size workers throughout the year. The foundationless tend to have smaller cells in the center of the frame and they get larger moving out from the center.


----------



## Roland

Fusion-power wrote:

One caveat is that if you are using Mellifera obtained from feral colonies, you might indeed get better comb building on small cell since they tend to have a much greater range of size than selected stock from queen breeders.

Touche!

This is why I suspect that small cell comb selects for smaller bees that have shorter development time and therefore biases the colony toward less efficient reproduction by varroa mites.

And again!!!m Ouch!!! hit hit it on the nose.

Is 14 days from a swarm landing to a queen cell hatching fast?

Crazy Roland


----------



## deknow

camero7 said:


> I run PF-100's and foundationless interspersed in many of my hives. I see different size workers throughout the year. The foundationless tend to have smaller cells in the center of the frame and they get larger moving out from the center.


Cam, don't forget that since the PF frames are rather "fixed" in cell size, virtually all drones (and "honey storage" cells) are on the foundationless frames. Root noted that on frames with non-uniform cells, that the cells tend to be a bit bigger...and this is amplified by the fact that virtually all of the non uniform cells are concentrated on (half?) the frames....doubling the effect? Increasing it exponentially?

deknow


----------



## deknow

Oldtimer said:


> Hi DeKnow, well I see your post 294 is addressed entirely to me again. There are other people in the discussion also.


No, the post was not addressed "entirely" to you. You are an example of what someone that is actually interested in learning about something does....ask those with experience. Seeley wasted two years because he didn't. Aren't you glad you didn't pay for two years work trying to draw SC comb in honey supers? I certainly wish the USDA hadn't.

"Results" from flawed assumptions, procedures, and studies are worthless unless those assumptions, procedures and studies are examined and evaluated....a lack of willingness to do so is your business. If the "only comment" you can make on my critique of the Seeley study is that there are other studies, then I think I've made my point...it's almost worthless. Are the other researchers less prone to errors than Seeley? Should we not examine them as well to see what was done?

We were sold out of books, but more came in yesterday...I will certainly send one to you. I'm not sure what you expected to hear from me..

deknow


----------



## camero7

deknow said:


> Cam, don't forget that since the PF frames are rather "fixed" in cell size, virtually all drones (and "honey storage" cells) are on the foundationless frames. Root noted that on frames with non-uniform cells, that the cells tend to be a bit bigger...and this is amplified by the fact that virtually all of the non uniform cells are concentrated on (half?) the frames....doubling the effect? Increasing it exponentially?
> 
> deknow


I agree. However, I do have several PF-100's that are full of honey. The end PF-100 in the box almost always is full of honey with a few drone cells.


----------



## Riskybizz

I for one am at this point cancelling my subscriptions to Bee Culture and ABJ. Barry, this thread is infinitely more rewarding (and entertaining) than staring at the same old advertisements month after month. So thanks for providing the medium to allow such communication to take place. One variable I have not seen mentioned is geographic location and climate, as it relates to mite counts in general. I have been informed (Randy Oliver) that mite counts here in northern New Mexico are extremely low for one reason or another. Now please don’t all load up the trucks and consider moving your bees here. Besides, we’re in the desert and everyone knows you can’t make much honey in the desert anyways so. Lusby is also in the desert, even more so than me.


----------



## REN

Solomon, I must say, thank you for pointing me to this thread! I'm intrigued! This is exactly the type of discussion that we should be having. I've only read half of the posts, which has only indicated to me how little I know and understand. I'll continue reading tommorow, as my girlfriend just showed up at my house and is irritated that I'm not paying any attention to her! Based on my small sample size, SC discussions on a Friday night significantly restrict the happiness of your girlfriend. I'm pretty sure that my conclusion is sound, despite the small sample size. Best,

Bob


----------

