# Historical Small Cell Measurements



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi Guys,

David Heaf, whose working on an article on natural comb cell size, sent me a neat link:

http://www.heaf.freeuk.com/zeissloff_cell_size_en.pdf

What do you think? Have cells been artificially enlarged?

Regards
Dennis
Thinking small works, but it's not natural.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

Interesting (but _deep_) reading, Dennis. Thanks for posting!

If it's accurate that "natural cell" sizes were historically similar to commercially-available foundation and comb, perhaps the "regression" to small cell is actually an "evolution" brought about by the selective pressures imparted by _Varroa_ mites?


----------



## Hobie (Jun 1, 2006)

Just because it is different from what was in the past, does not mean it is not "natural." Like Kieck said - it could be evolution at work. I tend to think "natural" cell size is what bees would build in the wild. And what's natural for one colony may not be the same for another. Just like we can not say humans have a single "natural" eye color.


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi Guys,

I hadn't thought about smaller cell size being an adaption by the bees. Interesting. Selective pressure could sure be applied in that direction as recent reports from SA indicate their bees struggled for about 3 years with varroa before some kind of equilibrium appeared.

Regards
Dennis
And maybe beekeepers are evolving too :>)


----------



## Alienor (Mar 16, 2005)

BWrangler said:


> And maybe beekeepers are evolving too :>)


Oh yes, and for my evolving you and M.Bush are responsible...
My first step away from conventional beekeeping was to sc in 2002, and nowadays I have nature comb in broodboxes and the honey supers, all with a comb distance of 32mm, on the way to become certified as organic and with healthy untreated bees without varroa problems.
So my sincere thanks for your work on your website!


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> What do you think? 
> Have cells been artificially enlarged?

Let's assume for the moment that larger celled foundation was 
produced, sold, and used.

But what of countries where foundation was never available due to
the high cost of foundation and the lack of money to pay for such
things? Consider, for example the islands of the Caribbean.

How could the larger foundation have influenced bees in these isolated
locations where foundation was simply not affordable?

And as the bees in these isolated locations are experiencing the same
varroa problems as we have seen in the "Developed Nations", what does
this imply? 

To cross-check your answer, pick your favorite nation or island and 
type the name of the place into a search engine, followed by "+varroa"
to find mentions of varroa in connection with that place.

To summarize:

1) No foundation used, and no regular imports of bees

2) Therefore, bees should be "natural" or "small" cell bees

3) But these bees are plagued by varroa

Reasonable conclusions are one or the other of either:

a) These bees were never "small cell"

b) These bees are "small cell", but still crash from varroa in large enough
numbers for the locals to scrape up the money for miticides

I've mentioned this before, and got knee-jerk reactions, but no reasoned
discussion.


----------



## beewhisper (Feb 17, 2007)

Mr. Fisher you may be onto something . I never thought about it that way. I have been thinking of going to small cell but now I really don't see the point. Maybe I should just try to remain chemical free in traditional comb.
Beewhisper


----------



## drobbins (Jun 1, 2005)

I'm sure there are other places in the world that Jim could make his point but the caribe is interesting to me 
how have AHB spread there?
are they widespread?
they seem to be reported to draw smaller cells and be tolerant of varroa
inquiring minds want to know

Dave


----------



## Bud Dingler (Feb 8, 2008)

*small cell is snake oil wrapped in a granola wrapper*

all we have is a SW beeks interesting long term experience in the middle of Africanized Honey bee Country and a large number of backyard and sideliner beeks. 

no scientific proof exists that it works and Jennifer Berry's recent results support the idea that something else is at play. 

dink colonies can survive without treatments much longer then 3 story boomers. when this house of cards falls down completely within the next 18 months from additional research in the pipeline I expect that the Small cell cult will claim conspiracy and refuse to budge. 

IMO this will remain a belief system to those who drink the kool aid and believe, the rest of us who believe in science have already moved on.

(if you're going to flame me on this please show me a list of beeks who run small cell AND make a FULL TIME LIVING from their bees or I'm afraid I'm not interested in hearing it)


----------



## odfrank (May 13, 2002)

*I have tried and failed for five years.*

I have in a fair and open minded manner tried and tested small cell for five years now in about 10% of my colonies, and followed Dee Lusby's Organic Yahoo Group. My conclusions:

Dee Lusby's claim that it helps with "secondary diseases" is not true. Two of my small cell colonies got AFB and were destroyed. These are my only AFB in years.

My varroa, winter and "CCD" loses have been equal to my large cell hives. Twice on side by side LC and SC colonies tested next to each other, the SC died off long before the LC.

I have never produced a large honey crop off of any small cell colonies. One did draw out two deep supers of SC comb from foundation and fill them with honey. Small cell combs are very hard to uncap by hand.

Drawing out good SC foundation that is not all wavy and wacky is "extremely" difficult. I commend Dadant for warning that it should only be used by experienced beekeepers. The venerable old supply house clearly recognized that there is problems with the idea.

The SC'ers now claim the SC colonies must be an apiary by themselves to be successful. I have created that just a few weeks back by moving my three remaining SC colonies to a separate site. Someone mentioned "SC cult". That reminds me of a cult that went of to Gyana by themselves, and never came back.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Bud Dingler said:


> (if you're going to flame me on this please show me a list of beeks who run small cell AND make a FULL TIME LIVING from their bees or I'm afraid I'm not interested in hearing it)


So for something to be "valid" in your eyes, the bar is set to your above comment. That's fine, but understand that in my world of beekeeping (and a lot of others), there are a lot more hobby and sideline beekeepers, by far. You have something against those that are able to manage their hives in a way that a commercial outfit can't?


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

odfrank said:


> I have in a fair and open minded manner tried and tested small cell for five years now in about 10% of my colonies, and followed Dee Lusby's Organic Yahoo Group. My conclusions:
> 
> [snip]
> 
> The SC'ers now claim the SC colonies must be an apiary by themselves to be successful. I have created that just a few weeks back by moving my three remaining SC colonies to a separate site. Someone mentioned "SC cult". That reminds me of a cult that went of to Gyana by themselves, and never came back.


Since approaching Dee years ago and working with her to get all her information on the net and having many, many, many conversations with her, she has always made a point about converting whole yards to SC, not just a few hives here and there, so I'm not sure where you got the understanding this is "new."


----------



## Keith Benson (Feb 17, 2003)

Barry said:


> Since approaching Dee years ago and working with her to get all her information on the net and having many, many, many conversations with her, she has always made a point about converting whole yards to SC, not just a few hives here and there, so I'm not sure where you got the understanding this is "new."


Barry, I know Dee has been saying it for years, but she's been pretty much saying that everyone should switch to a small cell in all their hives. 

I haven't seen some of the other small cell folks, or really Dee herself, harping on the "don't mix your cell sizes in the same bee yard" point until some studies that were less than complimentary to small cell were published. It did appear that this point came up only after some studies were done where there were both large cell and small cell hives in the same yard, and the results were not particularly complimentary to small cells. Now whether or not that's actually true in terms of timing and so forth, I don't know, but it certainly could appear that way.

Depending on your point of view, it does sometimes appear as if some of the proponents of small cell are bound and determined to critique any study that suggests that small cell is not the panacea for bees, and give undue credit anything that might lend credence to the small cell method. Of course many of the more vocal small cell aficionados would patently deny this. I suspect the truth is somewhere in between.

Keith

PS: I have used, and still use small cell foundation. Whether or not it's any better than large cell foundation, I haven't decided for myself.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

..as one who has drank the kool-aid, i would offer the following.

people seem to like to pick and choose what they are seeing. if you look at the lusby bees, you see:

1. SC foundation made with clean wax (new research from penn state seems to indicate that virtually all commercial hives, and probably all foundation is highly contaminated with fluvalinate and cumaphos, as well as other ag chems).

2. Bees selected from survivors. it's published all over the web the their operation went from about 1000 to under 100 before breeding back up....not buying packages.

3. Not feeding sugar or corn syrup. Leaving plenty of honey on the hives is a priority that comes before harvesting a honey crop. feeding syrup stimulates bees out of season, and obscures their ability to work with what is actually happening in their environmnent (capped honey does not do this). the ph of sugar is also conducive to growing several bee diseases.

4. Her bees are largely isolated from chem use, and other bees...as Barry pointed out, she does not mix sizes.

5. Her bees are not migratory and in well chosen locations for continual forage throught the season.

people seem to want another "treatement" to fight mites/disease...and they pick small cell, "prove it doesn't work"...but this is nothing more than a straw man. 

you want to reproduce results? try reproducing the conditions of the actual example...what has been done thus far isn't even really trying. What "study" of small cell has left 3 deep boxes for wintering stores? what study has been long term? what study has used only clean wax? what study isolates the sc from the lc geographically? what study isn't using factory queens?

imho, the proper study to do would be to first replicate the operation completely, then try to eliminate vairibles if need be...but there are a lot of important factors in the lusby bees that are not being addressed by any of these studies.

deknow


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> It did appear that this point came up only after some studies were done where there were both large cell and small cell hives in the same yard, and the results were not particularly complimentary to small cells.


It wasn't so much the "hive proximity" as much as the sudden appearance of a theory 
of "mite leveling", proffered as an explanation for the "no different from
controls" results obtained by multiple studies.

"Mite leveling" was a claim that a few mites introduced into an otherwise
mite-free colony by drifting bees could somehow result in a mite population 
equal to the mite populations of the mite-infested colonies from which the mites were introduced. The problem with the claim is that mite reproduction takes time, and the infestation levels would never become equal in the scenarios offered. The infested colonies would become more and more in infested, and the newly-infested colonies would never catch up.

Of course, the Berry findings that mites per 100 cells were higher in
small-cell colonies at a statistically significant level prompts one to wonder
if the theory of "mite leveling" can be somehow modified to explain away
even those additional results.

Of course, the only advice one can offer is to manage one's bees based
upon the best science available, but even this advice has been consistently
met with open hostility from those who feel somehow compelled to "save beekeeping" from itself.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Keith Benson said:


> Depending on your point of view, it does sometimes appear as if some of the proponents of small cell are bound and determined to critique any study that suggests that small cell is not the panacea for bees, and give undue credit anything that might lend credence to the small cell method. Of course many of the more vocal small cell aficionados would patently deny this. I suspect the truth is somewhere in between.


I suspect it is too.

One thing about the Berry study that ought to be considered, is that the SC bees that were provided for the study (by Bill) were already healthy stable colonies before the study. I'm sure (correct me if I'm wrong here) the mites were not imposing significant health problems to the hives. The higher mite counts were far different than what were in those hives prior to the study, were they not? I'm assuming here as I haven't asked these questions of Bill firsthand.


----------



## odfrank (May 13, 2002)

Quote:you want to reproduce results? try reproducing the conditions of the actual example...what has been done thus far isn't even really trying. What "study" of small cell has left 3 deep boxes for wintering stores? what study has been long term? what study has used only clean wax? what study isolates the sc from the lc geographically? what study isn't using factory queens?imho, the proper study to do would be to first replicate the operation completely, then try to eliminate vairibles if need be...but there are a lot of important factors in the lusby bees that are not being addressed by any of these

What good would a study do that show that replicating Lusby's methods prove they are right?

What percent of beekeepers can meet these requirements:

Clean wax, survivor breeders, isolated locations, continual forage throughout the season, no LC neighbors?

What good is the method if it is unattainable by the masses, and actually only a minute percentage? 

I have tried: no feeding, no migratory neighbors, survivor feral bees, continual year round forage. Didn't Dadant start manufacturing the SC foundation at Lusby's request? If one of her specifications wasn't clean wax, aren't we all wasting our money buying it?


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

i don't have the video transfered yet, by Maryann Frazier spoke at our bee club yesterday.

1 sample each from 5 foundation suppliers were tested, and all had levels of fluvalinate and cumaphos that are harmful to honeybees. this isn't published yet, and in the video, i turned the camera away from the slides with data results, but you can hear her clearly say what is on them.

so, yes, i think buying foundation is a bad idea. i've been doing foundationless for a few years, and don't see any reason to use foundation.

deknow


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

to answer your other question:

replicating the lusbys methods would show that it can be done. then you have a working control to compare variations with. given that it's almost definitely a combination of factors that explains their success, it doesn't make much sense to test each component separately, as it's entirely possible that not a single one will have a measurable difference in any way...but that in combination the benefits show. 

deknow


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi Guys,

Just some more thoughts.

I can't speak for J. Berry, but I'll bet she wouldn't be doing a study if there weren't some valid reason for it. I suspect she saw something, beyond hearsay, in that small cell beekeeper's bees, that warranted spending some money and taking a look. 

Just one of the small cell beekeepers,I know, is located in the SW. Most of the rest of them are located in northern climates situated mostly in the USA and Europe. And I've spoken to a couple in the Caribbean. 

Caution--Small Rant Ahead :>)))

From my own perspective, I've learned more about bees and beekeeping as a hobby beekeeper than I ever did as a commercial beekeeper. As a hobbyist, I had more time, energy and disposable money to try something as crazy sounding as small cell. I mark that point in my beekeeping as real beginning of my bee husbandry. My commercial beekeeping starting in 1968, was the beginning of my box building, box lifting, box moving and box painting experience. :>))) My commercial bee experience demonstrated how adaptable and tough the bee is, rather than how knowledgeable I was.

From what I've seen, commercial beekeeping in the USA, is a shot of Taktic, a squirt of Mavrik, a measure of oxalic and two checkmite strips wrapped in a blue shop towel. Or worse. And I won't mention the worse by name as some beekeeper will figure if the commercial guys are doing it, it's got to be the best.

Will the bees survive this? Can beekeepers make a living this way? Time will tell. It might turn out, that continuing to run on the insecticide treamill, won't get a commercial beekeeper very far.

I think, with the current direction of things, there's going to be at least a two tiered honey market. The upper tier will be those who can produce honey without any chems. This honey will be coveted by the health concious and will command a top price. The rest will come from those who must treat to survive. If it meets some minimal specs, it will compete at the very bottom of the market.

It might be, that with the way most commercial pollinators are running their hives, that honey from them wouldn't eventually even be salable.

Oop's Bigger Rant than Planned.

Regards
Dennis
Thinking beekeeping and love have something in common. Neither can be valued by quantity worked, or money made.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

BWrangler said:


> beekeeping and love have something in common. Neither can be valued by quantity worked, or money made.


Yea, that would look good on a shirt!!


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi Guys,

Levels of beeswax contamination have been measured worldwide for almost two decades. It's late and I'm working from memory, but I think it originally took less than 20 ppm fluvalinate to kill mites. Beeswax quickly became contaminated at about 20ppm worldwide, except for the wild stuff coming out of Africa.

Decades later the average levels were almost 10 times that in the worldwide beeswax supply. This wax would have been sufficient, by itself to kill mites a decade earlier.

I don't know what it is today. I stopped following it when I no longer needed to treat mites in my hives.

Regards
Dennis


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> It might turn out, that continuing to run on the insecticide treadmill, 
> won't get a commercial beekeeper very far.

The presumption that anyone not using "small cell" must be on
"the pesticide treadmill" is rash, an assumption that betrays
what can only be described at this point as a willful disregard for
widely available information.

There are lots of hives surviving without miticide treatments, and only
a tiny fraction of them have messed around with cell size. There are
now a number of physiological attacks on varroa that defy any sort
of adaptation/resistance. There are even beekeepers like Bill Owens,
who appear to have made Russian hybrids and other lines of bees
"work for them".

Beekeeping is agriculture, and I don't expect a backyard beekeeper
to understand/comprehend/agree with the issues of concern to
a large-scale professional any more than I would expect someone
who grows herbs in flower boxes to understand/comprehend/agree 
with the issues that concern a farmer with a few hundred acres to
farm.

If beekeeping is "love", understand that you have allowed emotion
to so broadly sway your judgment that you have redefined the
very motivation for your involvement to be an emotional one.
If this is the case, you simply have less in common with someone
who keeps bees for profit, but you certainly have no basis for
taking an arrogant stance in regard to dedication, skills, or motives
of others.

This might be described as the "_delusional merry-go-round_",
a device just as hazardous as the "pesticide treadmill", perhaps
more dangerous, as it clearly affects the ability of the victim to
think clearly and rationally. 

> I can't speak for J. Berry, but I'll bet....

Don't "bet", don't put words in her mouth, ask her. 
You'll be surprised at the answer.
You may have to beg her to "be blunt with you" about her rationale of
selecting the subject she selected for study.


----------



## Alienor (Mar 16, 2005)

Just another thought.
What is the normal lifespan of a bee's nest in nothern climates?
A queen can reach an age of 4 - 6 yrs but normally not in the same nest.
She will swarm after her first year, at least after her second.
After swarming the bee's genetics in the hive change with the mating of the new queen.
The old lady continues with the swarm at another place and on fresh comb.
So in 6 yrs you will have at least 3 genetic different populations in the same broodnest, sometimes up to 6 if they swarm every year.
Is it possible that the old broodnest simply doesn't fit anymore to the bees after some years?
Here in Germany winter losses always were around 20%, also in pre-varroa-times.
Before the invention of syrup feeding they were up to 50%, due to the dark honey of the woods in south germany, which is causing digesting problems for the bees, and nosema.
Maybe we are on a wrong track to expect our bees living permanent at the same place on the same old comb?
In the last 2 yrs I switchted to nature comb allover in the hives, with a comb distance of 32mm, without any treatment.
In spring I'm making small packages with the old queen in a special way and put them in a fresh hive and feed them with thinned honey while they are building comb.
Kind of "artificial swarming" ,-)
I'm estimating that the old colonies will live only 5 or 6 yrs before they will die in winter, due to whatever.
It seems to me that this is just the circle of life for a bee's nesting site.
Than in nature the wax moths will come, clean up the cave and it's ready for the arrival of the next swarm.
I read a lot of historic bee books and talked to old beekeepers and I couldn't find that any cave or hive was used by the bees over a long time span without interruption.
After some years they always abscond.
And here we have a wide variability in the climate; I can't remember 2 similar years.
In winter 2005/06 we had temperature drop down to -25°C and the bees were banned to the hives for exactly 6 months, in 06/07 they were foraging in the yellow mustard until 15th of December and could fly again in mid of February.
So nature is selecting.
My conclusion is to accept it as it is, because I can't change it.
I take care of my bees as best as I can but I can't fight against nature and the climate.
And I myself will die some day, whatever I will do or leave. 
Nature. Life.


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi Jim and Everyone,

>a willful disregard for widely available information.

>There are lots of hives surviving without miticide treatments, and only
>a tiny fraction of them have messed around with cell size. There are
>now a number of physiological attacks on varroa that defy any sort
>of adaptation/resistance. There are even beekeepers like Bill Owens,
>who appear to have made Russian hybrids and other lines of bees
>"work for them".

Well, I do know of a few, not alot, beekeepers who are running bees the same old way, without treatments and have reported surviving the mites. But rash is a little harsh. I would suggest that you pick a country and Google it's name with varroa and see what you find! Looks like lots more beekeepers are more worried about treating mites than not treating them. Gee, where did get this Googling idea. It's a great one :>)))

In fact more beekeepers are looking for more treatment options and are treating more often than ever. I've talked to a few commercials guys and most treat at least twice a year. Those living in more tropical climates are treating four times and as often as six times a year just to survive. Their bees are as sick as ever. Combs are contaminated. Queens burn out faster. They're superseded earlier. Overwintering is a bigger problem. And honey production is down. Doesn't look like conventional beekeeping has "turned the corner". OR maybe they have and it's the same old corner as before :>)))

Jim do you need to treat your bees?

And I've tried the Russian route as well. In fact I bought a very expensive breeder from the first batch released. And several AIed Russian queens from the Glenns after that. They resisted the mites much better than any of my bees at the time. But they still eventually succumbed. But they had no problems with mites when on small cell But neither did my other bees.

At that point mite tolerance became irrelevant. And other characteristics became more important. I culled the Russians from my bees because they constantly head butted me and followed an excessive distance from the beeyard.

>Beekeeping is agriculture, and I don't expect a backyard beekeeper
>to understand/comprehend/agree with the issues of concern to
>a large-scale professional any more than I would expect someone
>who grows herbs in flower boxes to understand/comprehend/agree
>with the issues that concern a farmer with a few hundred acres to
>farm.

Actually, although I've made my living in agriculture for more than a decade, I'm living in Boynton Beach Florida. Living in Boynton Beach is just like living in New York City, except with palm trees. It's got the same culture, same mentality. Guess we have something in common. But I suspect, agricultural experience isn't one of them :>))) In south Florida, 2 acres is a farm, five is a ranch.

The issues that confront a commercial farmer or beekeeper are indeed different than those with a flower box or a few hundred acres. Most commercial guys spend much of their time worried about the pimping them part. How to get as much bang for the buck. How to keep disease in check. And how to squeezed out as much profit as possible.

It's a different situation for the hobby beekeeper, not withstanding the dedication, skills or motives displayed by each kind of beekeeper. They each have a different focus. One focuses on pimping bees, the other on the bees themselves. Who do you think has the time, energy and money to know more about the bees?

>If beekeeping is "love", understand that you have allowed emotion
>to so broadly sway your judgment that you have redefined the
>very motivation for your involvement to be an emotional one.
>If this is the case, you simply have less in common with someone
>who keeps bees for profit, but you certainly have no basis for
>taking an arrogant stance in regard to dedication, skills, or motives
>of others.

I said that beekeeping and love have something in common. I didn't say that "bee keeping is love".

But, I confess I was ranting away and have returned to edit my post. Self moderation is a good thing. I sure felt better afterward. You ought to try it. :>))))

Actually, as a commercial beekeeper, I was on a "delusional merry-go-round" which includes the pesticide treadmill. I was a scientific beekeeper following and implementing all the latest and greatest pumped out by the universities. And I was ahead of some of them by knowing about and implementing research that's ahead of that in this country. Yep, I've got dirty hands with blue shop towels as well. How do you think, I know about? By reading googling it!

My bees were the best this kind of beekeeping system could offer. They were probably just like yours. They were just like all the commercial guys I knew. And I thought that was pretty good until I experienced something so much better.

And that much better experience has shown me just how really pathetic that other way was. Just how sick the bees are. Just how much time and money is needlessly spent trying to kept boxes filled, bees alive and still produce some honey. And how bankrupt that whole conventional approach to beekeeping is, especially the kind practiced by most commercial beekeepers.

Concerning J Berry's research, what I meant to say was that her research appears grounded, reasonable, and rationale. If I have to contact her privately and beg her to be blunt, then maybe I've been wrong in my assessments of her public statements.

But it doesn't really matter. I won't spend much time on it. I don't know her. I'm not interesting in corresponding with her. I could care less about her personal motivation. I won't beg her for anything. And I don't need anything from her including her research.

Although I'm interesting in what she's doing, counting mite fall from different cell hives is an old, tired story with little practical value for me. You see, I've done it for myself and don't need someone to tell me how or if. And I don't need to extrapolate the results either, as what I've counted has been proved out through time.

Regards
Dennis


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> Although I'm interesting in what she's doing, counting mite fall from 
> different cell hives is an old, tired story with little practical value for me.

I realize that you haven't time to bother with minor details, but what
was counted in her study was mites per worker brood cell. Tells a
very different story from mite fall.

> You see, I've done it for myself and don't need someone to tell me how 
> or if. And I don't need to extrapolate the results either, as what I've
> counted has been proved out through time.

How nice that you know it all, and have no need of new work to
update your knowledge! Please enlighten us. Me, I still have a lot 
to learn, as I was only able to gross slight over a million bucks in the
decade I had an operation large enough to be called "commercial".


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Keith Benson said:


> It did appear that this point came up only after some studies were done where there were both large cell and small cell hives in the same yard, and the results were not particularly complimentary to small cells.


It might appear this way, but it just isn't so. I had this conversation with her and Ed when I decided to try SC. They said I needed change over all my hives at the same time and we discussed the whole mite load issue. This is also stated in the Biobee archives for sure. In fact, this got me thinking again about the archives and I stayed up working on them again. Still a lot of work to do to get them all "live", but it's all in there.

http://www.beesource.com/bee-l/bioarchive/index.htm


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

> They said I needed change over all my hives at the same time and we discussed the whole mite load issue. -Barry


I'm curious about this comment. Why "all?" Why shouldn't/couldn't/wouldn't you change over all hives in one yard, at least, but leave all others in another yard?

The problem that I see with this approach is that it eliminates the controls so necessary to determine whether the cell size is the crucial part of the equation. Nothing personal here, but, except for Dennis and his experiments moving SC bees back onto LC, the people who proclaim their success with SC seem to have no controls for comparison. In fact, they seem to object to controls in experiments. Why?

And the controlled studies now showing little or no difference based strictly on cell size seem to receive criticism from those who conducted "uncontrolled experiments" and have had success because of. . . well, what? Cell size? Extreme selective pressure by mites on their bees? Other management changes?


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi Jim and Everyone,

>How nice that you know it all, and have no need of new work to update your knowledge!

Oh, by the way, thanks for posting the link to JB's presentation on Bee-L:
http://www.bee-quick.com/presentations/jen/SNEBA_jen_small_cell.mp3

What she's done isn't new. I counted and compared mite load on small and large cell hives 8 years ago. What JB did doesn't update my knowledge. It's ancient history.

That's why, although interested in her work, it's of little value to me. She monitored mites using one method. I used another. Both are valid. And both were just a means to an end. That is: can small cell colonies tolerate mites without treatment?

Did her research answer the question? For her it did, when, after 8 months, if I calculated right, she found a higher percentage of mites in the small cell colonies. And is now moving on to document the effects of dumping pesticides into beehives.

After my first 8 months on small cell, things were just starting to get interesting. For me, it wasn't the end. It was just barely the beginning. Won't hash through all that now, as you know about it. But the end of my little test didn't stop with a mite count. It stopped when I no longer needed to treat bees for mites to keep them alive. And they remained alive, productive and untreated, for an additional 7 years, until I gave them away last June. Seems like I had a little more time to be "bothered with" it than some others. :>))))

JB had some good advice. I think I will continue to run bees without treating them. It works for me.

>Please enlighten us....

I won't step on your turf. How could I, a hiveless, ex-hobbiest, know more about the bees than someone who has so successfully pimped them?

Just one more question, again. Do you need to treat your hives for varroa? And if so, what do you use?

Dennis


----------



## Keith Benson (Feb 17, 2003)

Barry said:


> It might appear this way, but it just isn't so. I had this conversation with her and Ed when I decided to try SC.


That's why I said it the way I did. I wasn't there for those conversations I'm merely suggesting that he could look that way to some folks. I would also argue that some of the more verbal "disciples" also appeared to start harping on that later in the game when it appeared that there was something out there that did not support their position.

Again I'm not saying that's the way it is, merely the way it appeared. There is a reason why a lot of people seem to think that the small cell proponents will do anything to discredit any study that suggests small cell isn't all it's cracked up to be, and will support any bit of data no matter how tangental that could be fashioned into support for small cell.


Keith


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Kieck said:


> I'm curious about this comment. Why "all?" Why shouldn't/couldn't/wouldn't you change over all hives in one yard, at least, but leave all others in another yard?


Seeing that I only had one yard, the advice is obvious. Even with several yards, depending on how close they are to each other, Lusby's experience still stands that there is mite transfer between hives, especially when downsizing combs. Things just start to get interesting after the first year of regression. In another thread about chewed mites, one will see this take place during the second year with the bees uncapping brood and chewing out the pupa to rid the hive of mites.



> The problem that I see with this approach is that it eliminates the controls so necessary to determine whether the cell size is the crucial part of the equation.


I feel safe saying this for those of us who went this route years ago, we weren't interested in controls or determining the why. We wanted to replicate what the Lusby's were doing and have bees that didn't require treatments.

I have to laugh. Back then, I figured I had to jump in 100 percent and do it by the book, or I'd never hear the end of people criticizing me for doing it a different way. Now I get criticized for being so narrow in my focus because I didn't run control hives. 



> And the controlled studies now showing little or no difference based strictly on cell size seem to receive criticism from those who conducted "uncontrolled experiments" and have had success because of. . . well, what? Cell size? Extreme selective pressure by mites on their bees? Other management changes?


Yep, there's still lots of why questions.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

> Lusby's experience still stands that there is mite transfer between hives, especially when downsizing combs. -Barry


I don't doubt some transfer occurs. I do doubt that so many mites transfer as to produce the results seen in Jennifer Berry's study. Based on those numbers, almost every phoretic mite would have to transfer, and they would have to deliberately be seeking SC bees. Otherwise, the numbers would not be close to equal.

Either that, or similar numbers of mites are being raised in both LC and SC hives. Of course, then any transfer becomes negligible, from a practical standpoint.



> I feel safe saying this for those of us who went this route years ago, we weren't interested in controls or determining the why. We wanted to replicate what the Lusby's were doing and have bees that didn't require treatments. -Barry


That's fair, and sounds accurate enough.

But how do you get, "SC controls mite populations," from those experiences?



> Now I get criticized for being so narrow in my focus because I didn't run control hives. -Barry


No, my criticism lies in using no controls, yet proclaiming that simply switching to SC will eliminate the need for synthetic treatments to control _Varroa_.

I think you (and others) can accurately state, "I changed my management strategies, including switching to SC (or natural cell) among other changes, and I have not had to use pesticide treatments in my hives since then."

That differs from, "Once you switch to SC, _Varroa_ are no longer a problem."



> Yep, there's still lots of why questions. -Barry


I don't think we're to the "why" yet. I think we're still on, "Does SC offer some advantage against _Varroa_?"

See, I believe such a system would be great, if it could and would work just that simply. Imagine it -- all beekeepers have to do to avoid their lingering problems with _Varroa_ is shift average cell sizes in their honey comb! Think of the benefits of no longer having to spend hours monitoring pest populations! Think of the potential in increased profits for beekeepers who no longer have to spend money on pesticides! Think of the reduced risks to beekeepers who no longer apply organophosphates or pyrethroids or organic acids! Such a management tool would be wondrous! *If* it works that simply.


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi Guys,

When starting out with small cell, I didn't exactly follow the Lusby's protocol. I tried to follow the principle of it adapted to my much shorter season and with a few twists of my own. I didn't do a shake down. Early brood was too precious. Rather, I transfered sealed brood, two frames of honey, two frames of empty drone comb(from my queen rearing) and the bees. I had equal amounts of both large and small cell hives in the same yard.

When I saw the small cell bees actively detect and remove mite infected pupa, I put all the bees, in that yard, on small cell. No controls at all. But I did "un-regressed" a few hives into clean, large cell comb as a test, for later, I had the same kind of questions.

I still have lots of questions about the triggering methods for mite removal and the factors that allow a hive on small cell to tolerate mites. I know that, although genetics are important, it's not the only factor. All the different commercial strains I've tried were mite tolerant on small cell. Beekeeping skill? I pampered them and ignored them without any difference in mite tolerance.

I too, don't like all the quibbling over multiple small details. A method that's useful has to be robust enough to withstand the wide range of conditions beekeepers experience. I favor a sink of float test and that takes time.

And time is the one common element I observed with most small cell beekeepers. Regardless of what one calls it, it takes one season for mite/bees/regression to stabilize. Then it takes another season for the bees to realize an advantage. And a third season for the beekeeper to fully experience all the benefits.

Regards
Dennis


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi Jim and Everyone,

On another note and all banter aside, I must commend Jim Fisher for his ability, as a commercial beekeeper, to make a million dollars profit in a decade. A commercial beekeeper is first a businessman and then a beekeeper. And when the uncertainties of beekeeping are combined with market prices, that are/have often been lower than the cost of production, it's a combination that has forced many good beekeepers out of business.

A more typical financial scenario, for a commercial beekeeper, requires the use of an outside source of income to initially pay for all capital expenses. Opportunity costs, like family members wages, and medical insurance, etc. are often ignored until a bee business can carry its own direct operating expenses. Then, if all goes well and it often doesn't, a beekeeper begins to realize a profit by ignoring those initial costs.

A commercial beekeeper has to love what he's doing. For, with the same amount of time, effort and dedication, he, and especially his family, would be financially better off doing anything else.

My heart is in commercial beekeeping. That's the only kind of beekeeping I knew until I left it. Then I discovered that hobby beekeeping isn't a dumbed down, scaled down version of commercial beekeeping. It's a different kind of experience with lots of positives and opportunities that a commercial beekeeper seldom experiences. As a hobby beekeeper, I realized that I enjoyed the bees themselves more than the business of bees. 

My hat's off to you.

Regards
Dennis
In agriculture it's easy to gross millions and net less than nothing, especially over an extended timeframe.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Kieck said:


> But how do you get, "SC controls mite populations," from those experiences?


When you have multiple people doing the same thing and the one common element is SC, I think it's pretty safe to say what was at work here, affecting the outcome across the board. No, I can't prove it. Just using common sense. I'm open to be proven wrong. How are your tests coming?



> No, my criticism lies in using no controls, yet proclaiming that simply switching to SC will eliminate the need for synthetic treatments to control _Varroa_.


"That retrogression must be both physical pertaining to (1) the beekeeping equipment used; (2) the way honeybees are bred."
http://www.beesource.com/pov/lusby/part18.htm

"The whole hive must be restored to full health by retrogressing it back onto a natural biological system, that acts to relieve stress without the use of chemicals, essential oils, antibiotics, or some other crutch that is labor intensive."
http://www.beesource.com/pov/lusby/part22.htm

Lusby's have always said: cell size, breeding and diet are the three factors.


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi Guys,

It's interesting to look back. Then, those of us who tried small cell as a way to keep bees without treating, didn't have any other alternatives. It's been over a decade that some of us looked for an alternative. Then, the only cry from the researchers was treat...treat...don't forget to treat! Anyone not treating was considered a public nuisance or worse by the beekeeping community. And the only direction mite research took, with two exceptions, was to find new and better chemicals to treat with. I think if we had all continued down this pathway, we'd be harnessing atomic power to blow mites to smithereens by now.

Today, there are lots of alternatives to treating with hard chemicals. Those same people who cried treat...treat so loud, now promote a no treatment approach.

And some have found ways to run bees without treating at all. Most found success by followed the Lusbys small cell approach. Fewer have succeeded with large cell. Some have worked with bee genetics and have discovered VHS bees (a behavior that was observed decades and thoroughly hashed out, by small cell beekeepers, years before it was officially discovered). And one has found a kinder, gentler mite.

Could all these approaches be a valid way to keep bees without treating? For sure. And some other ways will probably come along as more people work their bees with a new focus, a mite tolerant, working with the bees based approach.

Thinking there's one cell size or one factor why bees tolerate mites, or just one way to keep mite tolerant bees is a sure way to fall into the same kind of trap when the next big pest comes along.

Man, I'm all mited out. As much time as I've spent on this, you'd think I still had a mite problem. And like some of the more interesting discussions, I'm way off topic by now. So, I'm saying good night to this one.

Regards
Dennis


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>I would also argue that some of the more verbal "disciples" also appeared to start harping on that later in the game when it appeared that there was something out there that did not support their position.

I'm not sure who this is referring to but the following have been on my web site since at least 2004:

"But even if you get to a stable reproduction of mites, this does not preclude thousands of hitchhikers coming in. Using powdered sugar, small cell, FGMO or whatever that gives an edge to the bees by dislodging a proportion of the mites, or preventing the reproduction of mites and seems to work under some conditions. I believe these conditions are where there are not a significant number of mites coming into the hive from other sources.

"All of these methods seem to fail sometimes when there is a sudden increase in mites in the fall.

"Then there are other methods that are more brute force. In other words they kill virtually all the mites. Even these seem to fail sometimes. We have assumed it's because of resistance, and perhaps this is a contributing factor. But what if sometimes it's again because of this huge influx of mites from outside the hive? Granted having the poison in the hive over a period of time when this explosion of population occurs seems to be helpful, it still sometimes fails.

"I have not had this happen on small cell... yet. Nor have I had it happen on FGMO. I have seen it happen when I was using Apistan. But others have observed it with FGMO and I have to wonder how much this affects the success of many methods from Sucracide to SMR queens, from FGMO to Small Cell. It seems like there are at least two components to success. The first is to create a stable system so that the mite population is not increasing within the hive. The second is to find a way to monitor and recover from that occasional sudden influx of mites. Conditions that cause the mites to skyrocket seem to be in the fall when the hives rob out other hives crashing from mites and bring home a lot of hitchhikers."

http://www.bushfarms.com/beespests.htm#varroa

"The third 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."

http://www.bushfarms.com/beesnaturalcell.htm#feralbees


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Kieck -

Here again, Dee spells out the package deal with "SC" in 2000.

"We DO NOT USE artificial antibiotics, chemicals hard or soft, essential oils
or acids of any type in our beekeeping. We also DO NOT USE artificial sugars
or pollen substitute of any kind with our bees. We also do not believe in
usage of inbreeding for honeybees."

http://www.beesource.com/bee-l/bioarchive/dec2000/msg77.htm


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi Kieck and Everyone,

>See, I believe such a system would be great, ...... would be wondrous! If it works that simply.

That's a great summary of my experience! There were some costly steps along the way, but it was well worth it.

One of the most telling moments was when I rounded up all the mite treatment stuff, I accumulated over the years. Cleaned out the bee fridge of still unopened mite strips boxes and headed for the dump. Lots of money there. What if the years of my small cell experience were a fluke? I paused and wondered for a few moments. Then, I trusted my small cell experience over any lingering doubts and dumped it all.

Later, I filled a dumpster with research, reports, etc., concerning mites and treatments. 

And since then, I've never had to look back for any of that stuff. If I needed to treat, I would have. I just never needed to.

I know of others who've had the same experience. All but one used some form of small cell approach.

Will it work for you, with your beekeeping methods and in your location. I don't know. All I can do is share what I've experienced as a non-migratory Wyoming beekeeper. But I suspect it will, as it has worked for other non-migratory beekeepers in various locations and with varied beekeeping skills.

I now live in Florida and don't know if the equilibrium between mites and small cell bees can be maintained in a tropical environment, with its almost constant brood rearing. I suspect so, but just don't know. Would like to find out, but not sure if I'll get the chance.

Anyone from the tropics want to share their small cell experience.

Regards
Dennis


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> even if you get to a stable reproduction of mites, this does not preclude
> thousands of hitchhikers coming in.

Wyatt Mangum looked at the impact of "drift" and "robbing" on varroa infestation in several studies, and found that drift and robbing certainly could (re)introduce varroa to an otherwise uninfested hive, but this merely started the hive on the varroa population curve, and did not contribute a significant number of mites to the robbing hives. Check your old ABJs.

The claim that "thousands of hitchhikers" might somehow get into a hive is exactly the sort of claim that results directly from the hubris of thinking that one has varroa licked with one magic bullet or another. One could call the belief in the face of a lack of facts "Faith-based beekeeping", the symptoms being lack of data that leads one to think things like a massive varroa population must have wandered in "from the outside" in a single afternoon. The solution is the reality-based beekeeping practice of consistent monitoring and record-keeping.

> I believe these conditions are where there are not a significant number 
> of mites coming into the hive from other sources.

Well sure, I had a very isolated yard that remained mite-free for more than a decade. Does that say anything about the bees or any of my management practices? Of course not. 

> The second is to find a way to monitor and recover

I am very pleased with the above. It is the first admission you've made in a long time that any sort of monitoring might be prudent. Before, you've brushed off the issue with claims that you didn't need to monitor any more. [edit by mod]

> from that occasional sudden influx of mites.

Sorry, but you have to monitor, and show the world the claimed "sudden influx" with some hard data before you can offer it as anything other than pure speculation, as past work in the area directly contradicts the speculation that the influx would be "large".

> Conditions that cause the mites to skyrocket seem to be in the fall when > the hives rob out other hives crashing from mites and bring home a lot of
> hitchhikers."

This is hard to imagaine. Varroa-weakened hives are weak in both numbers of bees and numbers of varroa. Strong hives with varroa are not going to be robbed out, yet they would have significant numbers of mites. When bees die, the varroa upon them die. Hives that crash show a slow steady growth of mite population that "goes exponential" due to the simple growth of the population alone.

Regardless, while this speculative scenario might result in some number of more phoretic mites, the speculation does not explain the higher mite counts per brood cell found in the Jennifer Berry study. If the small-cell hives had higher mites per 100 cells, these were reproductive mites, in larger numbers, in worker brood. How might that happen as a result of a "mite influx", given that claims are made that small cell decreases the number of mites that can reproduce through either the cell size or the still-as-yet undocumented 
"shorter capped time".

And what about that shorter capped time? Has anyone got around to asking their favorite qualified authority about the impact of smaller or larger size on capped time or the general issue of maturation time for insects in general?

The ad-hoc explanations keep appearing, but the bottom line here is that the "robbing and hitchhikers" speculation still depends upon the claim that phoretic mites somehow all got into cells and reproduced, something that small cell is seeming said to stop to one extent or another.

So, what's the reasonable conclusion here? That small cell works only when the hives are in a mite-free area? Well, gee, that's not very impressive, is it? Why can't these hives surivive when in an area with varroa?
(Yes the above question is unfair.

[edit by mod]


----------



## BULLSEYE BILL (Oct 2, 2002)

>Anyone from the tropics want to share their small cell experience.

It's pretty tropical here during the summer, does that count? 

I feel like I have fallen into a good situation almost by mistake, it seems that I have a winning combination that works.

First, my hives are nearly 100% Permacomb, fully drawn plastic frames with a cell size of 5.0, I have been adding HSC last year and will this year too.

There are not any other beekeepers near any of my yards. (Well one, a half mile away, but her hives died out two years ago)

I haven't used harsh chemicals since 2003 or soft (Oxalic) since spring of 2004

The last package I bought was in 2004 and the last queens I bought (three that lived) was in 2005, those Purvis queens died the second year

All my hives are from cutouts or swarms from the Wichita area

I remove all wax comb from cutouts as soon as possible

I use SBB's in all my hives

I have had about 10% winter losses the last two years, 25% the year before that, and 30% the year before that

The hives I do lose usually have plenty of stores, just not enough bees

I do not know if I am becoming a better keeper of if I am keeping a better bee in better conditions, hopefully both.

What I do know is that it's nice to not worry about treating my bees.

And how nice it is to be able to state that my hives are chemical free! Now that's almost organic.


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi Bullseye and Everyone,

The Flint Hills, a neat place. I left Wyoming for Florida and when through there. It was 100 degrees in Wy. And 115 degrees in eastern Colorado and western Kansas. By nightfall is was still above 100. Early the next morning I reached the Flint Hills. A thundershower had just dumped lots of moisture there. The cool, moist air was laden with the smell of numerous barks, trees, soil, rocks and plants. It was the most beautiful smelling place I've been. Like a sniff of paradise, at least for the 15 minutes I was there.

So, maybe it is tropical, if tropical is paradise :>)))

And it looks like it is possible to keep healthy, untreated bees, even in paradise.

Regards
Dennis


----------



## Hobie (Jun 1, 2006)

BULLSEYE BILL said:


> I remove all wax comb from cutouts as soon as possible.


Just curious... why do you do this? Is it just because you prefer Permacomb, or is there another reason?


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

> When you have multiple people doing the same thing and the one common element is SC, I think it's pretty safe to say what was at work here, affecting the outcome across the board. -Barry


But that's not the "only" common element, is it?

First, we start with "small cell" sizes.

Then we isolate the hives.

Then we go through a period of "regression and stabilization" (that may also be called "extreme selective pressure").

And we through in grooming behaviors by bees, which are claimed by SC people so adamantly. Tell me: why would bees on SC suddenly begin grooming themselves in ways that bees on LC -- even the same bees -- do not?

Oh, and of course, we skip the controls (hives that were managed in the same way but with LC at the same time).

So, is SC the only common element? And why is it that beekeepers like Odfrank and others -- who genuinely seem to wish that SC would be just as effective as it has been proclaimed -- do not get the same results when just switching to SC? 



> How are your tests coming? -Barry


Similar, in some ways, to Berry's study. At this point, I see no statistically significant difference in numbers of mites between SC hives and LC hives, both for hives in mixed yards and for hives in uniform (i. e., all SC or all LC, no mixing) yards. Survival is statistically the same, I haven't run statistics on honey production or queen supercedure or other aspects yet. And I'm don't have work prepared for publication, yet.

The biggest problem, right now, is getting enough mites to really test the effects. Sounds strange, doesn't it? But that's the biggest hurdle. None of the hives have faced significant pressure from mites. None of them have enough mites to apparently even cause any harm. No chemical treatments, attempting to "mismanage" hives to actually increase _Varroa_ populations, yet the mites just are not a problem.

In some ways, I think that is a significant finding, and important in this whole discussion. To some extent, I've been able to keep bees without mite problems both on LC and SC. So what advantage does SC offer? Seemingly, at this point, none. I don't know; is it the genetics that are controlling the mite populations so effectively? is it some sort of host-parasite equilibrium? is it the diet? is it something else? I don't have those answers at this point. Maybe in the future.


----------



## BULLSEYE BILL (Oct 2, 2002)

Hobie said:


> Just curious... why do you do this? Is it just because you prefer Permacomb, or is there another reason?


Mostly from observations on the SBB's bottom tray. It is very apparent that my hives that have been cut-outs where I banded their original comb into frames had many more mites than my other hives with all PC. They are the most likely to be included in my winter losses as well.

Another irritant to me is finding a mouse nest in the chewed out wax frames, that does not happen with PC. I also have critters that will tear off the mouse guard and reach up in the hives and pull out whatever they can reach, probably *****. They really tear up equipment, you can see it on myspace in my equipment album. I think that the rotting dead bees attract the *****.

Also since the bees are looking for places to raise drones, the drawn wax are the only cells that can be altered for that purpose. The areas in between the PC frames are usually filled with drone cells. I feel that is really enough area dedicated for that purpose, are less drone cells another reason for lower mite loads? Could be.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

>> Conditions that cause the mites to skyrocket seem to be in the fall when
>> the hives rob out other hives crashing from mites and bring home a lot of
>> hitchhikers."

<This is hard to imagaine. Varroa-weakened hives are weak in both numbers of bees and numbers of varroa. Strong hives with varroa are not going to be robbed out, yet they would have significant numbers of mites. When bees die, the varroa upon them die. Hives that crash show a slow steady growth of mite population that "goes exponential" due to the simple growth of the population alone.>

Mike -

To back up what you originally said, all one has to do is listen to the Berry audio/video and she will tell you herself that in October, they had a much higher mite count. Is October in the Fall?


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

So, SC bees are more prone to being robbers?

After all, the LC hives in Berry's study didn't die out. The counts were done at the same times. And the SC hives had higher mite counts than the LC hives. So. . . what? The SC hives must either be producing more mites, or bringing home more mites.

Which would mean, if they're bringing home more mites, that either mites selectively "choose" SC bees, or SC bees more frequently encounter mites (i. e., they do more robbing of collapsed hives than do LC bees).


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Kieck said:


> So, SC bees are more prone to being robbers?
> 
> After all, the LC hives in Berry's study didn't die out. The counts were done at the same times. And the SC hives had higher mite counts than the LC hives. So. . . what? The SC hives must either be producing more mites, or bringing home more mites.


Yep, at this point into the study, that was the data.



> Which would mean, if they're bringing home more mites, that either mites selectively "choose" SC bees, or SC bees more frequently encounter mites (i. e., they do more robbing of collapsed hives than do LC bees).


Yep, at this point into the study, the SC bees could be doing that. Also could be producing more mites.

"If SC is working for somebody . . . forget what this study shows . . . keep it up. It's awesome."
" "[SC beekeepers] are conscientious beekeepers . . . better beekeepers." - JB

Sorry, couldn't resist. Let me add, this comment applies to anyone taking active steps away from chemicals and drugs in my book.


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Mr Kieck,

Keep up the work. It's going to be quite interesting to see what you find out.

Regards
Dennis


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>The solution is the reality-based beekeeping practice of consistent monitoring and record-keeping.
>> The second is to find a way to monitor and recover
>I am very pleased with the above. It is the first admission you've made in a long time that any sort of monitoring might be prudent.

By a "long time", you mean since January of this year?

http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=215607&highlight=monitor+mites

I have never recommended ASSUMING you have no mites. I have always recommended monitoring. Here are just some of the posts where I have recommended it:
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=215173&highlight=monitor+mites
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=210951&highlight=monitor+mites
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=212790&highlight=monitor+mites
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=211341&highlight=monitor+mites
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=200938&highlight=monitor+mites&page=2
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=206508&page=2&highlight=monitor+mites
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=190431&highlight=monitor+mites
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=206490&highlight=monitor+mites
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=206376&highlight=monitor+mites
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=206393&highlight=monitor+mites
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=188692&highlight=monitor+mites
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=188937&highlight=monitor+mites
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=200717&highlight=monitor+mites
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=189264&highlight=monitor+mites
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=190965&highlight=monitor+mites
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=187194&highlight=monitor+mites
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=186615&highlight=monitor+mites
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=206387&highlight=monitor+mites
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=193223&highlight=monitor+mites
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=190465&highlight=monitor+mites
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=200641&highlight=monitor+mites
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=186883&highlight=monitor+mites
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=204922&highlight=monitor+mites
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=189676&highlight=monitor+mites
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=190311&highlight=monitor+mites&page=2
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=185250&highlight=monitor+mites
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=186999&highlight=monitor+mites
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=185428&highlight=monitor+mites
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=188094&highlight=monitor+mites
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=188677&highlight=monitor+mites
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=206380&highlight=monitor+mites
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=188444&highlight=monitor+mites
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=185449&highlight=monitor+mites
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=192126&highlight=monitor+mites
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=197438&highlight=monitor+mites
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=207560&highlight=monitor+mites
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=206312&highlight=monitor+mites&page=2
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=206363&highlight=monitor+mites
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=191715&highlight=monitor+mites
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=186451&highlight=monitor+mites
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=188740&highlight=monitor+mites
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=191093&highlight=monitor+mites
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=187503&highlight=monitor+mites
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=200481&highlight=monitor+mites
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=206296&highlight=monitor+mites&page=5
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=200421&highlight=monitor+mites
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=206340&highlight=monitor+mites
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=200368&highlight=monitor+mites
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=206328&highlight=monitor+mites
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=200440&highlight=monitor+mites
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=187382&highlight=monitor+mites
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=194608&highlight=monitor+mites
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=197260&highlight=monitor+mites
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=200412&highlight=monitor+mites
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=206317&highlight=monitor+mites
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=200392&highlight=monitor+mites
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=195537&highlight=monitor+mites
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=187474&highlight=monitor+mites
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=193126&highlight=monitor+mites&page=2
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=188319&highlight=monitor+mites
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=207400&highlight=monitor+mites
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=206305&highlight=monitor+mites
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=200156&highlight=monitor+mites
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=200346&highlight=monitor+mites
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=197632&highlight=monitor+mites
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=187663&highlight=monitor+mites
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=192882&highlight=monitor+mites
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=200347&highlight=monitor+mites
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=206273&highlight=monitor+mites
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=206293&highlight=monitor+mites
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=192355&highlight=monitor+mites
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=193888&highlight=monitor+mites
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=192315&highlight=monitor+mites
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=200304&highlight=monitor+mites
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=204816&highlight=monitor+mites
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=199069&highlight=monitor+mites
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=190353&highlight=monitor+mites
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=200270&highlight=monitor+mites
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=192489&highlight=monitor+mites
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=204787&highlight=monitor+mites
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=200251&highlight=monitor+mites
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=200258&highlight=monitor+mites
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=200262&highlight=monitor+mites
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=194202&highlight=monitor+mites
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=201191&highlight=monitor+mites
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=193948&highlight=monitor+mites
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=192947&highlight=monitor+mites
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=186096&highlight=monitor+mites
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=200230&highlight=monitor+mites
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=204757&highlight=monitor+mites
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=200222&highlight=monitor+mites
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=188497&highlight=monitor+mites
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=200218&highlight=monitor+mites
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=204762&highlight=monitor+mites

There are many more, but I think that should suffice to establish my previous stand on the matter.

Typical advice from the many above posts:

"As Dave has pointed out, you always need to monitor to see how things are going. Even people using the "standard treatments" need to monitor as they often fail. Don't take it on blind faith that everything is fine. Measure it. Learn to do a powdered sugar roll and use a tray in a SBB or a sticky board on a regular bottom board, from time to time. Try to quantify the problem. You will always see mites if you are looking hard enough. The question is how many and how rapidly is it increasing or is it staying the same."

"always recommend you monitor the Varroa mites with either a tray under a SBB and/or an occasional sugar roll and/or uncapping some capped drone brood now and then. If the Varroa are taking over (as evidenced by skyrocketing numbers of mites dropping or found in drone brood or found in a sugar roll) then I would consider what you intend to do."

"Varroa are the most likely cause of your bees dying. You need to monitor the Varroa no matter what else you decide to do or not do. Otherwise you'll never know if it's working or not."

"it is folly not to monitor the mite levels before and after the treatments."

"First, learn to monitor mite levels. Second learn the life cycle of the bees and the Varroa mites."

"No matter what you should monitor the Varroa mites."

"The issue of crashing hives around you is why I would STILL monitor mite levels even on small cell. You don't know what's happening in a hive if you don't bother to monitor it. Besides it's reassuring to know and not be assuming."

"As I keep saying, no matter what you use, MONITOR THE MITE LEVELS. Otherwise you'll never know if it's working or not."

You have a very selective memory.

>So, what's the reasonable conclusion here? That small cell works only when the hives are in a mite-free area?

I'm certainly not in a mite free area, and it's working fine. I have but speculated on what might happen when large numbers of hives are crashing from Varroa and being robbed out by the hives that have little varroa.

>Well, gee, that's not very impressive, is it? Why can't these hives surivive when in an area with varroa?

I speculated that mites hitchhiking in was a possibility. Not one I have experienced, as I also said, but if thousands are hitchhiking in it would make sense to me that that could be almost as bad as breeding them in that hive to start with. Especially if they come in the fall and damage the very bees which would otherwise be overwintering. I do have mites and bees around that have mites. I don't have the pressure of many hives crashing around me as they do in the almonds.


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

Sorry Mike, I clicked on a few of the links you provided, and they took
me to posts that were not yours, on pages that included no posts from you. Check the individual links.

Regardless, if you now want to additionally take the position that you 
have _always _advocated monitoring, that's fine with me. But I think I
remember intoning the phrase_ "You cannot control that which you do 
not measure" _often, and directly to you more than once or twice. 

Whatever - I was pleased to hear you advocate some monitoring.


----------



## BULLSEYE BILL (Oct 2, 2002)

I checked five of the links at random, and in every one of them he espoused monitoring the mites.

I've been here as long as he has and I can vouch for him, we've talked about it since day one, he has always promoted monitoring.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Sorry Mike, I clicked on a few of the links you provided, and they took
me to posts that were not yours, on pages that included no posts from you.

Simply not true. Every one of them has a post in it from me saying that people should monitor Varroa mite counts. Try searching the page for the word "monitor" and repeat until you get to my post. If you'd like more I can get you at least a hundred more...


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

> Yep, at this point into the study, the SC bees could be doing that. Also could be producing more mites. -Barry


Could be, but I think it's unlikely. Of course, this one should be easily deciphered when robbing ceases. If cell size is critical, the SC hives should be producing fewer mites than the LC hives, so at that point, the mite populations in SC hives should be significantly lower than in LC hives.

Of course, the argument could be made that, if cell size is the critical factor, "time to stabilize" is irrelevant, and mite reproduction should immediately be lower in SC hives than in LC hives. Otherwise, some other factor (not "less room in cells" or "shorter capping times" or some other aspect tied directly to cell cells) is likely the cause. Then, if that factor can be identified, the same factor could be used in hives, regardless of cell size.

Just as an aside, here, my gut feeling (nothing scientific to back it up) tells me that mites should select _larger_ workers, not smaller workers, when bees should up to rob a collapsing hive. The mites reproduce most effectively on drone brood, according to virtually all information on the subject, and, if SC hives produce bees that are small enough to reduce mite reproduction, selective pressure should drive the mites to choose larger bees, not smaller bees.



> Sorry, couldn't resist. Let me add, this comment applies to anyone taking active steps away from chemicals and drugs in my book. -Barry


I'm glad you added that, Barry. I agree with those statements. As I've written before, the problem I have is simply with flatly stating that "SC reduces _Varroa_ populations." It may or may not. Empirical evidence is still in short supply.



> Keep up the work. It's going to be quite interesting to see what you find out. -BWrangler


I'll certainly keep you posted. I find it valuable already at this point, although, like I already said, I'm struggling with building mite populations to levels that might actually demonstrate any potential differences.


----------



## Keith Benson (Feb 17, 2003)

Here is a little trick when using this forum and referring to your own or someone else's previous posts. You could post a link to the entire thread, which has some value, or which page and along the outline of pages where the message can be found. Or after you found the thread, and the message you wish to highlight, click on the little number in the upper right part of that message this will call just that message in its own window. Then cut the link from your browser. It saves people going through long threads to find a single message.

An example:

http://www.beesource.com/forums/showpost.php?p=256736&postcount=4

Another:

http://www.beesource.com/forums/showpost.php?p=282595&postcount=22

Keith


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Here is a little trick ...

Nice. Thanks.


----------

