# Natural Cell vs. Small Cell



## Specialkayme

For years I've been using foundationless frames. Mainly due to cost. If I don't have to buy foundation, why would I?

But I'm attempting to read up on small cell, in an effort to weigh it's worth in the treatment free arena, and I keep reading about natural cell interchangeably with small cell management.

Can someone explain the difference? I'm aware that natural cell allows bees to build their own cell sizes, based on what they think is best. I'm aware that this can vary in size from 4.9 to 5.4 (or occasionally even higher). But what are the advantages of natural cell size over small cell size? Do they still accomplish the same goal? What are some of the advantages of using natural cell size over small cell?


----------



## Michael Bush

>For years I've been using foundationless frames. Mainly due to cost. If I don't have to buy foundation, why would I?

Indeed.

>But I'm attempting to read up on small cell, in an effort to weigh it's worth in the treatment free arena, and I keep reading about natural cell interchangeably with small cell management.

In the arena of management, I see it as the same thing.

>Can someone explain the difference? I'm aware that natural cell allows bees to build their own cell sizes, based on what they think is best. I'm aware that this can vary in size from 4.9 to 5.4 (or occasionally even higher). 

I would say it can vary from 4.4mm to 5.1mm.

>But what are the advantages of natural cell size over small cell size?

I see 4 advantages. One you already covered. Natural cell is cheaper. Additional advantages:

2) clean wax
3) the bees decide the size so you aren't coercing them into anything
4) the variation in cell size, makes a variation in bee size. I don't know that this serves a purpose, but my instincts say it probably does.

> Do they still accomplish the same goal?

They both accomplish the goal of mite control. Using small cell wax foundation from a commercial source doesn't meet the goal of clean wax. Using small cell foundation doesn't give the bees the freedom to make natural sized cells, but instead causes them to build all their cells the same size within the range of natural sized cells.

The biggest advantage is it eliminates the whole argument of what natural cell size is by letting the bees decide. The only catch is regression...

http://www.bushfarms.com/beesnaturalcell.htm
http://www.bushfarms.com/beesfoursimplesteps.htm


----------



## bevy's honeybees

Four Simple Steps--one of my favorite Michael pages. 
Thanks Michael!


----------



## rwurster

I'm not sure what or if there's advantages of natural cell over small cell or if it in fact helps with varroa. I just wanted to add that during the summer I removed a piece of comb and did 5 separate measurements across 10 cells and the average of the 5 measurements showed a 4.76 cell size. Even if the measurement was off by .010 it would still be a hair less than 4.8 which is still smaller than the 4.9 small cell foundation. So unless I got the one crazy hive that had some really small cells going to 4.9 would actually be going bigger.

As a side note, I am going to purchase some drone foundation this year for varroa management.


----------



## Oldtimer

I'm not decided yet on wether small cell controls mites or not.

However, if you buy into the small cell arguments, according to Dee Lusby, there is a difference between small cell and natural cell. Dee has written that only a cell size of 4.9 or lower in the brood nest will control mites. So if your bees are building natural cell of a bigger size than that, according to Dee, it will not work.


----------



## Specialkayme

Michael Bush said:


> They both accomplish the goal of mite control. Using small cell wax foundation from a commercial source doesn't meet the goal of clean wax. Using small cell foundation doesn't give the bees the freedom to make natural sized cells, but instead causes them to build all their cells the same size within the range of natural sized cells.


So I have to ask. I went foundationless in 2005. 2006 was the last time I treated for mites. Since going foundationless, I still have mite problems. You could assume (probably accurately) that the reason I had mite problems in the beginning was because the bees havn't fully regressed yet. But I continued to swap combs out since 2005. Would they not have fully regressed over a 6 year period? If I'm still having mite problems on foundationless frames after six years, when would I not have mite problems?


----------



## taydeko

People on Beesource say that small cell does not help control varroa and they say there are studies to that effect. However, others suggest that other factors might have an influence. I don't have any bees yet, so all of this is conjecture on my part, but in most organisms, including humans, stress has a major impact on susceptibility to parasites, pathogens, and diseases. So if you have natural small cells with fully regressed bees, you might be reducing stress levels on the bees which could reduce the impact mites have on the hive as a whole. I would suppose that they might be more effective in controlling the mites themselves also. If the studies of the impact of small cells did not control for stress factors somehow, the results could be skewed. 

For example, if you put non-regressed bees on small cell foundation, you would probably be increasing the stress level, rather than reducing it. If my hypothesis is correct, that would increase the susceptibility of the bees to the mites, and you wouldn't see any mite control benefit. On the other hand, if you had fully regressed bees on natural foundationless comb of whatever size they want to build, in a hive where they are not being stressed by elimination of all drones, elimination of all propolis and all the additional stressors that the bees undergo, perhaps there would be a mite control benefit.

My guess would be that you need to take a holistic view of the hive to reduce mite problems rather than just stick a different size of foundation in the frames. Any foundation is probably a stressor. This could explain the results from Dee Lusby and all the studies that say small cell foundation doesn't have any effect.


----------



## Specialkayme

taydeko said:


> Any foundation is probably a stressor.


I'm not too sure about that . . . 



taydeko said:


> My guess would be that you need to take a holistic view of the hive to reduce mite problems rather than just stick a different size of foundation in the frames.


That's my point though. I've used natural cell frames for years. I haven't treated for years, and I have attempted to incorporate mite resistant stock (MH, VSH, and even some 'survivor' stock, if you think that exists) in an attempt to make my overall gene pool more likely to be able to 'deal' with mites. Of course, you could take the stance that by incorporating VSH and non-VSH genes, I essentially canceled out any VSH genetics, since it's a recessive gene that needs to be present in both parents, but I won't go down that road just yet .

None of the above have appeared to work, and I have still had heavy losses with mites. Obviously I'm not doing something right.


----------



## Oldtimer

Don't worry Specialkayme you are not alone. Best I can tell, the majority of people who go treatment free fail. I'm basing that on the number of people who go TF for a few seasons, struggle, continuously have to buy in more bees, then eventually give up. There's a notable absense on Beesource of some of the names I used to see stoutly defending the "hard bond" method. Some gone, and some now saying you really do need to treat.

What is the difference between them and the ones for whom it seems to work? Nobody knows, not even the successful ones. Hence the difference in opinion between the SC folks, as they've all had different experiences. M Bush says jusy go SC, that's it, and you will have minimal losses. Sol says you will have to have big losses. Dee says cells must be 4.9 or below, M Bush and others say it is not critical. Studies run using scientific method say SC does not even work.

In my opinion, until the mechanisms of treatment free are more fully understood, you have to go with what works for YOU. If, despite doing everything right, after several years, you feel it's just not working, change.

Problem I've seen on the site, is many people take a hard and fast position one way or the other. Even though they may have limited experience they are convinced they are correct and even if what they are doing is not working refuse to accept that. You are one of the few who is open minded enough to be able to take an honest look at your results and decide you will change a few things because you want better.

As to my experience of natural cell vs small cell, the natural cell hive I ran faired no better against varroa than the standard foundation hives, I gave up on the idea. Also, virtually all feral hives in my country dissappeared when varroa arrived. How could this be the case if natural cell would save them? Not saying natural cell doesn't work, as it seems to work for some. But it does not work for all.


----------



## Michael Bush

>So I have to ask. I went foundationless in 2005. 2006 was the last time I treated for mites. Since going foundationless, I still have mite problems. You could assume (probably accurately) that the reason I had mite problems in the beginning was because the bees havn't fully regressed yet. But I continued to swap combs out since 2005. Would they not have fully regressed over a 6 year period?

You can answer that question with a metric ruler.

> If I'm still having mite problems on foundationless frames after six years, when would I not have mite problems? 

In my experience, when the core of the brood nest is 4.9mm or below you should have no issues. If all of it was 5.0mm you'd probably also have no issues. Some bees will regress quickly, some won't. We have a lot of mutts in the US and the mixture of genes and the mixture of sizes of bees can make it slow. You can regress them more quickly with some PF100s (or PF120s if you run mediums). It's 4.95mm and drawn well the first try. I was still having mite problems at 5.1mm.

>There's a notable absense on Beesource of some of the names I used to see stoutly defending the "hard bond" method. Some gone, and some now saying you really do need to treat.

I know a lot of them just get tired of the constant bickering about an issue they have already resolved. Which ones are "now saying you really do need to treat"?


----------



## Oldtimer

Michael Bush said:


> Which ones are "now saying you really do need to treat"?


Well only because you asked, one who is now saying you have to treat, is one I remember as especially dogmatic about not treating, and promoted himself as an expert. He thought I was unbelieveably ignorant for treating and said so, and had a lot of his posts deleted for using bad language etc in his arguments with me, he was Beez2010. And yes, he no longer visits Beesource probably because after all he said so rudely it would be hard to admit he now thinks he was wrong. 

Because I treat he called me ignorant, said the best thing I could do would be find a different hobby, I was too stupid to read, etc. But now, waddayaknow, HE'S saying you have to treat! (giggle). Here is his latest, from his own website, now saying you do have to treat.
http://www.thewarrestore.com/treatingforvarroa.htm 

BTW he still hasn't got all his facts right, but he's learning.

Maybe some of the others left cos of arguing, and some left cos their bees just did not survive and they got sick of fighting a losing battle.

However I've noticed that opinions on Beesource are not so dogmatically expressed now, there is perhaps a more open minded attitude from many, and that's a good thing.


----------



## Specialkayme

Michael Bush said:


> You can answer that question with a metric ruler.


I just did a measurement of the left-over combs from my dead-outs. A random sampling of six combs produced an average of 5.7mm, with a high of 6.0mm and a low of 5.5 mm. 

So obviously they didn't regress over a six year period. My question is why not? I know you probably can't answer that yourself, but it just leads me to wonder if foundationless really makes a difference. If after six years, with most combs no older than three years old, the bees won't regress naturally to less than 5.5mm, why would I be forcing them to draw out 4.9mm? Or 4.95 mm?

I thought the goal, and benefit, of doing foundationless frames was that the bees can draw out cell sizes that nature intended them to have, or what they think is most beneficial. 

Doing so didn't solve any problems for me. It actually created cell sizes LARGER than I would have had if I threw foundation in there. 

Needless to say, I'm a little confused.



Oldtimer said:


> As to my experience of natural cell vs small cell, the natural cell hive I ran faired no better against varroa than the standard foundation hives, I gave up on the idea. Also, virtually all feral hives in my country dissappeared when varroa arrived. How could this be the case if natural cell would save them? Not saying natural cell doesn't work, as it seems to work for some. But it does not work for all.


Which just makes me think even harder . . . 

I would really like to see the results of your SC experiment. It should be interesting to see it from the perspective of an individual that isn't looking for answers, either way. If the individual is trying to justify SC, it often miraculously works. Also, if the individual is trying to discredit SC, the experiment often miraculously fails. And the few unbiased, scientific results I've seen are either inconclusive, or somehow discredited by the SC users. So, when are your results available?, lol


----------



## rwurster

All this is odd. I installed all my bees from packages at the beginning of April, 2011. It would make more sense if my cells would have been 5.0 or bigger. I know the people I bought the packages from got them from California and I picked them up outside Salt Lake City. I did the measurement in english units but it was easy enough to convert to metric. It just seems a bit unlikely that the packages came from 'regressed' bees. Such is life.


----------



## Oldtimer

Specialkayme said:


> If the individual is trying to justify SC, it often miraculously works. Also, if the individual is trying to discredit SC, the experiment often miraculously fails.


Ha Ha so much truth to that LOL, and not just in the beekeeping field!


----------



## Michael Bush

>I just did a measurement of the left-over combs from my dead-outs. A random sampling of six combs produced an average of 5.7mm, with a high of 6.0mm and a low of 5.5 mm. 

Very strange as even 5.4mm bees usually will draw 5.1mm to 5.2mm at the most. I would consider 6.0mm to be drone comb.

>So obviously they didn't regress over a six year period. My question is why not? I know you probably can't answer that yourself, but it just leads me to wonder if foundationless really makes a difference. If after six years, with most combs no older than three years old, the bees won't regress naturally to less than 5.5mm, why would I be forcing them to draw out 4.9mm? Or 4.95 mm?

But you're using bees that were forced to use 5.4mm. What happens if you used bees that were forced to draw 4.9mm and let them do what they want?

>I thought the goal, and benefit, of doing foundationless frames was that the bees can draw out cell sizes that nature intended them to have, or what they think is most beneficial.

Agreed. The only difficulty is regression.

>Doing so didn't solve any problems for me. It actually created cell sizes LARGER than I would have had if I threw foundation in there.

Perhaps.

>Needless to say, I'm a little confused.

I am pretty amazed at the cells sizes you're getting. I don't know of anyone doing natural cell with sizes anywhere near that large.


----------



## Specialkayme

Michael Bush said:


> But you're using bees that were forced to use 5.4mm.


But shouldn't all 4.9mm bees (or, almost all) be formerly 5.4mm bees?



Michael Bush said:


> What happens if you used bees that were forced to draw 4.9mm and let them do what they want?


I couldn't tell you. My 5.4 mm bees made cell sizes larger than 5.4mm. I can only speculate what would happen if I took 4.9mm bees.


----------



## Specialkayme

Michael Bush said:


> I am pretty amazed at the cells sizes you're getting. I don't know of anyone doing natural cell with sizes anywhere near that large.


As was pointed out in a different thread, it's possible I measured incorrectly. I don't think I did, but I would be happy to provide pictures so you can confirm that what I'm saying is actually what's happening.


----------



## Michael Bush

>But shouldn't all 4.9mm bees (or, almost all) be formerly 5.4mm bees?

The point is that a bee measures things by their own body. It's not what the were but what they are that counts. If they are oversized, so are their measurements. If they are undersized, so are their measurements. If they are natural sized, so are their measurements.


----------



## Specialkayme

I don't understand. If a bee makes a cell size based on it's own body, why would a bee ever regress? If you were born out of a 5.4mm cell, why wouldn't you build a 5.4 mm cell, if that's what your body measurements are?


----------



## rweakley

May I step in here for a second. Special Kaye do you know from what part of the hive these frames came from? Keep in mind even regressed bees will draw cells larger than 4.9 for the drones and even bigger than that sometimes for honey storage. So if the frames you were measuring were from positions 1,2 or 9,10 then they could have been drawn specifically for honey storage, and there for larger. The other thing I will point out is the best way to get smaller cells drawn is to put the empty frames in the middle of the brood nest in the spring time. That is one frame at a time or so depending on how strong the hive is. Then you could measure them periodically and make sure the frames with the smallest cells are in the middle of the hive box. Hope this makes sense and helps.

Rod


----------



## Michael Bush

>I don't understand. If a bee makes a cell size based on it's own body, why would a bee ever regress? If you were born out of a 5.4mm cell, why wouldn't you build a 5.4 mm cell, if that's what your body measurements are? 

Body size is a major part. The other part is there is a "natural size" built in to their genetic code. So they tend to get slightly smaller each turnover of comb.


----------



## Joseph Clemens

In my foundationless colonies, many frames are filled predominantly with drone comb. They only occasionally use these "drone" frames to grow a large crop of drones, most of the time they use them for honey storage with only small areas used to raise drones. I do use many PF120 frames, or the foundation part of PF120 frames mounted in wooden frames to ensure that I have many combs of primarily small cell combs. Though many foundationless combs are also very uniformly small cell sized.

I recently began using a few frames with Rite Cell plastic foundation - I use the Rite Cell based combs for grafting. I find that it is a little easier to graft from the larger worker cells.

---------------
I began my most recent continuous period of beekeeping in my current location a little more than twenty years ago. I began with a cutout from beneath a neighbors mobile home, then expanded by walk away splits. After growing to about six colonies, I reconnected to the beekeeping world through American Bee Journal and Bee Culture magazines, and discovered that AHB had arrived along with mites and SHB. After first reading about them, I started looking and did notice Varroa mites, and perhaps even some K-wing, (indicative of tracheal mites). I was using primarily Pierco one-piece frames back then (for about my first decade in this area). Later I started using small cell plastic foundation (which was available then), because it sounded like fun to produce smaller bees. I had/have never treated and have never noticed any significant losses (for any cause), so I wasn't going small cell to help with mite problems, or any other problem. I like using foundationless so I can harvest beeswax that is primarily contaminant-free. I like PF120's for quick small cell combs.


----------



## Specialkayme

rweakley said:


> do you know from what part of the hive these frames came from?


No. A number of nucs died from robbing, indicating they were weak to start with, and despite a 0.5" entrance hole, were unable to defend themselves. Other full size hives died from odd reasons. Some just dwindled away, getting smaller and smaller each visit, until finally all was left was wax moths. The pile of frames I have are from removing the frames from dying colonies. Because the battle with wax moths was in full force, I can't tell you what position they were in. Maybe 1 or 2, maybe 4 or 5. 

I can try to take a better average, over a wider range of combs, next time I'm available. If I'm finding some frames with 4.8mm or 4.9mm comb, it might indicate that they regressed in the center, or that some regressed. It's difficult to imagine a regressed bee would build a 6.0mm cell size though.



rweakley said:


> the best way to get smaller cells drawn is to put the empty frames in the middle of the brood nest in the spring time. That is one frame at a time or so depending on how strong the hive is.


That's what I did.

Except for expanding nucs early in the season. If a nuc is two or three frames, and cold temps still linger, putting a frame directly inbetween the small brood pattern they have may cause chilled brood. In that case I usually put it right next to a brood frame.



rweakley said:


> Then you could measure them periodically and make sure the frames with the smallest cells are in the middle of the hive box.


Not if the bees die and I don't have any left to take measurements of.


----------



## Specialkayme

Joseph Clemens said:


> I wasn't going small cell to help with mite problems, or any other problem.
> ...
> I like PF120's for quick small cell combs.


So if it isn't to help with any problems, why are you using small cell?


----------



## Joseph Clemens

Because I can, and smaller bees look "cool".


----------



## rkereid

Joseph has a point there. I have had great luck with the PF120s. They are accepted readily by the bees, they are inexpensive (in quantities), and they are small cell. I don't think you even need to "want" small cell to justify their use.



"Quote Originally Posted by Joseph Clemens View Post
I wasn't going small cell to help with mite problems, or any other problem.
...
I like PF120's for quick small cell combs."
So if it isn't to help with any problems, why are you using small cell? 


Joseph Clemens said:


> Because I can, and smaller bees look "cool".


----------



## D Semple

All my bees are from removals and caught feral swarms. Here in Kansas City the feral bee Brood comb size varies from 4.7 - 5.0 mm.

I've also found (taking Michael Bush's recomendation) that 1 1/4" brood frame spacing works better for foundationless with feral stock.

So far my mite counts are very low on the colonies that shut down brood rearing when there is no flow. The few colonies that insist on constantly raising brood not so much.

Don


----------



## Solomon Parker

Joseph Clemens said:


> Because I can, and smaller bees look "cool".


Well, that's the best one I've heard yet. :applause: Totally beats all my reasons. How do you argue with that?



D Semple said:


> All my bees are from removals and caught feral swarms. Here in Kansas City the feral bee Brood comb size varies from 4.7 - 5.0 mm.


I measured a foundationless frame built this last spring and found between 4.9 and 5.2mm. I had a hive survive on 5.2mm comb for at least 3 years, and that was after they were given to me.



D Semple said:


> So far my mite counts are very low on the colonies that shut down brood rearing when there is no flow. The few colonies that insist on constantly raising brood not so much.


In October, I had a hive (the one that I originally bought from fat/beeman in 2007) that had a massive visible infestation. When I say visible, I mean there were mites in many open cells, clearly visible on bees, and basically ubiquitous throughout the hive. You couldn't miss it. Since I'm a 'Hard Bond Method' beekeeper, I let them go, fully expecting them to die, and I barely bothered to feed them as I was feeding all the others. I just checked them last night. They are alive and well and seem to be building up. I am wondering how many further aspects of resilience against mites there are that we are unable to consider because they are not known.


----------



## Specialkayme

Specialkayme said:


> I would be happy to provide pictures so you can confirm that what I'm saying is actually what's happening.


As promised, here are some pics. I don't have a metric ruler other than my wife's sewing ruler. I did my best, and attempted to use calipers to show you what I measured. But, as a result, I didn't always start it off at "Zero", but rather a random number, so you'll have to count forward.

Frame one (measure ten cells from the tips of the calipers

http://i669.photobucket.com/albums/vv54/JustinWKay/IMG_20120123_183523.jpg

http://i669.photobucket.com/albums/vv54/JustinWKay/IMG_20120123_183604.jpg

I think I wrote this one down as 5.8 yesterday, but it might actually be 5.9mm. Either way, substantially larger than 5.4 base foundation, or 4.9 small cell.


----------



## Specialkayme

Frame two:

http://i669.photobucket.com/albums/vv54/JustinWKay/IMG_20120123_183723.jpg

http://i669.photobucket.com/albums/vv54/JustinWKay/IMG_20120123_183750.jpg

This one ends up being 5.7 mm.

http://i669.photobucket.com/albums/vv54/JustinWKay/IMG_20120123_183831.jpg

Here is a picture of me holding the tape up to the cells. Unfortunately the tape bowed, making it difficult to read the final result.


----------



## Specialkayme

http://i669.photobucket.com/albums/vv54/JustinWKay/IMG_20120123_183939.jpg

http://i669.photobucket.com/albums/vv54/JustinWKay/IMG_20120123_184014.jpg

Looks like 5.6mm on this one.

http://i669.photobucket.com/albums/vv54/JustinWKay/IMG_20120123_184103.jpg


----------



## squarepeg

>Because I can, and smaller bees look "cool". 

hey joe, is that _really_ why you do it?


----------



## Oldtimer

Hmm.. well that's very interesting Specialkayme. When I let my bees do natural cell they went larger also, I mentioned it here on beesource and got the distinct impression noone believed me! 

I think it's a bit over simplistic to say that all bees in all situations regress eventually to 4.9, in many cases I think the only way is to force them to do it, with foundation.


----------



## odfrank

Oldtimer said:


> in many cases I think the only way is to force them to do it, with foundation.


And they don't even do it with foundation. I have yet to get as good a comb of 4.9 as I do with regular size, the 4.9 foundation always has some wavy swirly oddball cells in it. The bees refusal to draw the 4.9 perfectly even after they have been on it for years continues to make me more and more believe the whole small cell theory is dubious. I feel sorry for all the beginners who might be being led down a path of possible untruths just to make a big name, seminar sales and book sales for the promoters of it.


----------



## Solomon Parker

That reminds me, I should start writing a book......:lookout:


----------



## Joseph Clemens

squarepeg said:


> >Because I can, and smaller bees look "cool".
> 
> hey joe, is that _really_ why you do it?


Yep, it actually is.


----------



## Oldtimer

odfrank said:


> I have yet to get as good a comb of 4.9 as I do with regular size, the 4.9 foundation always has some wavy swirly oddball cells in it. The bees refusal to draw the 4.9 perfectly .......


Perhaps this was a factor in larger cell foundation becoming standard in the first place, they went with something the bees will readily accept.


----------



## Specialkayme

If my bees chose to draw out foundationless frames with larger cells than they would have if I just put foundation in, I'm wondering if it would be better to start putting foundation in.

I guess the ultimate question is: does a smaller cell actually benefit anything? A question clearly left for another day . . .

But for next season, I guess I'll have to sleep on the idea of foundationless vs. foundation.


----------



## Vance G

Some of my colonies draw it very well, some resist but I am the borg and resistence is futile. I scrape it down and make them redo it. That is not a very charitable estimation of some fine peoples objectives sir in using small cell foundation or foundationless. You may need more fiber in your diet. When I get bound up I tend to get that way myself.


----------



## Specialkayme

Vance G said:


> That is not a very charitable estimation of some fine peoples objectives sir in using small cell foundation or foundationless. You may need more fiber in your diet. When I get bound up I tend to get that way myself.


Um . . . what?


----------



## Daniel Y

I just read this entire thread post by post. Keep chewing this bone Specialkayme. I like the focus you have on this issue.

I do suspect anything bee related may be tainted with the issue of money. I have experience in other things that unquestionably the real money is selling the equipment and supplies to the doers.
Want to make money in hand made pens? Sell the wood that penmakers make pens out of. And that is about the only good way to do it. Likewise you can make money keeping bees. or make money selling beekeeping stuff to beekeepers. At the very least it is an issue deserving careful consideration.

I saw two cases of reported success and neither where even attempting to control mites. One had given up and basically did not manage the hive at all. That raises many questions. The other just wanted cool looking bees and was not concerned with the results of treatment. Basically noticed as an afterthought that they where not having problems other keepers had. Both of these cases border on a common theme. maybe it is an overall combination of current management. From the purchasing of packed bees rather than swarming bees to feeding sugar water and everything in between.

At a casual glance the very idea of trying to control the bees cell size smacks of micro management. If so it will also bring with it every negative that micro management entails.

I suspect that many of the common issues in bee management evolved from the desire to harvest the most profit from every frame and even every cell of a hive. Eventually you will reach the point that you have asked the bees to do more than they will ever be capable of doing.

My focus is on letting the bees be bees in every way. Not just cell size, but hive size, honey production. wax production. entrance size, comb orientation. queen replacement and yes even swarming. Let the bees be bees and I will gain from it what I am able to gain. But from where I stand the idea of maximizing has gone completely off the chart. it was done in little tiny steps so nobody really thinks there is that much of a change. But it went over the line somewhere and then everyone wants to say. this is the way my Grandfather did it.

The truth is your Grandfather did not keep bees this way. He didn't loose massive numbers of hives to disease and parasites. Nobody has ever kept bees the way they are kept today. So Solomon, if it is not you, then it needs to be somebody. but someone needs to set down and write a whole new book. Cause bees aren't what they used to be and it doesn't matter what Grandpa did. He couldn't keep bees in an alphabet today.

Just my impression and the only real valid thing in my post is the second sentence.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Michael Bush wrote a book, Dean Stiglitz wrote a book. The trouble with me is (my usual detractors take note) I don't have any experience doing it any other way. I can't say things like Michael does that he lost his bees before he used small cell. I have less than one decade experience while he has more than three. Like I say on my website, I'm only trying to show how it _can_ be done, not how it must be done. 

I do think there are management differences, but I can't be certain of what they are. I keep bees in a bubble. I didn't have a mentor. In my experience, moving is very stressful on bees, and there are probably a bunch of other things we do which are very stressful as well. That stress doesn't have nearly the effect on treated bees who receive assistance. On untreated bees however, the stress is probably pretty devastating. But there again, I can't for sure say I do anything different. Maybe all the softer methods of treating help with mites and such but hurt in the case of messing around in the hive all the time.

Time will tell. Give me 20 years and I will have some stronger data.


----------



## sqkcrk

Daniel Y said:


> I suspect that many of the common issues in bee management evolved from the desire to harvest the most profit from every frame and even every cell of a hive. Eventually you will reach the point that you have asked the bees to do more than they will ever be capable of doing.
> 
> My focus is on letting the bees be bees in every way. Not just cell size, but hive size, honey production. wax production. entrance size, comb orientation. queen replacement and yes even swarming. Let the bees be bees and I will gain from it what I am able to gain. But from where I stand the idea of maximizing has gone completely off the chart. it was done in little tiny steps so nobody really thinks there is that much of a change. But it went over the line somewhere and then everyone wants to say. this is the way my Grandfather did it.
> 
> He didn't loose massive numbers of hives to disease and parasites. Nobody has ever kept bees the way they are kept today. So Solomon, if it is not you, then it needs to be somebody. but someone needs to set down and write a whole new book. Cause bees aren't what they used to be and it doesn't matter what Grandpa did.


DanielY,
The keeping of bees has always been for "the desire to harvest ... profit" from the bees. So, of course I disagree w/ you on that.

Our Grandfathers did loose massive numbers of bees to diseases and pests. AFB and the Isle of Wight disease, later determined to be tracheal mite. But, no to the degree we loose bees now adays, from Varroa and nosema. But, there has been for ages something beekeepers must work against.

Every 20 years or so it seems like something "new" comes along to challenge beekeepers. Sometimes the cycle is much shorter.

I guess there is always room for another Bee Book, but there are a handful of new bee books available now. New ones come out almost each year. Check out books by Michael Bush and Dean "deknow" Stiglitz and Laurie Herboldsheimer, "The Practical Beekeeper" and "The Complete Idiots Guide To Beekeeping" respectively.


----------



## D Semple

Daniel Y said:


> but someone needs to set down and write a whole new book. Cause bees aren't what they used to be and it doesn't matter what Grandpa did. He couldn't keep bees in an alphabet today.



Michael Bush - The Practical Beekeeper
Dean & Ramona - The Complete Idiot's Guide to Beekeeping
Ross Conrad - Natural Beekeeping
Phil Chandler - The Barefoot Beeker
David Heaf - The Bee-friendly Beekeeper

Just to name a few

Not to mention the tons of good works being done by others with web sites, pod-cast, conferences, bee club meetings, etc., not to mention Beesource, Beemasters, Organic Beekeepers list, Feral Bee Project.

And, as far as Grandpa is concerned he would have adapted just fine.


----------



## sqkcrk

Oh yeah, I forgot to include this. We are the Grandpas future beekeepers will look back on and say things about concerning abilities to keep bees in modern times. And yet...


----------



## Barry

Oldtimer said:


> Perhaps this was a factor in larger cell foundation becoming standard in the first place, they went with something the bees will readily accept.


This seems not to be the issue, knowing these mills made foundation in the 4.8mm range.



> Comb Foundation
> 
> To go back to the origin of comb foundation and trace its history would be a waste of time in repeating what is familiar to all practical beekeepers. The best and most practical use of foundation is what we need to know. By the use of wired frames for the brood-chamber, I have obtained better results from foundation 6 square feet per pound than I formerly did with 3 square feet to the pound.
> 
> There has been a great deal said and written on the different kinds of foundation, and many tests have been made that, in my opinion, proved nothing. I have made mills of every style in the market (except the Pelham); I have made foundation on them; and I have tested all the different styles of foundation in the hives, and even my bees would not give my pet theories any preference, so far as acceptance was concerned.
> 
> John Vandervort, 1885, The Canadian Bee Journal


----------



## Oldtimer

Yes perhaps I should have said, "Perhaps this was a factor in larger cell foundation becoming standard in the first place, they went with something the bees will readily accept". _After trying various cell sizes_.

Which is what I meant, didn't say so as I thought it was obvious.


----------



## Oldtimer

Remaining book titles along the same lines might be -

The Naked Beekeeper
The Utter Morons Guide to Beekeeping
Modern Beekeeping, What Your Grandpa Didn't Know
Not For Profit Beekeeping

LOL


----------



## Kieck

I don't really know what the answer might be, Specialkayme, but one item does stand out to me: your descriptions sounds to me like you introduced bees many times and from many places as you went through this process. At least some of the folks who advocated "regression" in the past mentioned their large losses and subsequent rebuilding from the survivors. I've often wondered if the strong selective pressure in these sorts of scenarios isn't more to credit for the change than the size of the cells.


----------



## Barry

Oldtimer said:


> Yes perhaps I should have said, "Perhaps this was a factor in larger cell foundation becoming standard in the first place, they went with something the bees will readily accept". _After trying various cell sizes_.


What about the quote I gave gives you the indication that the bees didn't readily accept it?


----------



## Oldtimer

Nothing. Which of your quotes? I don't recall one saying that from you.

I have a feeling we are somehow talking at cross purposes.

My original statement, which was before you said anything, was a follow up to Odfrank saying his bees often didn't draw sc foundation properly. A sentiment which is likely shared by many.

As bees will always be happy to draw standard foundation properly, other than for building drone comb, I said that might be a factor in why the larger cell size became the standard. Not quite sure where the issue is, perhaps I wasn't clear about something? Don't know.


----------



## Barry

John Vandervort's quote gives no indication that the smaller cell size was an issue with beekeepers 140 years ago. What changed first? The bees or the foundation cell size? Today the average cell size in foundation is 5.3-5.4mm.


----------



## Oldtimer

Well I wasn't talking about John Vandervort's quote.

Since these events took place 140 years ogo, or whatever, doubt the bees had changed much. Don't even know if they've changed much today, other than a loss of some genetic diversity, and mongrelization, which is country specific.


----------



## Barry

Then how do we explain the great differences? If the bees are the same, how is it that 100 years ago beekeepers didn't have issues with getting their 4.8 sc foundation drawn out, but today they do?


----------



## Oldtimer

Do we know they didn't? If it was no problem, why did they abandon it?


----------



## Barry

There you go, that's the question! 

If they did, where is the evidence of that in liturature?

According to what the Lusby's saw in the timeline of foundation, the increase in cell size coincided with Baudoux’s work


----------



## Oldtimer

OK. I'll retract whatever it was. If it will get us back to beesource Zen.


----------



## Barry

I see, now it turns south because you think, what? I raise legitimate questions and we can't have an informed discussion?


----------



## Oldtimer

Sorry Barry. I was trying to end it in a friendly way with a bit of humor.

So since we are not back in Zen.

An informed discussion? To be honest, I wasn't there, and am not particularly well informed on this issue. I'm also not quite sure what the issue is meant to be.

If it is wether bees have changed or not, I can't say for sure, I wouldn't know. What I can say is Michael Bush claims his bees naturally regress to a cell size as small as 4.7. If so, how are they "different", how have they changed?

Others have noticed bees allowed to build natural comb go even bigger than 5.5. My suspicion is there is a natural variance same as there's always been. it depends on what the bees want according to their particular environment, circumstances, season, location. I see no evidence bees have changed.

I do know that our fore fathers abandoned the smaller foundation size. For whatever reason, they percieved that the larger size worked better for them, at that time, or the smaller sizes would not have been wholesale discarded.


----------



## Barry

Yes, the smaller cell foundation was abandoned. Would it not give us some possible insight into what some are experiencing now with bees refusing to draw out sc comb easily, if we knew why the change in history? What prompted the foundation makers to go larger? Either there was some other factor outside the natural ability of bees, or the bees ability changed over time and beekeepers had a harder time getting their bees to work the old foundation well. I'm not aware of any literature that indicates the latter, are you?


----------



## Oldtimer

No I'm not aware of any literature to support the latter, or the former. 

However it is quite a leap of faith to say 5.3 mm foundation is resposible for the introduction of varroa mites and all the other nasties we have now. In fact, the first honeybees reported to have varroa mites (russians), were not on comb foundation at all, they were on natural comb and had not been modified. Over the next century or so, varroa mites were spread from them to other bees by that modern thing, mass transportation. Same as all the other pests.


----------



## Barry

Come on, I've made no correlation between foundation and mites. We're talking about bees today not drawing, or building on their own, smaller cell comb. I have not tried natural comb because I expect the same will happen to me, what SpecialK is experiencing.


----------



## Kieck

I think the idea that bees adapted (evolved) to use larger cell sizes in the last 150 years to the exclusion of even being able to draw smaller cells in an organized way flies in the face of the idea that bees can "regress" in just a couple years. I suspect that beekeepers are deliberately or inadvertly selecting for size in the process of "regressing."


----------



## Oldtimer

Good point.



Barry said:


> Come on, I've made no correlation between foundation and mites. We're talking about bees today not drawing, or building on their own, smaller cell comb. I have not tried natural comb because I expect the same will happen to me, what SpecialK is experiencing.


How do you know the same won't happen to you that M Bush is experiencing?

Anyhow, bottom line is I don't know if bees have changed. There is no reliable evidence either way, that I know of. My personal feeling is they haven't, in the way you say, but I cannot prove that one way or the other.


----------



## squarepeg

i mentioned the use of small cell to an old time beekeeper who is recently getting back into bees. his comment was "you don't want to do that, you'll end up with smaller bees". maybe our forefathers favored larger bees, perhaps thinking they would be more productive.


----------



## Michael Bush

>maybe our forefathers favored larger bees, perhaps thinking they would be more productive. 

No "maybe" about it. Baudoux, Pinchot, Gontarski and others wrote reams on the matter and how to get it with larger cell sizes. But it was often mentioned that we needed to breed for larger bees by many a writer. A couple of examples within easy reach for me:

"Several times it has been suggested that we enlarge the race of honey - bees, by giving them larger cells; and some circumstances seem to indicate that something may be done in this direction, although I have little hope of any permanent enlargement in size, unless we combined with the idea of selecting the largest bees to propagate from, as given a few figures back. By making the cells smaller than ordinarily, we can get small bees with very little trouble; and I have seen a whole nucleus of bees so small is to be really laughable, just because the comb they were hatched from, was set at an angle so that one side was concave and the other convex. The small bees came from the concave side. Their light, active movements, as they sported in front of the hive, made them a pretty and amusing site for those fond of curiosities. Worker bees reared in drone cells are, if I'm correct, sometimes extra-large in size; but as to whether we can make them permanently larger by such a course, I'm inclined to doubt. The difficulty, at present seems to be the tendency to rearing a greater quantity of useless drones. By having the hive furnished entirely with worker comb, we can so nearly prevent the production of drones that is safe enough to call it a complete remedy."--A.I. Root, ABC of Bee Culture

"Large Bees Better Gatherers
"One of the most scientific experiments ever carried on in my opinion was conducted by Doctor Merrell at the Kansas experiment station. After some exact research work in finding that some bees actually gather more honey than others, upon examining them he found that they were larger. That is as we would expect. Which can haul the most goods in a day, a large semi-trailer truck or a pick-up? With this in view we have tried to choose for our breeders the ones whose workers are larger. We feel sure that if any progress is made in the future in producing bees that get more honey it must be by selecting the largest drones. Drones vary much more in size and shape and color than do either the workers or the queens so I believe we should proceed along this line."--Jay Smith, Better Queens

If you look at a few of Dee Lusby's archives that Barry has posted here you'll find dozens more.


----------



## Barry

Yes, we already know about the push for bigger bees in the late 1800's.

http://www.beesource.com/point-of-v...-cell-size/the-influence-of-cell-size-part-1/

"About 1891, foundation with cells 920 to the sq. dm. was introduced into our country. Beekeepers all adopted this size of cell. The experts of that time believed that it was advantageous to produce as many bees as possible on the least possible surface of comb. Thus there was a premature narrowing of the cells, and at the end of a few years the bees were miserable specimens.


It was then that, to combat so harmful a tendency, I published an article in _Progres Apicole_ (June 1893) advocating the use of larger cells, as a result of experiments duly described. I had experimented up to the limit of 750 cells per sq. dm. These sizes of cells were obtained by stretching foundation. Mr. Auguste Mees subsequently made them by stretching the sheets as they came off the cylinders, in 1893 to 1895."


----------



## squarepeg

interesting, and it makes sense. and then came varroa.....


----------



## Joseph Clemens

I think that it's fascinating to read about the reasoning behind those who wanted larger honey bees. It's fun to pick at those reasons; for instance, Jay Smith says, and I paraphrase: 'that larger bees carry larger loads.' My picking at that reasoning; do those larger bees actually bring home more nectar? Do they make enough foraging trips to bring home a significantly larger volume of nectar in their lifetimes? Or does their larger size adversely affect their functional abilities in other deleterious ways?

It also sounds like he was referring to the production of entire colonies of larger bees and not just individual larger bees.

In retrospect we know that bigger, is not always better, and not always for the obvious reasons.
-------------------

I am fond of the curiosity of these smaller worker honey bees.

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

Late additional thought/question:
When the colony is raising predominantly larger worker bees, does the energy and nutritional input to produce those larger worker bees balance out when compared to the potentially larger loads (increased overall production) those larger worker bees, supposedly produce?

Suppose that the energy and resources to produce one hundred larger worker bees would be the same amount of energy and resources that could produce five hundred smaller worker bees. So many questions would need to be answered definitively, like; Are there differences in behaviors between large or small worker bees? Do small and large bees share the same task/age behavior? Do they both live and perform their duties, especially nursing and foraging, to the same degree and in the same ways? So many questions come to mind when I think of these early strivings to have bigger worker bees. Many more than I mentioned here. I have yet to see answers to many of them.


----------



## Oldtimer

That's one thing I've never been clear on, stuff I've read says they found that large bees carry more honey. That would seem obvious. But the issue I've had with it is if the bees are large, presumably there would be less of them raised on a given comb area, and less of them in a hive.

It's also interesting how as in all things, including beekeeping, cycles repeat, nothing is really new. At one time they put bees on cells smaller than normal, because the "experts of the day", thought smaller bees were better. Then other beekeepers decided these bees were "miserable specimens". So comb foundation got bigger.

Now a small number of beekeepers are back to thinking small cells are better. And their science for believing it would be about as good as the science used by those beekeepers more than a century ago.

Over the last hundred years there might have been selective pressure towards bees genetically programmed to "want" to build cells bigger than they used to. But it's by no means a certainty, in my opinion. Otherwise, M Bushes bees would not be building cells at 4.7 mm's.


----------



## Oldtimer

squarepeg said:


> interesting, and it makes sense. and then came varroa.....


Not quite. Varroa was first reported infesting honeybees before cell size was modified by artificial comb foundation. That came later.

An "inconvenient truth", I guess.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Oldtimer said:


> An "inconvenient truth", I guess.


How so?


----------



## Oldtimer

Well, there's a myth that cell size of hives was modified to larger, and this caused varroa mite to take hold. This is repeated over and over, till it becomes "truth" and people believe it.

Since this belief is propagated by some proponents of small cells, the truth will be inconvenient for them. That's how. And I'm sure deep down, you know that. 

Want to say that's not true? Refer previous post QUOTE - "and then came varroa". Can you see? A commonly held belief.

We'd all like to beat varroa. But if we are to arrive at the right conclusion, we should start with the right facts.


----------



## Specialkayme

Kieck said:


> your descriptions sounds to me like you introduced bees many times and from many places as you went through this process.


I can't say I started day one with 50 hives, and selected from there. You are correct in that regard. Much has been a trial and error issue. More error than trial at times. But hindsight is always 20/20. 

I started with one three frame nuc purchased in August my first year. Somehow it made it through the winter. I added a package year two. Then another nuc year three. I split from those again and again. Purchased a few more nucs year four. Purchased five full hives year five. That was the last colony purchased. This is my ninth year. Some queens got purchased each year, to replace colonies with queens that were not performing. 

I don't know if that affects the end result or not. Probably would affect my mite issues (although, I personally don't see how it could have made it worse) but I don't see how it could have affected my comb size or regression issues . . .


----------



## Oldtimer

Well actually those results, without treating, are actually pretty good, and would be called by some a great success. I've certainly seen worse results described as a success.

It may reveal a weakness in not treating, that success may go with you for some time, but there's always the possibility of sooner or later, a wipeout. 

Although you did not get completely wiped out. So your survivors may be worth breeding from, but who really knows?


----------



## Specialkayme

Oldtimer said:


> Although you did not get completely wiped out. So your survivors may be worth breeding from, but who really knows?


I'm torn with what to do moving forward. I ordered a nuc from Russell's, and I have the two surviving hives in an outyard.

Do I wait and see what the "survivors" do? Wait to see if they inevitably crash, leaving me with one nuc (hopefully still alive at that point)? Do I cut my losses, realize they arn't drawing smaller comb sizes, and replace with foundation frames? Or go full board and try replacing with small cell, if I'm truly concerned that cell size matters? Do I start treating, since so many other hives bit the bullet?

I know some would suggest that I keep plugging along with the survivors, claiming they already sorted out their issues. But these are the same people that claim the bees will naturally build small cells, or that smaller cells are necessary to be treatment free, neither of which apply to the hives I have currently.


----------



## Oldtimer

Specialkayme said:


> Do I wait and see what the "survivors" do?


Yes I think you should. But if you are torn over it, why have all your eggs in one basket. Also do a few small cell hives. Treat? well not with anything that leaves a permanent residue, that will be contrary to your long term goals.


----------



## Michael Bush

>Want to say that's not true? Refer previous post QUOTE - "and then came varroa". Can you see? A commonly held belief.

One person saying something does not make it a "commonly held belief".


----------



## Oldtimer

Oh come on.

You telling me only one person ever said that?

Let's at least be honest.


----------



## Specialkayme

Oldtimer said:


> Also do a few small cell hives.


A few concerns regarding that. First, I'm only starting next spring with three hives (at best, assuming my other two make it through the winter). I plan on splitting as much as I can, but even still I'm not sure that I have enough hives to do a "few" of anything. I would hate to try a small cell hive, have it fail for another reason, then be discouraged about small cell, when it had nothing to do with the size of the cell. Second, I'm OBVIOUSLY going to have some very serious regression issues if I try to move to small cell. Keeping that in mind, I'm not sure if my resources and time would be better spent on increasing hive numbers, rather than trying to get them to build comb at a smaller cell size. Third, funds are light. Wife has been out of work and we are getting by, but I certainly don't have additional funds to go buy a few boxes of PF-100's, or HSC. Foundation I could probably swing, either LC or SC, but it would be more difficult if I have to have three or four frames of SC foundation in order to get one drawn out properly.



Oldtimer said:


> Treat? well not with anything that leaves a permanent residue, that will be contrary to your long term goals.


Agreed. Now just trying to figure out what type of treatment. I've been off the treatment wagon for quite a few years, so I'm not really into the pros and cons of each type. Plus, I really need to sit down and think about whether or not I want to open the "treatment" can of worms. I haven't done it in so many years, I feel it might be like falling off the wagon. But then again, not-treating clearly didn't work for me.


----------



## squarepeg

and then came varroa.....

as a novice to beekeeping and a non-expert in the history of it all, this statement was more of an observation that varroa has surfaced as a major issue in the what, last 20 years or so?


----------



## sqkcrk

Tracheal 1984
Varroa 1986 or thereabouts

So, more like 26 years just for historical knowledge purposes. But what 6 years more or less?


----------



## Kieck

> ... but I don't see how it could have affected my comb size or regression issues . . . -Specialkayme


Each time you restart a hive, you start the "regression" process all over, I think. Don't quote me on it, please. I'm hardly an expert on "regression." In fact, you'll notice that I often put the term in quotation marks. I'm not convinced that _Apis mellifera_ were historically uniformly smaller than now. I suspect that what you and some others have observed may be indicative of the ancestral state: bees range in size, even from hive to hive, and comb and worker sizes will show evidence of those differences.

If the material exists, an easy way to determine this would be to measure bees from "pre-large cell" and bees currently. Pinned, dried specimens certainly exist in collections around the world. The question would be if enough from the mid-1800s and earlier remain to give a clear indication of the range of sizes.

If I were in your shoes, I'd try to start from the two remaining hives (assuming they make it through the winter), and try to get a good idea of what sorts of mite populations you have in your hives. Whatever method you use for "counting mites," stick with it, be consistent in it, and keep records so you can determine what the mite populations are doing.


----------



## Kieck

> Varroa was first reported infesting honeybees before cell size was modified by artificial comb foundation. -Oldtimer


Honeybees, yes. _Apis mellifera_? Maybe, in the far eastern reaches of Russia, if bees reached there before cell sizes were modified. Maybe in places of the far eastern reaches of the natural range of _A. mellifera_, in subspecies only recently discovered and not used in managed bee production.

More importantly, I think, is how to prevent such future things. Tracheal mites came in to North America long after honeybees were brought in, _Varroa_ followed soon after. Small hive beetles came more recently. Now we're likely to see a wave of _Tropilaelaps_ mites. Might be time to change our practices to reduce chances of bringing in even more problems for beekeeping.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Oldtimer said:


> Well, there's a myth that cell size of hives was modified to larger, and this caused varroa mite to take hold. This is repeated over and over, till it becomes "truth" and people believe it.


Can you demonstrate that this is a commonly held view or that it is "repeated over and over"?


----------



## Kieck

I'll back up Oldtimer's comments on that one. I've heard and read repeatedly, both directly and by insinuation, that cell size modified to be larger made a favorable environment for _Varroa_.

As some evidence, the "pseduodrone" hypothesis is based on this size difference, a number of claims about small cell are based on _Varroa_ being unable to reproduce successfully in smaller cells because of cramped space in the cells or shorter developmental time of the bees in smaller cells versus bees in larger cells, and the preference of _Varroa_ for drone comb (larger cells) demonstrate the beliefs that larger cell sizes play to the favor of _Varroa_. Drone trapping takes advantage of this observation. Counting mites in drone cells is based on this observation. The combination of movements of _Apis mellifera_ to areas where _Varroa_ were living on other species of _Apis_ and the apparent modification to uniformly larger cell sizes for worker brood is widely expressed as the explanation for how _Varroa_ made the jump to western honeybees.


----------



## Barry

AFAIK, this has always been the theory put forth by the Lusby's. Has this been stated in publications?


----------



## Kieck

If you mean specifically the "pseudodrone" hypothesis, Barry, I don't know if it's been stated in publications directly. The other components I mentioned have been tested a number of times and a number of ways in publications.

All that is somewhat moot, I think, because we're talking "commonly-held view" here and not "peer-reviewed theory."


----------



## Solomon Parker

This:


squarepeg said:


> and then came varroa.....


 Does not equal this:


Oldtimer said:


> Well, there's a myth that cell size of hives was modified to larger, and this caused varroa mite to take hold.


 Nor does this:


Kieck said:


> I've heard and read repeatedly, both directly and by insinuation, that cell size modified to be larger made a favorable environment for _Varroa_.


Equal this:


Kieck said:


> the explanation for how _Varroa_ made the jump to western honeybees.


----------



## Kieck

That wasn't my meaning, Solomon. I think you're splitting hairs here by selecting only a fragment of what I wrote. If you go back and re-read my post, you'll see I wrote, "The combination ... is widely expressed as the explanation for how Varroa made the jump to western honeybees."

"Commonly-held truth" states that the modification of cell size was an important component in the species jump made by _Varroa_. It's a vital piece of justification for small cell. And it certainly seems to be a "commonly-held truth" for one of the components necessary for the host shift to occur.


----------



## HiveAtYourHome

This year I put non-regressed packages in 10 frame deeps with two sheets of 4.9 foundation to help tell them which way the frames go and eight foundationless frames per deep. In each case They drew the 4.9 real nice with no difficulty and the foundationless frames had no issues. The cell size varied in all hives based on the frame position and which box, but each non-regressed hive was able to draw down to around 4.7 in the center frames of the brood cluster in the lower part of the frame. While they drew drone and honey cells much larger. Regular non-regressed packages from Wilbanks, NC (both their Italian queens and Carniolan Kona queens) gave me no issue on 4.9 foundation, and no issue going foundationless. Guess I'm just lucky and shouldn't gloat that I lucked out, just continued to be surprised when people state they have trouble with either 4.9 foundation or foundationless.


----------



## Kieck

Did you replace frames during the year, KnNashua? Or did they make such small cells on the first attempt?


----------



## Solomon Parker

Kieck said:


> "Commonly-held truth" states that the modification of cell size was an important component in the species jump made by _Varroa_. It's a vital piece of justification for small cell. And it certainly seems to be a "commonly-held truth" for one of the components necessary for the host shift to occur.


I'm sorry, but I don't see that as a commonly held truth. A 'host shift' and 'fertile grounds for the advancement of introduced varroa' are two different things. Show me where the host shift has even been discussed in terms of cell size? Where is the species jump? When did it happen? Where did it happen?

The Pseudodrone theory is largely an explanation of varroa behavior and how small cell can rebalance infestation rates between drone and worker brood. I have never heard the theory that it's the size of apis mellifera bees that caused a species jump. How could this be a commonly held truth if it's not common enough for me to have heard about it?


----------



## Oldtimer

Semantics.

End of the day Sol it's a commonly held belief. Everybody else is correct, get used to it.

Splitting hairs, quoting out of context etc. won't change that. And nearly everybody reading this thread will have heard this belief put forth. 

Out of the many arguments, this one would have to be one of the most ludicrous, I can't really be bothered playing.


----------



## HiveAtYourHome

Kieck - As these are first year hives I wasn't taking anything they drew out away from them as starting in mid-June in NH. Lucky to get two deeps drawn. Does that mean 1st attempt though....well it does for the 4.9 foundation being drawn out. The natural cell down to 4.7 could be from the first generation daughters that were born in 4.9 foundation or the natural cell the package bees created, not created by the package bees themselves, or then again it could have been the package bees first try (maybe mimicking the 4.9 foundation?) I didn't mess with them frequently or keep good enough records to show if the 4.7 natural cell was created before the first brood was reared or not as I only measured in fall.


----------



## Kieck

> I'm sorry, but I don't see that as a commonly held truth. -Solomon Parker


Fair enough. Could you explain the mechanism that most proponents of small cell provide for why small cell works, please?



> A 'host shift' and 'fertile grounds for the advancement of introduced varroa' are two different things. -Solomon Parker


Yes, they are. But I think getting into how and why these are two different things will muddy the waters of the discussion started in this thread. And it's not a discussion of whether or not beekeepers "commonly hold" a hypothesis that cell size changes influence ability of _Varroa_ to reproduce in those cells. We're talking whether or not beekeepers generally recognize something.



> Where is the species jump? -Solomon Parker


The jump from one species to another is the host shift. That is, _Varroa_ historically was a parasite of _Apis cerana_, the eastern honeybee. It did not occur anywhere in the world -- so far as has ever been recorded -- as a parasite of _A. mellifera_, the western honeybee. At some point in history, humans introduced the western honeybee within the range of the eastern honeybee, and _Varroa_ made the jump from one species to another. That is, it shifted hosts.



> When did it happen? -Solomon Parker


I don't know precisely. I don't know if anyone does. Sometime in the latter half of the 20th century, as far as I know. Please see above.



> Where did it happen? -Solomon Parker


Again, I don't know precisely. And I don't know if anyone knows this one precisely, either. Southeastern Asia is the simple, general answer. Once more, please see my response earlier in this post.



> How could this be a commonly held truth if it's not common enough for me to have heard about it? -Solomon Parker


Not sure. I thought it was widely known and recognized that _Varroa_ were historically parasites of eastern honeybees, too, and that they had only made the jump from one host to another within the last century. I also thought that any number of people talked about the preference of _Varroa_ for larger cell sizes, even and including up to drone cells (hence, "drone trapping" as a method of monitoring mite populations or even helping control mite populations). Maybe _Varroa_ would have made the jump to _A. mellifera_ even if cell sizes in comb had not been manipulated by humans (assuming they were).

Logically, if that were the case, small cell would never even have come up as a suggestion for mite control under those circumstances.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Kieck said:


> Fair enough. Could you explain the mechanism that most proponents of small cell provide for why small cell works, please?


I subscribe to the pseudo drone theory. I don't speak for 'most'.



Kieck said:


> At some point in history, humans introduced the western honeybee within the range of the eastern honeybee, and _Varroa_ made the jump from one species to another


Now that is what I call a commonly held truth. Or at least AM and AC or varroa were put in contact with one another at some point.



Kieck said:


> Maybe _Varroa_ would have made the jump to _A. mellifera_ even if cell sizes in comb had not been manipulated by humans ...


Or in fact they did.

However, the idea that the change in cell size was what caused the jump (and that being a commonly held truth) is what I'm taking issue with. I have seen no evidence for these two assertions, particularly the latter.


----------



## Oldtimer

Whatever.

Anyhow to give a timeline on events, the very earliest part is not known exactly. However, in Russia, under the last Tsar, hives of western honeybees were sent to the Primorsky region for the first time, where they came into contact with ceranae, some time around 1916. The hives were of assorted types including skeps and other designs common in Russia at the time, and used natural comb. The Primorsky region had a natural population of Cerana, with varroa.

It's not known just when the species jump occurred, but it was some time between then, and 1953. Because in 1953, Varroa mite infestations were discovered back in Russia, having been vectored there by hives sent back from the Primorsky region. In the 1960s the mite spread to Hong Kong, Philippines, China, India and Japan, most being countries largely using natural comb. A decade later it invaded Eastern Europe and South America: all the time hitching a lift on the back of hapless bees as they were moved around the world by man. Today Australia is the only continent free of varroa.

Artificial comb foundation came into widespread use in the US something around 80 years before these events, and the US was one of the last countries to get varroa. However, it should be obvious that what facilitated the species jump, and subsequent spread of varroa around the planet, was the advent of modern mass transport. Not comb foundation.


----------



## Kieck

Either way, KnNashua, your experience sounds different to me than the typical "regression" instances I've heard. Most of the stories of "regression" involve a gradual decrease in size from commercially-available sizes back to small cell, with replacement of combs necessary to get down to the final small cell size. Intriguing that your bees drew such small cells right off the bat.



> Now that is what I call a commonly held truth. -Solomon Parker


Different definitions, I guess. To me, "commonly-held truth" is synonomous with "conventional wisdom." Doesn't mean it's right or wrong, but it's a general belief. In this case, it may be a general belief, but it also happens to be a documented set of circumstances. It's more than a simple "commonly-held truth," in my opinion.



> Or in fact they did. -Solomon Parker


Perhaps. I'll confess that I do not know what the mean and range of cell sizes for brood in western honeybee colonies were before man-made foundation was widely used. But _Varroa_ make the jump to western honeybees only after man-made foundation was widely used, so we cannot know what might have happened without manipulation of cell sizes by humans. Unless, of course, what you're suggesting is that humans selected the mean size of cells for foundation, and the average size of cells now is no different than it was 200 years ago. If what you suggest is, in fact, the case, "regression" is completely wrong as an idea; bees aren't returning to an ancestral, less-evolved state (as defined by "regression") if cell sizes were not smaller before human manipulation than they are now.



> I have seen no evidence for these two assertions, particularly the latter. -Solomon Parker


It's corollary to the "pseudodrone" hypothesis. It fits right in with the tenents of small cell hypotheses. The sizes of _Apis cerana_ are smaller than the sizes for _A. mellifera_, and the sizes of _A. cerana_ drones and drone cells (the hosts, very specifically, for _Varroa_ mites historically; mites are limited to drones in nests of _A. cerana_) are similar to the sizes of _A. mellifera_ workers and worker cells in hives with man-made combs in them. Having compared the sizes from specimens myself, I see the size relationships as evidence.


----------



## Kieck

> Today Australia is the only continent free of varroa. -Oldtimer


I've read statements that directly contradict this. I've read that Australia has _Varroa_ just like the other continents with honeybees.



> However, it should be obvious that the cause of the species jump, and subsequent spread of varroa around the planet, was the advent of modern mass transport. Not comb foundation. -Oldtimer


Movement of bees by humans was vital both to the jump and to the spread of _Varroa_. Cell size, if sizes were in fact increased by humans, very well may have lead to the overwhelming success of the mites in western honeybee colonies, especially in North America.


----------



## Oldtimer

Kieck said:


> I've read statements that directly contradict this. I've read that Australia has _Varroa_ just like the other continents with honeybees.


Australia is a very interesting case. Their proximity and trade relations with neighboring Asian countries means that the accidental importation of _Apis Ceranae_ was almost inevitable.

And in fact this has occured, there have been possibly 200 accidental importations, and there is currently a wild population of _Apis Ceranae_ living in Melbourne which is provoing very difficult to eradicate, because the general population cannot tell the difference between them and normal bees.

So, varroa is considered endemic on _Apis Ceranae_, the US banned importation of Aussie bees one of the considerations being it was thought inevitable that the Aussie bees would be infected. But to date, no varroa has been found, the Aussie beekeepers do not treat, there are no problems. Could it be the environment?

BTW in Aussie they use standard foundation.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Oldtimer said:


> it should be obvious that what facilitated the species jump, and subsequent spread of varroa around the planet, was the advent of modern mass transport. Not comb foundation.


Exactly, that's the commonly held truth. Which is why this


Oldtimer said:


> Well, there's a myth that cell size of hives was modified to larger, and *this caused varroa mite to take hold. This is repeated over and over, till it becomes "truth" and people believe it.*


 is a fabrication.

I rest my case.


----------



## Oldtimer

I'm not sure exactly what it is you think you've just proved. 

Are you inferring something I said is contradictory? 

Or perhaps you think you've proved that larger cells do not cause varro mites to take hold?


----------



## Michael Bush

I don't think I've ever heard more than one person purport that large cell foundation was the CAUSE of Varroa. I hardly think that is a "commonly held belief". I do think it is the cause of it being the major problem that it is for most people rather than a minor pest. The history of the spread of Varroa is very well documented. While I'm sure "official" reports are not perfectly accurate, as official reports always lag behind the actual spread, that is only a minor difference in timing. The way it spread and the path it took is very well documented.


----------



## Oldtimer

Yes. My original statement was simply to refute the belief that the spread of varroa around the world was caused by large cell comb foundation.

Michael you may think it's the cause of it being a major problem rather than a minor pest. But I'm saying it would likely have spread around the world, whatever foundation people were, or were not, using.


----------



## Roland

Are we forgetting the "common knowledge" that the cell size is also to blame for the trachea mite issues? There has been much talk of the coincidence of changing cell size after the late 1800's and the out break of "Isle of Wright's disease" of a couple of decades later.

I have personally measured the cell size dimensions of four different foundation mills, all believed to be pre 1900(one is from Mr. Olm of Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, inventor of the cylindrical mill). I will try to find the information and post.

Crazy Roland


----------



## Michael Bush

>But I'm saying it would likely have spread around the world, whatever foundation people were, or were not, using. 

And I can only think of one person I have ever heard who might believe that.

>Are we forgetting the "common knowledge" that the cell size is also to blame for the trachea mite issues?

I didn't realize that was "common knowledge". I have heard the theory and it makes as much sense as any other theory. The scientists say that they believe that Acarapis woodi was either Acarpis dorsalis, externus or vagans (most likely vagans as it is more less geographically specific) that made an evoloutionary leap and got into the trachea. The "small cell" theory is that the large cell bees have spiracles were either larger or softer around the edges allowing the Acarapis vagans access. I'd say either or a combination of both makes some sense. It is a rather sudden jump and there is no evidence they existed before. The thing we don't know is, "what was the trigger?"


----------



## Oldtimer

Yes, there's no evidence. Which makes it one of the weakest anti large cell arguments out there.

And I for one thought it was "common knowledge", I've certainly heard it enough.

Just that a theory makes sense, does not make it true.


----------



## Oldtimer

Michael Bush said:


> And I can only think of one person I have ever heard who might believe that.


 That would have to be Sol?


----------



## Kieck

This thread is rapidly turning into a debate about debating. I'm as guilty as anyone else for that, but I'd like to get back to the original idea while touching on a part of this that has come out in the exchange here.

Let's say, hypothetically or otherwise, that cell sizes for _Apis mellifera_ were "small cell" naturally. And, let's assume that small cell really offers the advantages that have been claimed by some beekeepers (no intent to debate that in this thread, please). Believing that _Varroa_ would still have come into contact with western honeybees, and believing that the mites would have shown the behavioral preferences that they do, and assuming that small cell offers an advantage to the bees by reducing mite populations in worker brood, _Varroa_ might have been only a parasite of drones in western honeybees like it is for _A. cerana_, the eastern honeybee.

If you wade through that sentence and paragraph, you could start wondering how much we'd worry about _Varroa_ if it only affected drones and drone brood. Mites would have been unlikely to cause colony losses, if that were the case. And would they have spread across the globe the way they have?

I do find it interesting that at least some beekeepers seem to believe that the mean size of cells for worker brood in "natural cell" was and is the same as the size of cells available in most commercial foundation. Does that make an argument for "large cell?" And does that mean that "small cell" is unnatural?


----------



## Barry

Kieck said:


> I do find it interesting that at least some beekeepers seem to believe that the mean size of cells for worker brood in "natural cell" was and is the same as the size of cells available in most commercial foundation. Does that make an argument for "large cell?" And does that mean that "small cell" is unnatural?


I don't think so. We do know that long before varroa was here in the states, mill makers were cranking out foundation with a cell size much smaller than today. They would not have done that without it based on some evidence that it was a normal size of the time.


----------



## Kieck

That's my understanding, too, Barry, but the suggestion has been made in this thread that the larger size we see today is the same as the historic mean size of worker cells in hives (that is, no manipulation to mean cell sizes has been made by humans).


----------



## Riskybizz

I suppose that one could argue that man made small cell foundation is indeed un-natural. I have quite a few colonies from cutouts that only consist of natural comb. They bees decided what size to draw and how to arrange it. It is not all 4.9 I assure you. So far it has been my experience that these colonies are no less prone to succumbing to Varro than any of my other colonies, including those on PF100 and PF120. So what many are advocating is that they know better what the bees need in order to be healthier by only using 4.9 sized cell foundations. I understand the arguments, but in my hives I have not seen any difference. I keep around 30 hives and have been involved in beekeeping for many years.


----------



## Oldtimer

Barry said:


> I don't think so. We do know that long before varroa was here in the states, mill makers were cranking out foundation with a cell size much smaller than today. They would not have done that without it based on some evidence that it was a normal size of the time.


Barry you have already answered your question here, by pointing out the small cells they made were not normal, but driven by the belief of the day that smaller cells than normal were better.



Barry said:


> http://www.beesource.com/point-of-v...-cell-size/the-influence-of-cell-size-part-1/
> 
> "About 1891, foundation with cells 920 to the sq. dm. was introduced into our country. Beekeepers all adopted this size of cell. The experts of that time believed that it was advantageous to produce as many bees as possible on the least possible surface of comb. Thus there was a premature narrowing of the cells, and at the end of a few years the bees were miserable specimens".


Best I can tell, a cell size of 4.9 is not natural *all the time*. But the argument over wether making bees use 4.9 foundation is natural is superfluous. Sure, it's not natural. But nor is varroa a natural predator of _apis melifera_. So to treat an unnatural disease, it may be nessecary to use an unnatural treatment.

Of course, that assuming a cell size 4.9 does actually help with varroa, and for all but a few the jury is still out on that.


----------



## Kieck

To me, the most interesting part of this thread has been some evidence provided that bees range quite a bit, naturally, in size, even from one hive to another. I had more-or-less accepted the idea that before human manipulation of cell sizes in comb, bees tended to build comb with a smaller mean cell diameter than the cell sizes presented to them with man-made comb. I believed, following what seemed to me to be the conventional wisdom, that given a little time, bees would universally revert to building comb with cells for worker brood averaging less than the average size of man-made comb.

It seems that isn't/wasn't/hasn't been the case, likely. I wonder now if the two sizes both fall within the ranges of the mean worker-brood cell sizes produced by hives, and one may or may not be any better than the other for any given hive.


----------



## Barry

Oldtimer said:


> Barry you have already answered your question here, by pointing out the small cells they made were not normal, but driven by the belief of the day that smaller cells than normal were better.


No, I said just the opposite. Smaller cells were the norm. If they were not, beekeepers would have been having the same issues with comb drawing as we have now and it wouldn't sell. Obviously it worked fine back then.

920 to the sq. dm. is a cell size of 5.0mm. I wonder what this means: "and at the end of a few years the bees were miserable specimens" I'm focusing on the bees ability to draw out various types of foundation over the years. At one time bees drew out the smaller cell foundation (4.9 - 5.0) fine, when we give this size foundation to bees, it's a rare case that one will get nice comb.


----------



## Oldtimer

Well I'd have to ask him to really know his thoughts, and that's not going to happen. But just reading what he wrote at face value, it appears to mean the 5.0 mm bees were smaller than the people at that time were used to. ie "miserable specimens", which he thought were to small. So a larger size was called for.


----------



## Specialkayme

Varroa reasons aside (and I know that's a big thing to push aside), which would be better overall, a smaller bee or a larger bee?

My "natural cells" are much larger than standard 5.4mm foundation. So to me, if small cell does have varroa reduction properties, and it is due to a smaller size, the preference of frames for me should be first small cell, second 5.4mm cell, and third natural comb. 

But, if a "smaller bee" is better overall, the preference would be the same, of first small cell, second 5.4mm cell, and third natural comb.

However, if a "bigger bee" is better overall, the preference should be opposite, of first natural comb, second 5.4mm cell, and third small cell.

So, if I take an overall average of what's "best" and what the preference is, 5.4mm will always put me in the middle of the road.


----------



## Barry

Oldtimer said:


> ie "miserable specimens", which he thought were to small. So a larger size was called for.


I read it differently. He says "miserable specimens" but makes no mention of "miserable combs", which we experience. A "miserable specimens" is a very subjective term. Size doesn't make a specimen miserable. Diseases do. Yet no mention of this. Whatever is the "correct" size, the thing that interests me is, again, that beekeepers 100 years ago didn't have the problem we do with getting bees to draw out the smaller cell size.


----------



## beez2010

I see that Barry has the same problem with Oldtimer that I always had. Oldtimer reads something and has no idea what it says. He goes on and on earlier in this thread about how I used to be so insistant that treating was not necessary, but I invite everyone to look at everything and anything that I ever posted here to see that he is dead wrong. Most of our arguments about varroa were centered around DWV and whether or not DWV was proof positive of heavy varroa infestation. It is NOT! My contention was always that beekeepers need to do mite drop tests to check for varroa before jumping to conclusions. I am here today, because I see people linking to my sight from this post and all that I can say are two things. First, small cell works. Second, {Edit}


----------



## Oldtimer

Well thanks Beez, I see you are still as cheerful as ever LOL!

I linked you because you will see if you read the thread, that I was challenged by M Bush to name someone who was against treating, but now recommends it. I felt this was a loaded question because it cannot be answered without "picking on" someone. Usually with this sort of thing I back down rather than name someone, which of course results in me being accused of "having no evidence". {Edit} After all, your web site is in the public domain, why should I not be able to link to it.


----------



## beez2010

Well, OT, being that the hives my company builds have had screened bottom boards since day one, and that we have always sold graphed sticky boards in order to monitor for varroa, {Edit}.


----------



## Oldtimer

Thanks Beez, lovely to meet you again LOL!


----------



## waholloway

I thought the intention of these forums were to help us understand the best possible ways to preserve the honeybee. maybe i have been misled, but isn't in everyones best interest to learn from each other? We can all continue to have various opinions, but in the end, if the bees are gone, we are soon to follow.


----------



## Oldtimer

Well it is intended for that, and largely succeeds. [Edit] But that's just how some people react to anything other than their own opinion. End of the day, it's the net, open to all comers. Just a matter of syphoning the good from the bad. There is quite a lot of good, and sometimes what we don't agree with we can also surprise ourselves and learn something new from. For me, this has been a useful site.


----------



## Specialkayme

Scrolling back, I'm surprised how much of this thread really wasn't about small cell vs. natural cell . . .


----------



## squarepeg

yeah, looks like you stimulated a lively discussion there my friend. have you been able to come to a decision as to how to proceed this year?


----------



## Kieck

I think your answer might be buried in all the rest of the discussion, Specialkayme. If having small cells is important to you, go with small cell. From the rest of the discussion, going with natural cell might get you small cell, might get you even larger cell, and certainly will get you a range of cell sizes within each hive.


----------



## Solomon Parker

The trouble I have with the 'natural cell' ideology is the idea that 'the bees know what they want'. The bees don't want to build comb on frames. Given the chance, they'll build it wherever they like. I doubt they want to live in 3/4" pine boxes either. They certainly won't want to waste their time producing a massive surplus of honey just so some hairless bear will steal it.

In my humble opinion, in a human kept hive, there is no such thing as 'natural cell.' We virtually always make some attempt to get the bees to build parallel combs so we can pull them out to look at them as legally required. Natural cell comb exists only where topbars, frames, foundation, and comb guides don't. Even in skeps, the beekeeper makes an effort to coax the bees into producing parallel combs. Watch the Heathland Skep beekeeping videos for evidence. 

Any attempt to get the bees to build comb in a frame or on a topbar messes up the bees' attempts to produce the comb they want. That's why we get people who complain that foundationless frames end up chock full of drone comb. If at any point we move combs around in the hive, we mess up the bees attempts to produce the comb they want. However, we still want them to produce honey for us and we want to assure that they aren't harboring disease and we want to be able to split them at will and do all sorts of other things which advance our purpose and hinder theirs.

That's why I use small cell foundation and plastic frames. The bees know what they want, yes, but I cannot let them have all that and still get what I want. So I need to get them to do what they need to do while at the same time manipulating them to do what I need them to do. So I manage roughly the amount of small cell brood comb and drone comb they should have relative to a truly natural hive so we can both get what we want. If I could tell the bees 'look, I'm going to be moving things around so just build brood comb and I'll make sure you get to build drone later' things might work out, but they are tiny animals with hardly a brain and they work almost entirely on genetically programmed instinct.

Successful treatment free beekeepers must approach beekeeping from all aspects and the facts. They are not 'girls', beekeepers cannot _keep_ 'natural cell' bees and to get what we want, we mess up what they want. These things must be taken into account and workarounds engineered or it won't work very well.


----------



## Kieck

> In my humble opinion, in a human kept hive, there is no such thing as 'natural cell.' We virtually always make some attempt to get the bees to build parallel combs so we can pull them out to look at them as legally required. Natural cell comb exists only where topbars, frames, foundation, and comb guides don't. -Solomon Parker


In general, I agree with this sentiment. I'll go a step further in one respect, even: "Natural cell" cannot exist in North America or South America, because honeybees did not "naturally" exist in the Americas.

However, I think some of the idea behind "natural cell" has merit.



> The bees don't want to build comb on frames. -Solomon Parker


They certainly do it well enough, though. And if they truly "didn't want" to do it, they could abscond. They seem to accept frames willingly enough.



> I doubt they want to live in 3/4" pine boxes either. -Solomon Parker


Some of them certainly seem to. So-called "trap hives" can be remarkably effective, and those bees select those boxes of their own free will. They could opt to build in a hollow tree. Or a void in the wall of a building. Or under a rock overhand. But they "pick" a hollow wooden box.

Again, I'll agree that it isn't "natural," but walls are no more "natural," and the presence of honeybees on this continent isn't "natural" at all.



> We virtually always make some attempt to get the bees to build parallel combs so we can pull them out to look at them as legally required. -Solomon Parker


Right. Interesting to me, though, is that the vast majority of cut-outs that I've done have been of hives that also have parallel combs in them. Parallel comb seems to be the preference for most of the bees that I've encountered. And they usually seem to build them pretty straight just by their own choosing. They will follow "guides" -- ridges and such -- if features are present.



> That's why we get people who complain that foundationless frames end up chock full of drone comb. -Solomon Parker


I've been running a number of foundationless colonies for a few years now. I haven't had any that have ended up overloaded with drone comb. Some hives certainly build more drone comb (and produce more drones) than others, but I've observed some colonies reworking foundation, too, to build more drone comb.

In general, I do agree with the sentiment here. I prefer the term "foundationless" to the term "natural cell." The end result is the same, but the connotations are better with "foundationless" I think.


----------



## squarepeg

nice job of recapping sol and kieck, thanks.


----------



## Specialkayme

squarepeg said:


> have you been able to come to a decision as to how to proceed this year?


Lol, no. Here is where I currently stand. I posted it a page back, but I think it got lost in the arguments.



Specialkayme said:


> Varroa reasons aside (and I know that's a big thing to push aside), which would be better overall, a smaller bee or a larger bee?
> 
> My "natural cells" are much larger than standard 5.4mm foundation. So to me, if small cell does have varroa reduction properties, and it is due to a smaller size, the preference of frames for me should be first small cell, second 5.4mm cell, and third natural comb.
> 
> But, if a "smaller bee" is better overall, the preference would be the same, of first small cell, second 5.4mm cell, and third natural comb.
> 
> However, if a "bigger bee" is better overall, the preference should be opposite, of first natural comb, second 5.4mm cell, and third small cell.
> 
> So, if I take an overall average of what's "best" and what the preference is, 5.4mm will always put me in the middle of the road.


Based on that, I'm thinking my best and safest bet would be to play it right down the middle, with a 5.4mm foundation cell size. It would be smaller than my current natural cells, but larger than small cell. If I see an improvement, I'll be open to considering small cell, but I'm hesitant to jump right into it. Natural cell size didn't work for me, so I'm not sure if I'm ready to buy the arguments for small cell without seeing first hand any of the rewards.

But to get it back to the original point, between small cell and natural cell, if natural cell did what I was told it would (i.e. get a varied cell size, but generally have the brood nest between 4.7mm and 5.0mm), I would continue to go with that. But, since I'm getting cell sizes LARGER than standard foundation, I don't see the advantage (other than cost of foundation) over small cell. Others may be seeing cell sizes of comparable size (or smaller) in foundationless compared to small cell, but that isn't the case in my yards.



Kieck said:


> If having small cells is important to you, go with small cell. From the rest of the discussion, going with natural cell might get you small cell, might get you even larger cell, and certainly will get you a range of cell sizes within each hive.


Having bees, alive and healthy, is important to me. Personally I could care less about cell size. So it inevitably comes down to what is best _for them_.



Solomon Parker said:


> They certainly won't want to waste their time producing a massive surplus of honey just so some hairless bear will steal it.


Nice.



Solomon Parker said:


> there is no such thing as 'natural cell.'





Kieck said:


> I'll go a step further in one respect, even: "Natural cell" cannot exist in North America or South America, because honeybees did not "naturally" exist in the Americas.


I am begging you, LITERALLY BEGGING YOU, do not take this thread down yet another side track of some mundane argument over what you define X to mean. Your point is taken, and well understood, without either legitimizing or delegitimizing it. Lets move back on point.


----------



## squarepeg

specialkayme, that makes real good sense. all of the frames i have added so far have been mann lake's rite cell. the catalog doesn't say what the cell size is, but i plan to measure. 

i'm also going to put some empty frames in this year, partly to cut some queen cells from, and partly to see what size cells they draw on them.

thanks for starting this thread.


----------



## Kieck

> If I see an improvement, I'll be open to considering small cell, but I'm hesitant to jump right into it. -Specialkayme


An improvement in what?

I went back and read some of the beginning posts, trying to figure out exactly what might be happening in your situation. Are you having _Varroa_ mite problems? Did/do you believe cell size will influence mite populations? Why did you decide to go foundationless in the first place?

I know, it's probably a bit off topic, but if you are in fact having problems with _Varroa_ mites (I'm not convinced from the description here that that's what's causing all your problems), and if you do believe that cell size will influence mite populations significantly, why not go to small cell and see what happens?

If you don't believe cell size influences mite populations, why abandon foundationless at this point? (Do you just want smaller bees?)

I'll be honest, I don't worry about the size of the bees in my hives. Small bees, large bees, everything in between. I certainly see a range of sizes. As long as they're doing well, I find it interesting and worthwhile to observe the size differences, but I do not find it critical to select for or against one end of the spectrum or the other.



> Having bees, alive and healthy, is important to me. Personally I could care less about cell size. So it inevitably comes down to what is best for them. -Specialkayme


Right. So, I think step one is, "Figure out what is causing your losses." What are your mite populations? I've seen "large cell" hive with lots of mites. I've seen "large cell" hives with so few mites that elaborate methods to find mites had to be employed to locate even a few mites in the hives. Same with "small cell." I'm really not convinced at this point that cell size is all that critical to _Varroa destructor_. I doubt populations of mites can be managed by something as simple as manipulating the size of the cells. Others believe and report otherwise. You have to decide what you believe, or try both to see if you can see a difference for yourself.

Secondly, would you consider using the dreaded "T" word (treatment) if needed to save a hive? Remember that "treated" does not equal "unhealthy." As an analogy, I've known individuals who have been parasitized by intestinal worms. They were treated to kill the worms. Does having once been treated make those individuals unhealthy for the rest of their existences? Or do they return to "health" at some point?

Realizing that this is a treatment-free section and thread, bear in mind that "treatment" also does not necessarily equal "chemical."


----------



## Solomon Parker

Specialkayme said:


> I am begging you, LITERALLY BEGGING YOU, do not take this thread down yet another side track of some mundane argument over what you define X to mean.


Relax. No one controls a forum, it goes where it goes. I used to try to control it and it didn't work well. You use words the definitions of which are up for interpretation. That's life. But I'm not going to argue the meaning of 'natural cell' in this thread. Enough said.


Specialkayme said:


> Lets move back on point.


It was on point. The title of the thread is "Natural Cell vs. Small Cell." The trouble with your questions, especially as in the title of the thread is that you're comparing two things you don't even have and trying to make decisions based on those comparisons. The fact that you got *wildly atypical* cell sizes on foundationless frames is a problem, a problem no one yet has an answer for. The cell size you've seen is not I repeat NOT what 'natural cell' has ever meant outside of drone comb. The context of that term says (remember which forum you're in) that the cell size should be lower than 5.4mm. It has always been that way. That's the context. That's what it means when you ask that question in this forum.

Small cell and foundationless theorists put forth the idea that smaller cells help the bees with survival. But that theory is based on foundationless comb being of a smaller size than standard foundation. You've taken your *wildly atypical* results and are using them as the benchmark to decide what to do next. I have never heard another case of foundationless brood comb being of any greater size than standard foundation.

I dare say if you make the half step of moving from wildly atypically large cell size to conventional cell size, you won't stick around (treatment-free) to try small cell if that doesn't work. How your questions started (in the context of 'natural cell') was something along the lines of 'I started small and I feel like I'm failing, so now I would like to figure out if I should go smaller (with small cell).' However, now that we've found out how large that comb was, your question evolves to 'I tried large and it didn't work so now I'm going to try normal size.' Meanwhile, small cell theorists are trying to tell you that it _shouldn't work_ on super big cells, and it's not going to be much better on the already big cells everyone has been using for decades.


----------



## Oldtimer

Solomon Parker said:


> I have never heard another case of foundationless brood comb being of any greater size than standard foundation.


Actually, you have.

In this thread http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?249416-Natural-Cell-Hive&highlight=natural , I reported my own adventure with natural comb. Which included the bees going larger than the foundation they had previously been on.

I was newer to beesource then, and you will note if you read the thread, that like Specialkayme, I too, from reading the experts on Beesource, had gained the impression that bees naturally regress to a cell size of 4.9. The impression had been given me, that natural cell, and small cell, would eventually be the same. I doubted that, but had to try it myself to discover the truth.

All credit to Barry, he was quite open that natural cell and small cell are NOT nessecarily the same.


----------



## Solomon Parker

t: If you read your own post, you'll find that your cells measured virtually exactly same as your natively available foundation. Barry even found some that measured smaller.

Let's keep it on topic for Specialkayme's sake.


----------



## Oldtimer

Yes some were smaller. But some were bigger. And it IS on topic, regardless of wether it supports any particular dogma. No need to get upset.

At other times, not reported in that particular thread, I have had bees build comb notably larger than standard foundation. And not for drones, they raised workers in it.


----------



## Oldtimer

Something else, in one of my fully regressed small (4.9) cell hives, I left three empty frames to allow them to build drone comb. However they did not want that much drone, and filled about 1/2 one of the frames with worker cells, built, to my surprise, at 5.4 mm. Which caused problems later, because when those larger workers began emerging, it was enough to cause the bees to draw new small cell foundation less than perfectly. In my quest for more perfectly drawn 4.9 mm comb, I've had to stop using that hive till the life span of those bees has passed. Annoying.


----------



## RiodeLobo

I must say I am eagerly awaiting warm weather to bust out my metric calipers and see what my foundationless hives are at.


----------



## Kieck

I haven't measured cells from a wide range of hives, especially those that have built comb to their own preferences. However, I think all of the measurements in this thread are likely within a range of "normal." I'm not sure if any can really be labelled as "atypical."

Back when I was in high school, I spent a lot of time measuring goldenrod galls and the flies that emerge from them as part of a science fair project. I kept them all separated in individual cups so each gall could be associated with the fly that emerged from it. After measuring hundreds of each, I found no correlation between the size of the gall and the size of the fly (not surprising, really, since the plant's responses form the gall). The part that relates to this is that the measurements of any part of the flies easily ranged more than + or - 10 percent from the mean.

Assuming the same might be true for honeybees (it is for a number of other insects as well), that could be expected to produce results within a range of + or - 0.5 mm from the mean cell diameter. A range from 4.7 to 5.8 mm per cell could all fall within the boundaries of "normal." I don't know. I'm speculating here. Again, I haven't measured enough to be able to say.

I do think that a wide range of "natural" sizes, even from hive to hive, is to be expected.


----------



## squarepeg

kieck, what is your opinion on the data regarding the relationship between gestation (the time from egg laid to emergence) and cell size?


----------



## Kieck

My belief is that the incubation time and larval development time vary in length, too. Many insects are temperature dependent for their developmental times. I would guess bees are as well.

And even within that, I would guess that some variation exists. I used to raise pigeons. The incubation time for a pigeon egg is "19 days." However, some hatch at 15, 16, or 17 days. Some take 21 or 22 days.

Of course, if the developing larva runs out of room sooner in a smaller cell, the space constraint may trigger pupation. I don't really know. I have never honestly tried measuring developmental times in different cell sizes for myself.


----------



## squarepeg

understand, and i haven't read the studies myself. the other mechanism that has been suggested is that the mature female foundress mite has less time to lay eggs, thereby decreasing the mite reproduction rate. i agree with you that it's tough to call with all the variability and multiple other contributing factors. i'll try to look up those studies.


----------



## TWall

> Of course, if the developing larva runs out of room sooner in a smaller cell, the space constraint may trigger pupation. I don't really know. I have never honestly tried measuring developmental times in different cell sizes for myself.


Larvae development is a physiological process. Temperature controls the rate of processes. The bees clustering keep the temperature in the optimal range. Running out of space would not speed up the process. Although, smaller, more densely packed cells could results in higher temps which would speed development rate.

Tom


----------



## Specialkayme

Kieck said:


> An improvement in what?


Health, vigor, lifespan, honey yield . . . 



Kieck said:


> Are you having _Varroa_ mite problems?


My colonies suddenly 'lost the will to live' and kinda just left. I had noticed DWV issues before, but figured it was part of the process. They mostly just dwindled, and when an issue came up, they weren't strong or willing to deal with it (wax moths and robbing were two big issues). While not definitive, it is symptomatic with Varroa issues. I don't know what else it could have been though.



Kieck said:


> Did/do you believe cell size will influence mite populations?


Not sure, but open to the possibility. 



Kieck said:


> Why did you decide to go foundationless in the first place?


Cost for one, because of it's potential for treatment free for two, pesticide free wax for three, and lastly I figured the "bees would know best" (other than the straight curiosity of it).



Kieck said:


> why not go to small cell and see what happens?


I had heavy losses this year, and I'm trying not to repeat the issue  Not saying moving to small cell will do that, but not saying it won't either.



Kieck said:


> If you don't believe cell size influences mite populations, why abandon foundationless at this point? (Do you just want smaller bees?)


Something didn't work last year, that's for certain. One possible reason could be the foundationless frames. Not saying it was the reason, but if I remove it from the situation and nothing changes, I'll know.



Kieck said:


> What are your mite populations?


Couldn't tell you, I havn't tested. 



Kieck said:


> Secondly, would you consider using the dreaded "T" word (treatment) if needed to save a hive?


I am, and always have been, if necessary to save a hive. But by the time I noticed them dwindling, it was too late. Part bad practices on my part, part bad strategy on my part.


----------



## Specialkayme

Solomon Parker said:


> The trouble with your questions, especially as in the title of the thread is that you're comparing two things you don't even have and trying to make decisions based on those comparisons.


So, I have to have a small cell comb in order to say that it's cells are smaller than 5.4mm foundation cells? I doubt it.

I'm not telling you what the end result is. I'm asking what the end result is, but no one is telling me, therefore I'm left to theorize as to my current situation and where I want to go. My cells didn't work. Will smaller cells work? I don't know, because I don't know if it was my larger _cells_ that caused the problem. Would smaller cells than the smaller cells work (i.e. small cell)? I don't know, because I havn't compared my large cell results to 5.4mm cell results, and no one else can tell me the answer.



Solomon Parker said:


> The fact that you got *wildly atypical* cell sizes on foundationless frames is a problem, a problem no one yet has an answer for. The cell size you've seen is not I repeat NOT what 'natural cell' has ever meant outside of drone comb. The context of that term says (remember which forum you're in) that the cell size should be lower than 5.4mm.


I'm sorry, but that's preposterous. What exactly was wildly atypical? The cell size . . . that's it. The conditions I put the bees in were not wildly atypical, the methods I used in managing them were not wildly atypical, my geographic location wasn't wildly atypical, my bees themselves (size, mannerism, genetic composition) were not atypical. The time frame in which I used to determine what "natural" cell size was wasn't atypical. The only thing you have a problem with is the outcome. That's the one thing I didn't control. I let them do what they wanted, and they wanted to make larger cells. It isn't as if one hive made larger cells THEY ALL DID. That's not atypical, it's just a different result from what other people YOU'VE READ ABOUT have gotten (I'm basing this on the assumption that you use small cell only, as you have indicated in earlier posts, and I'm assuming you do not use foundationless). 

I would also challenge your idea that only "natural cells" are smaller than 5.4mm. I think natural cells are those that the bees chose the size, and that's what they have done. However, should be lower than 5.4mm and IS lower than 5.4mm are two different things, obviously. Neither of which are really answering what we are talking about though. 



Solomon Parker said:


> Small cell and foundationless theorists put forth the idea that smaller cells help the bees with survival. But that theory is based on foundationless comb being of a smaller size than standard foundation. You've taken your *wildly atypical* results and are using them as the benchmark to decide what to do next.


But it's not atypical. Its what all of my hives chose to do. It might be different than what others have seen, but that isn't the point.

But I don't really care if it's typical or not. I care what my situation is. I had roughly 20 hives over a six year period drawing out comb with out foundation. The end result are cell sizes substantially larger than foundation cells. Why would I not use this information to determine what I should do moving forward? To not would be asinine. It didn't work with the first 20 hives, why should I repeat it with the next 20 hives? It didn't work in the first six years, so why should I repeat it in the next six years?



Solomon Parker said:


> I have never heard another case of foundationless brood comb being of any greater size than standard foundation.


Oldtimer said he had the same thing. That makes two currently. 

But I don't really know many people going foundationless . . . at least that I know their name . . . other than Mr. Bush.



Solomon Parker said:


> How your questions started (in the context of 'natural cell') was something along the lines of 'I started small and I feel like I'm failing, so now I would like to figure out if I should go smaller (with small cell).' However, now that we've found out how large that comb was, your question evolves to 'I tried large and it didn't work so now I'm going to try normal size.'


My position evolved. No one could tell me why my cells were so large. Not many even wanted to comment on it, other than "that's odd." Most wanted to argue over which came first, foundation or Varroa, or some other meaningless argument.

In the mean time, I'm theorizing things I can do to improve my situation, and thinking outloud.

However, I'm still looking at the possibility of using a _smaller_ cell. Before I measured, I thought that would be small cell. After I measured, I realized smaller would actually be normal foundation.

I'm not convinced, however, that smaller means anything. I'm just asking. From what I've heard, however, it can't do any harm to go smaller, and it might give you some type of benefit.



Solomon Parker said:


> Meanwhile, small cell theorists are trying to tell you that it _shouldn't work_ on super big cells, and it's not going to be much better on the already big cells everyone has been using for decades.


Are those the same theorists that tell me that my 5.9mm cells should be 4.7mm by now?

But if you are telling me that 5.4mm foundation frames will doom me, because the cell size is too large to work, what makes you think that a cell size of 5.9mm will work?


----------



## Specialkayme

Solomon Parker said:


> Let's keep it on topic for Specialkayme's sake.


Hahaha, thanks Sol.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Specialkayme said:


> My cells didn't work. Will smaller cells work?


No offense, but........seriously? I won't speak for anyone else, but I'm pretty sure that's the only thing I've been telling you for days, on this thread and the last one. Small cell small cell small cell. It works for me, it might work for you. That's all I got for ya.



Specialkayme said:


> I'm sorry, but that's preposterous. What exactly was wildly atypical? The cell size . . . that's it.


That's right, the results you got were wildly atypical. That means they're not normal. No one knows why.



Specialkayme said:


> It might be different than what others have seen,


That would be the definition of atypical. But I don't want to argue over definitions. 



Specialkayme said:


> Why would I not use this information to determine what I should do moving forward?


Or you could use the answers given to the question you asked by those with experience in the subject.



Specialkayme said:


> But I don't really know many people going foundationless .


There are plenty around here. All you need to do is ask.



Specialkayme said:


> No one could tell me why my cells were so large.


How are we supposed to explain something that hasn't been seen before?



Specialkayme said:


> what makes you think that a cell size of 5.9mm will work?


Assuming you meant 4.9mm, it may work for you because it works for me and it works for others. That's all there is to it.

By the way, I did do several foundationless frames last year and I posted the results. I got comb from 4.9mm to 5.2mm. It was drawn by bees on small cell foundation in the springtime.

My recommendation is small cell, nothing more, nothing less. And I'll be happy to say that super large cell won't work and commercial size won't help either. That's my experience. And that's all I got to say.


----------



## Joseph Clemens

Maybe you would have better success using some Mann Lake PF120 or PF100 plastic frame/foundations with a little extra beeswax coating, they're 4.95mm cell size. I use many of them in my own operation and the bees usually draw them out as nearly perfect small-cell combs. Perhaps because I use them and foundationless, often together, that my foundationless combs are predominantly either mostly drone, or mostly small-cell worker.


----------



## Specialkayme

Solomon Parker said:


> Small cell small cell small cell. It works for me, it *might* work for you.


Still not an answer, but a suggestion. Still doesn't explain anything.

Another suggestion is to use foundationless frames because you will end up getting smaller cells. How did that work out?

You can't tell me small cell will solve my problems. You can't tell me why foundationless frames didn't result in the supposed answer you thought they would, so why should I believe that small cell will result in the supposed answer you think they will?

I am trying to discuss which is best, and why. You provide no reason to justify your answer, other than "it works for me, and it might for you." I could give you a wide host of things that work for one person, and kill another, because you don't look at the larger picture. Insulin is an example.



Solomon Parker said:


> the results you got were wildly atypical. That means they're not normal.


I don't think they are though. Oldtimer got the same results. I had over 20 hives that all resulted in the same thing. To me, that's normal based upon my area and my experience. 



Solomon Parker said:


> Or you could use the answers given to the question you asked by those with experience in the subject.


You mean the ones that don't direct the questions I ask, and don't give reasons or justifications for why they should work? Or do you mean the ones that force me to go down blind faith on "it might work" based on theories that are untested?

I listened to those with experience. It got me larger cell foundationless frames. You still arn't giving me a reason why I should take your advice. 

It isn't an attack, it's just looking at the data. I repeated an experiment and got different results. If foundationless is supposed to provide smaller cells, but my results did not, than one could conclude that not EVERY foundationless frame will result in a smaller cell. Now, because I repeated the test on twenty different hives, with multiple different genetics, over six separate years, you can conclude that either my geographic region is different that causes different results, or my results are typical based upon the criteria that I tested in. The theories why foundationless is supposed to work, and the theories on why small cell is supposed to work are often very similar, although not always. If foundationless did not work in my area, what part of small cell is supposed to work differently? Why should I blindly trust your suggestion? Based on my experience, there is nothing that leads me to believe that it is supposed to work, and you can't show me a reason why you theorize that it should.



Solomon Parker said:


> There are plenty around here. All you need to do is ask.


I have. Actually, I'm fairly certain a thread was started on the topic 



Solomon Parker said:


> How are we supposed to explain something that hasn't been seen before?


Do you honestly believe that I am the first person . . . ever . . . in the history of beekeeping that provided foundationless frames to a hive that resulted in cells larger than 5.4mm?

In the week I spent talking about this, I found one other person that had the same results. In one week, based on the few people that are willing to read through this thread long enough to make it to the end. 



Solomon Parker said:


> Assuming you meant 4.9mm, it may work for you because it works for me and it works for others. That's all there is to it.


History is littered with individuals, procedures and methods that individuals used, simply because someone told them to, who could not back their claim up by scientific methods or repeated experimentation. What works for one does not work for others. Blood letting worked for some years ago. It also killed many others.

I'm certain it's anything but "all there is to it"



Solomon Parker said:


> By the way, I did do several foundationless frames last year and I posted the results. I got comb from 4.9mm to 5.2mm. It was drawn by bees on small cell foundation in the springtime.


I stand corrected. But if anything, that should tell you something. Your bees previously were on 4.9mm cell. After, they ALL drew comb equal to or larger than what they emerged from. They did not build comb smaller than 4.9mm. Why should my results have been any different?


----------



## Specialkayme

I'm not interested in arguing over who's right, or who has the most experience. No one wins.

Allow me to provide a separate, more direct question. Keeping in mind that foundationless frames provided larger cell sizes than 5.4mm foundation based on my testing criteria and environmental situation (whether typical or atypical), what potential does small cell have of achieving on a hive what foundationless frames were unable to accomplish?


----------



## Joseph Clemens

I think your best chance of getting the answer to that question is to try different things. Perhaps in your circumstances a different configuration might be the one that works for you. What are others in your same vicinity doing, that works?


----------



## Specialkayme

The only thing I see others in the area doing is 5.4mm cell size while pouring chemicals into hives. Not saying everyone is doing that, but the vast majority of the ones in the immediate viscidity are.

But it's just a cycle. Use a chemical product till it becomes too expensive, the mites show resistance, or your hives die and you buy back in. I'd like to find an alternative.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Specialkayme said:


> The only thing I see others in the area doing is 5.4mm cell size while pouring chemicals into hives.


So is that what you've decided to do?

If you're actually interested in the theory of small cell and why it works, you can do the research like I did. http://www.beesource.com/point-of-view/ed-dee-lusby/



Specialkayme said:


> I'd like to find an alternative.


You don't actually seem willing to try small cell, forgive the terseness. You're flirting with chemicals and acids, you're flirting with using queenlessness as a treatment, you're flirting with conventional foundation, but you refuse to even consider small cell. Why is that? Why not just say it and be done with it? Stop with this nonsense about 'I'm not giving you a reason.' You've been given every reason there is. You're not new around here. If you are simply refusing to consider it, just say so. If I have to tell you why it works, you have to tell me why you refuse to put it in the equation. If you don't want to try it, fine. It's no loss to me. But stop acting like you're actually looking.

This thread is entitled Natural Cell vs. Small Cell, but the only thing you're seriously willing to consider is neither. Why is that? Why ask if they're not even on the table?


----------



## Specialkayme

Solomon Parker said:


> So is that what you've decided to do?


No.



Solomon Parker said:


> You don't actually seem willing to try small cell, forgive the terseness.


If I could digitally roll my eyes in text form, it would be happening right now.



Solomon Parker said:


> you refuse to even consider small cell.


I've actually said, SEVERAL TIMES, that I'm considering using small cell. I've decided foundationless did not work for me. So I have been, rather repetitiously, asking what the difference is between small cell and natural cell. (Title of thread). If I have decided to start putting foundation in the hive, my next question is what size. 

I have asked what benefits small cell has over natural cell, and I have gotten nearly no response. You have given me no reason, even though you think you have. Read back, and please quote me where you have.

From what I've heard, the largest issue with small cell is regression. That's with moving from 5.4mm to 4.9mm. I can only theorize that moving from 5.9mm to 4.9mm would be even more difficult. For that reason, I'm pondering whether it would be better to initially move to 5.4mm foundation, measure any change, and if necessary move to 4.9mm foundation. I'm also pondering whether it would be better to move directly to 4.9mm foundation, without stopping at 5.4mm foundation in the middle. However, I am significantly concerned about the regression issues, and I do not want them to cause further hive loss, or worse frustration with small cell. I'm interested in making the right moves, but not making hasty moves, or untimely moves.



Solomon Parker said:


> If I have to tell you why it works, you have to tell me why you refuse to put it in the equation.


I'm not refusing. I wouldn't have started a thread on the topic, or continued to discuss it's benefits or drawbacks if I wasn't willing to consider it. 



Solomon Parker said:


> But stop acting like you're actually looking.


I actually find that insulting. If there is one thing I've been throughout this entire process of loss, it's open minded to new options. If you can't see that, I'm sorry, but please don't belittle me in the process.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Specialkayme said:


> I have asked what benefits small cell has over natural cell, and I have gotten nearly no response. You have given me no reason, even though you think you have. Read back, and please quote me where you have.


*Sigh*. Okay.

As I mentioned before, plenty of people, not just me have given evidence. That's what I said. I didn't say it all came from me. I said "You have been given every reason there is."

Mr. Bush started it off.


Michael Bush said:


> They both accomplish the goal of mite control.


Taydeko talked about stress, and the studies of which there is an entire thread. He/she also mentioned Dee Lusby.


taydeko said:


> all of this is conjecture on my part, but in most organisms, including humans, stress has a major impact on susceptibility to parasites, pathogens, and diseases. So if you have natural small cells with fully regressed bees, you might be reducing stress levels on the bees which could reduce the impact mites have on the hive as a whole. I would suppose that they might be more effective in controlling the mites themselves also. If the studies of the impact of small cells did not control for stress factors somehow, the results could be skewed.
> 
> My guess would be that you need to take a holistic view of the hive to reduce mite problems rather than just stick a different size of foundation in the frames. Any foundation is probably a stressor. This could explain the results from Dee Lusby and all the studies that say small cell foundation doesn't have any effect.


 And you doubt.


Specialkayme said:


> I'm not too sure about that . . .


 Mr. Bush talks about probable results. He assuages your fears of regression problems and offers his experience about the top cell size for mite problems.


Michael Bush said:


> In my experience, when the core of the brood nest is 4.9mm or below you should have no issues. If all of it was 5.0mm you'd probably also have no issues. Some bees will regress quickly, some won't. We have a lot of mutts in the US and the mixture of genes and the mixture of sizes of bees can make it slow. You can regress them more quickly with some PF100s (or PF120s if you run mediums). It's 4.95mm and drawn well the first try. I was still having mite problems at 5.1mm.


Note how in context, what size 'natural cell' is. I'm very sorry your foundationless turned out to be so large. But when someone uses the term 'natural cell', they're not talking about 5.9mm. In your case, you cannot use the terms interchangeably.

Though an odd one, Mr. Clemens gives a reason.


Joseph Clemens said:


> Because I can, and smaller bees look "cool".


 My first mention of my foundationless frames which you seemed to have missed.


Solomon Parker said:


> I measured a foundationless frame built this last spring and found between 4.9 and 5.2mm. I had a hive survive on 5.2mm comb for at least 3 years, and that was after they were given to me.


 You still doubt as if none of the above had been written.


Specialkayme said:


> does a smaller cell actually benefit anything? A question clearly left for another day . . .


I start mentioning books and offer my experience.


Solomon Parker said:


> Michael Bush wrote a book, Dean Stiglitz wrote a book. The trouble with me is (my usual detractors take note) I don't have any experience doing it any other way. I can't say things like Michael does that he lost his bees before he used small cell. I have less than one decade experience while he has more than three. Like I say on my website, I'm only trying to show how it _can_ be done, not how it must be done.


 D Semple cites some more books and a few other sources.


D Semple said:


> Michael Bush - The Practical Beekeeper
> Dean & Ramona - The Complete Idiot's Guide to Beekeeping
> Ross Conrad - Natural Beekeeping
> Phil Chandler - The Barefoot Beeker
> David Heaf - The Bee-friendly Beekeeper
> 
> Not to mention the tons of good works being done by others with web sites, pod-cast, conferences, bee club meetings, etc., not to mention Beesource, Beemasters, Organic Beekeepers list, Feral Bee Project.


 Barry starts talking about how historically conventional cell size was smaller.


Barry said:


> This seems not to be the issue, knowing these mills made foundation in the 4.8mm range.


Michael Bush offers some evidence of Barry's assertion.


Michael Bush said:


> Baudoux, Pinchot, Gontarski and others wrote reams on the matter and how to get it with larger cell sizes. But it was often mentioned that we needed to breed for larger bees by many a writer. A couple of examples within easy reach for me:
> 
> "Several times it has been suggested that we enlarge the race of honey - bees, by giving them larger cells; and some circumstances seem to indicate that something may be done in this direction, although I have little hope of any permanent enlargement in size, unless we combined with the idea of selecting the largest bees to propagate from, as given a few figures back. By making the cells smaller than ordinarily, we can get small bees with very little trouble; and I have seen a whole nucleus of bees so small is to be really laughable, just because the comb they were hatched from, was set at an angle so that one side was concave and the other convex. The small bees came from the concave side. Their light, active movements, as they sported in front of the hive, made them a pretty and amusing site for those fond of curiosities. Worker bees reared in drone cells are, if I'm correct, sometimes extra-large in size; but as to whether we can make them permanently larger by such a course, I'm inclined to doubt. The difficulty, at present seems to be the tendency to rearing a greater quantity of useless drones. By having the hive furnished entirely with worker comb, we can so nearly prevent the production of drones that is safe enough to call it a complete remedy."--A.I. Root, ABC of Bee Culture
> 
> "Large Bees Better Gatherers
> "One of the most scientific experiments ever carried on in my opinion was conducted by Doctor Merrell at the Kansas experiment station. After some exact research work in finding that some bees actually gather more honey than others, upon examining them he found that they were larger. That is as we would expect. Which can haul the most goods in a day, a large semi-trailer truck or a pick-up? With this in view we have tried to choose for our breeders the ones whose workers are larger. We feel sure that if any progress is made in the future in producing bees that get more honey it must be by selecting the largest drones. Drones vary much more in size and shape and color than do either the workers or the queens so I believe we should proceed along this line."--Jay Smith, Better Queens
> 
> If you look at a few of Dee Lusby's archives that Barry has posted here you'll find dozens more.


 Barry continues with more evidence of unnaturally large cell changeover.


Barry said:


> Yes, we already know about the push for bigger bees in the late 1800's.
> 
> http://www.beesource.com/point-of-v...-cell-size/the-influence-of-cell-size-part-1/
> 
> "About 1891, foundation with cells 920 to the sq. dm. was introduced into our country. Beekeepers all adopted this size of cell. The experts of that time believed that it was advantageous to produce as many bees as possible on the least possible surface of comb. Thus there was a premature narrowing of the cells, and at the end of a few years the bees were miserable specimens.
> 
> 
> It was then that, to combat so harmful a tendency, I published an article in _Progres Apicole_ (June 1893) advocating the use of larger cells, as a result of experiments duly described. I had experimented up to the limit of 750 cells per sq. dm. These sizes of cells were obtained by stretching foundation. Mr. Auguste Mees subsequently made them by stretching the sheets as they came off the cylinders, in 1893 to 1895."


Still in a serious case of doubt even though someone already said you should have no regression problems with PF-120 frames.


Specialkayme said:


> I would hate to try a small cell hive, have it fail for another reason, then be discouraged about small cell, when it had nothing to do with the size of the cell. Second, I'm OBVIOUSLY going to have some very serious regression issues if I try to move to small cell. Keeping that in mind, I'm not sure if my resources and time would be better spent on increasing hive numbers, rather than trying to get them to build comb at a smaller cell size. Third, funds are light. Wife has been out of work and we are getting by, but I certainly don't have additional funds to go buy a few boxes of PF-100's, or HSC. Foundation I could probably swing, either LC or SC, but it would be more difficult if I have to have three or four frames of SC foundation in order to get one drawn out properly.


And why did I have to move that other thread?


Specialkayme said:


> Now just trying to figure out what type of treatment. ... But then again, not-treating clearly didn't work for me.


Because you have already decided what you need to do.


Kieck mentions the pseudodrone hypothesis, though in his/her explanation, he/she gets it a little wrong by mentioning too little space in the cell.


Kieck said:


> If you mean specifically the "pseudodrone" hypothesis,...


 I mention the pseudodrone theory.


Solomon Parker said:


> I subscribe to the pseudo drone theory. I don't speak for 'most'.


 Barry still talking about small cells being the historical norm.


Barry said:


> Smaller cells were the norm. If they were not, beekeepers would have been having the same issues with comb drawing as we have now and it wouldn't sell. Obviously it worked fine back then.
> 
> 920 to the sq. dm. is a cell size of 5.0mm. I wonder what this means: "and at the end of a few years the bees were miserable specimens" I'm focusing on the bees ability to draw out various types of foundation over the years. At one time bees drew out the smaller cell foundation (4.9 - 5.0) fine, when we give this size foundation to bees, it's a rare case that one will get nice comb.


 Mind is still already made up. Anything but small cell.


Specialkayme said:


> So, if I take an overall average of what's "best" and what the preference is, 5.4mm will always put me in the middle of the road.


 No contradiction here.


Specialkayme said:


> Personally I could care less about cell size.





Specialkayme said:


> I'm asking what the end result is, but no one is telling me,


No one who doesn't have experience doing it that is.


I now post the _second instance_ of a link to the Lusby material which you didn't read the last time and didn't read this time.


Solomon Parker said:


> If you're actually interested in the theory of small cell and why it works, you can do the research like I did. http://www.beesource.com/point-of-view/ed-dee-lusby/






Specialkayme said:


> If I could digitally roll my eyes in text form, it would be happening right now.


You can. 




Specialkayme said:


> So I have been, rather repetitiously, asking what the difference is between small cell and natural cell.


And rather repetitiously ignoring the answers.





Specialkayme said:


> From what I've heard, the largest issue with small cell is regression.


Issue already addressed and ignored.




Specialkayme said:


> I actually find that insulting. If there is one thing I've been throughout this entire process of loss, it's open minded to new options.


I'm sorry you feel that way. I'm just going by what I'm reading. :scratch: I trust my judgment more than I trust yours.



Specialkayme said:


> You have given me no reason, even though you think you have.


I respectfully disagree. By giving you the Lusby POV page, I literally gave you every reason there is, the theory behind it, and enough reading to keep you busy for days. I read it. I recommend you read it also.


----------



## Specialkayme

I do find it interesting, Sol, how an aspiring engineer and an attorney can read the same sentences and come to completely different conclusions as to their applications.

But, so be it. I'll gladly go through line by line and point out where I disagree to your conclusions. I just hope you can actually read them, and not be blinded by your own premature conclusions.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Specialkayme said:


> I do find it interesting, Sol, how an aspiring engineer and an attorney can read the same sentences and come to completely different conclusions as to their applications.


Well, we are two different people. That is the way of things. As an attorney, you must be familiar with the fact that every story has two sides. Any uninitiated observer could read this thread and pick out presentation of evidence of what will happen if you try small cell. You'll forgive me if I refuse to offer you a concrete guarantee of what exactly will happen. 

And you still haven't read the Lusby POV page. It's not as though I'm asking you to go out and buy a book.


----------



## Specialkayme

Solomon Parker said:


> Mr. Bush started it off.


Reading your quote, Mr. Bush didn't explain the difference between anything, but rather showed a similarity between the two. Based on that reasoning, there is no difference between the two, and nothing that you can gain from one over the other. 

Natural cell size didn't solve any of my mite problems. If both are supposed to solve mite problems, and based on my experience natural cell has not, I could theorize that small cell wouldn't either. Havn't tried it, but I'm open to the possibility that it will. After all, if it does, I'm better off. But I'll ask again, since you don't appear to understand my questions, if natural cell didn't work, why should small cell work in my situation to control or assist with mites?



Solomon Parker said:


> Taydeko talked about stress, and the studies of which there is an entire thread. He/she also mentioned Dee Lusby.


The first sentence said it all "this is conjecture on my part."



Solomon Parker said:


> And you doubt.


I should hope so. I would hate to blindly believe those infront of me . . . a healthy level of skepticism is conducive to learning. If you can't ask "why", what's the point?



Solomon Parker said:


> Mr. Bush talks about probable results. He assuages your fears of regression problems and offers his experience about the top cell size for mite problems.


How did he assure my fears of regression? His experience shows bees will naturally regress to a size smaller than 4.9mm on foundationless frames. Mine have not. He suggested trying small cell, or PF, frames to assist. Suggesting something is in no way assuring success. Mr. Bush has no experience with a bee that naturally builds cells of 5.9mm size, nor do they have experience regressing them down to 4.9mm or lower. He can offer help, and I greatly appreciate it. He can offer suggestions and speculations, which are very valuable to the conversation. But he can not "assure my fears" when it involves something he has never seen, never dealt with, and doesn't entirely understand why it is happening.



Solomon Parker said:


> Note how in context, what size 'natural cell' is. I'm very sorry your foundationless turned out to be so large. But when someone uses the term 'natural cell', they're not talking about 5.9mm. In your case, you cannot use the terms interchangeably.


Please stop arguing about stupid definitions. It solves nothing.

I'll call my foundationless frames "xynophbeia" and not natural cell if it makes you feel any better. I really don't care.

I put foundationless frames (or xynophbia) in my hives, and let them build cells as nature intended, without influence on my part. They did not produce what you thought they would. I'm sorry for that. But I don't know what to tell you, it was the same process, with a different result, and all you want to do is discount the end result because it isn't what you like. That's not science. That's not engineering, that's observing.

But again, I really don't care.



Solomon Parker said:


> Though an odd one, Mr. Clemens gives a reason.


Again, not a difference between small cell and natural cell. 

But even still, if you consider it a reason to switch to small cell, that's exactly what it is : a reason, not a solution.



Solomon Parker said:


> My first mention of my foundationless frames which you seemed to have missed.


I caught it. But it didn't provide anything useful to the conversation.

How does foundationless differ from small cell? What are the advantages of one over the other? What are the disadvantages of one over the other? Is varied cell size an advantage or a disadvantage?

If anything, your results should tell me something: If your bees are drawing foundationless frames at cell sizes between 4.9mm and 5.2mm, bees should be inclined to build cell sizes larger than what they were born from (yours were built from small cell bees). But even if you choose to ignore that, as you have previously, it can tell me something else. Small cell works for you and your bees. Your bees draw cells on foundationless frames at cell sizes between 4.9mm and 5.2mm. My bees draw cells on foundationless frames at cell sizes between 5.6mm and 6.0mm. One could only guestimate as to whether or not small cell would work for me.



Solomon Parker said:


> I start mentioning books . . . D Semple cites some more books and a few other sources.


I didn't know this was a conversation about giving titles of books.

If it helps the conversation, I'll start giving book titles, without summing up what they contribute to the conversation. I thought it was just a waste of time though, so I didn't 



Solomon Parker said:


> Barry starts talking about how historically conventional cell size was smaller . . . Michael Bush offers some evidence of Barry's assertion . . . Barry continues with more evidence of unnaturally large cell changeover.


So, what does this have to do about the difference between natural cell and small cell?



Solomon Parker said:


> someone already said you should have no regression problems with PF-120 frames.


No problems moving from 5.4mm bees to PF bees, right? Is the case the same with moving from 5.9mm bees to PF bees? (this isn't mean't to be difficult, it's a serious question, I don't know the answer).



Solomon Parker said:


> And why did I have to move that other thread?Because you have already decided what you need to do.


. . . you lost me . . . 

Are you referring to "rethinking my varroa plan" thread? I have two separate and distinct conversations, in two different areas of the forum, in an attempt to solve my dillema. If you remember, this thread was started in treatment free. You moved it. So be it, no problem. The conversation moved toward chemical treatments. The conversation became light as far as small cell, natural cell, and treatment free went. So I started a new thread, to focus on treatment free, in an attempt to get several intelligent individuals to help and discuss. Did I do something wrong by doing that?



Solomon Parker said:


> Kieck mentions the pseudodrone hypothesis, though in his/her explanation, he/she gets it a little wrong by mentioning too little space in the cell . . . I mention the pseudodrone theory.


So . . . is the theory supposed to explain to me why natural cell is different than small cell?



Solomon Parker said:


> Mind is still already made up. Anything but small cell.


I'm sorry you think that way.

But, if you think my mind is already made up, why are you contributing further?

For the record, it isn't, but I know you won't believe me. Again, I don't really care though.



Solomon Parker said:


> I now post the _second instance_ of a link to the Lusby material which you didn't read the last time and didn't read this time.


Sorry . . . I do have a job to go to . . . I didn't have time to read it, either the first or the _second instance_ as you so kindly pointed to. 

At the request of another member on this forum, I began reading through Lusby's materials, although not on this site (on Yahoo). My reading load is heavy, and I'm doing my best. Sorry if I can't keep up.



Solomon Parker said:


> You can.


Haha, there you go. I kept trying :roll:, but that obviously didn't work, lol.



Solomon Parker said:


> And rather repetitiously ignoring the answers.


There is a difference between ignoring and disagreeing.



Solomon Parker said:


> I trust my judgment more than I trust yours.


So . . . why would you expect anyone else to trust your judgement more than their own?



Solomon Parker said:


> I respectfully disagree.


I'm happy leaving it at that. 

Of course, unless you would like to argue some more . . .


----------



## Specialkayme

Solomon Parker said:


> You'll forgive me if I refuse to offer you a concrete guarantee of what exactly will happen.


If you did, I would be concerned . . .



Solomon Parker said:


> And you still haven't read the Lusby POV page. It's not as though I'm asking you to go out and buy a book.





Solomon Parker said:


> By giving you the Lusby POV page, I literally gave you ... enough reading to keep you busy for days.


Mainly why I haven't gotten to it yet.

I'm not discounting Lusby. I don't know enough about it to either praise or reject it. I would like to read through her articles, and it is on my "to read" list. Please be patient with me, I have a full plate already . . .


----------



## HiveAtYourHome

What I love about threads like this is that it keeps certain types of comments confined leaving other threads uncontaminated. With the title "Natural cell vs. small cell" it wasn't immediately obvious that this would not be a thread to contrast the advantages of each, nor to list a summary of the difference of theory between them, nor a report by someone who was trying small cell in one apiary and natural cell in another. I had to go back to the beginning again to see how this went done the rabbit hole, and was surprised to see there was some interesting points early on and the original poster started with what appears to be an open mind and a well framed question. 

Two things jump out, the snag about the odd case of the posters oversized foundationless cells is a distraction as its not normal and should have little baring on discussions comparing natural cell and small cell in general, but it may not even be the case here even if its of importance to the original poster. Specialkayme stated he doesn't know where these frames came from. I'd love followup from a different hive, or keep going foundationless (who cares about your bees, I just want to see if this is really a case of "natural cell" in the center of the worker brood cluster area being so large to know that this was definitely the case for one persons bees and if specialkayme has to suffer through a science project to prove it there's no effort on my part.)

Secondly I thought this was under treatment free beekeeping? The thread showed promise in being a debate between SC and "Natural" cell, but then comment #9 while stating the beneficial (paraphrased) "hey ignore the theory debate and if one of them isn''t working for you personally do something different", was really dominated by a rant against treatment free beekeeping and a statement that it doesn't work for anyone. If this SC vs. "Natural" cell question was posed under general Bee Forum fine, but under Treatment Free Beekeeping...that poisoned what I hoped to be an intellectually stimulating discussion. Beyond that, I have a question for the moderator: does that mean as long as I reference the thread briefly I can post a rant against treatment free beekeeping to a treatment-free beekeeping thread? Can I just pop in periodically and call treatment-free beekeeping a fraud? I don't find that useful. I personally would give that leeway as just tough debating under general bee forum but why does treatment free beekeeping as a concept have to be defended under ever thread in the treatment-free forum section. It will be if posts like Oldtimer's #9 are not deleted. Not that I'm picking really on you Oldtimer, everyone makes procedural misteps, I blame the moderator for not catching that. By not catching that, what had been a promising thread was ruined. I'll just go search archives to find what this thread could have been.

(And Oldtimer, take it at face value that I'm not attacking you as I like some of the stuff you have to say on here, its about what I think should be allowed in any treatment free forum. Believing me is in your benefit, I don't check the internet enough to be fun at debating back with, and I'm fine with losing an argument.)


----------



## bluegrass

Okay so I haven't ever really paid much attention to the small cell fad, but I do have a stupid question and don't want to read this entire thread to see if there is an answer in it.

Why put all this effort into regressing bees? If you start them on 5.2, within two brood cycles those cells will be in the 4.9 range due to the cocoons left behind. This is why feral bees regress in size, because the brood cells shrink with each generation hatched out of them.


----------



## Oldtimer

KnNashua said:


> (And Oldtimer, take it at face value that I'm not attacking you as I like some of the stuff you have to say on here, its about what I think should be allowed in any treatment free forum. Believing me is in your benefit, I don't check the internet enough to be fun at debating back with, and I'm fine with losing an argument.)


 No worries at all KnNashua, I went back & had a look at the post, at the time I thought it was a useful post but looking at it through your eyes I can see your point.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Specialkayme said:


> Please be patient with me, I have a full plate already . . .


Fair enough.

Please accept my apology. I should not be questioning what's going on inside your head. My options should be to answer questions patiently and truthfully or not post. If I must answer the same question a thousand times, I shall endeavor to do so with an open mind and an open heart. Deal? Truce? Ceasefire?

Let me start over.

You want to compare natural cell to small cell. Forgive me, as a poster has pointed out, that was not obvious to my eye from the outset.

Also, I don't want to argue over definitions especially because your natural cell results do not match what aficionados on the subject have found. We know this, it's a fact of life, let's move on.

Let us compare everything on a stable and consistent foundation. I suggest cell size alone without labels and definitions whatsoever.

I keep my bees primarily on 4.9mm foundation, some on 4.95 plastic frames and some on foundationless frames with cell sizes measuring from 4.9mm to 5.2mm and I have been successful in large part against varroa. Your bees are on cells measuring approximately 5.8mm +/- and you're here because you feel like you've hit a wall and what you're doing isn't working. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

The question you're asking is whether or not to move to 4.9mm (or possibly 4.95mm) foundation. I would agree with you that what you're doing right now isn't working and I would further offer the conjecture that it will continue to not work in the future.

Furthermore, you say that when offered foundationless frames, your bees draw 5.8mm comb rather than what aficionados expect which is in the 4.7 to 5.0mm range. Thus the remaining option is foundationed frames which should coax the bees into producing smaller cells and according to 4.9mm +/- proponents will help with varroa troubles.

According to Dee Lusby, the mother of the 4.9mm cell size line of thought, the smaller cells offer greater differentiation between drone cells with large expendable food supply in the mite's eyes (so to speak) and worker cells which are much more vital to the functioning of the hive. On a base level, the more drones infected with mites in relation to workers, the better the situation is for the hive. This is not taking into account possibilities for hygienic behavior developed in the bees over time due to selection pressure by the mites. Dee also mentions that hygienic behavior is better developed in bees not subjected to mite treatments. Dee claims that stabilization of the populations occur at cell sizes below 5.0mm and that further regression to 4.83mm (average size) is what is necessary to achieve real control over mites.

I submit to you that to control the mites, you must bring your cell size down considerably. Since foundationless is not achieving this goal, you must switch to foundation. The best results in regression have been had by those using Mann Lake's PF-120 frames. Furthermore, plastic frames will allow you to recycle the frame and foundation if the bees fail to draw the cells in the size you want. Wax foundation will not allow you to do that, and plastic frames are far more economically viable in both the short term and long term.

If you have any further questions or if you need a clarification, I will be happy to help. And again, I'm sorry for any misunderstandings or questioning of your motives.


----------



## squarepeg

way to go ya'll. i'm sure that i'm not the only member getting a lot of benefit from keeping up with this discussion. many thanks for the time and effort.

i never thought about drones. is it necessary to allow some comb for drones if you are putting in the small cell foundation?


----------



## Solomon Parker

KnNashua said:


> I have a question for the moderator: does that mean as long as I reference the thread briefly I can post a rant against treatment free beekeeping to a treatment-free beekeeping thread? Can I just pop in periodically and call treatment-free beekeeping a fraud? I don't find that useful. I personally would give that leeway as just tough debating under general bee forum but why does treatment free beekeeping as a concept have to be defended under ever thread in the treatment-free forum section. It will be if posts like Oldtimer's #9 are not deleted. Not that I'm picking really on you Oldtimer, everyone makes procedural misteps, I blame the moderator for not catching that. By not catching that, what had been a promising thread was ruined. I'll just go search archives to find what this thread could have been.


Moderation is not the exact science you might think it could be. Barry went from having so much to do that he didn't have enough time to moderate, to putting someone in the position who likes to get into the discussions too much. It's particularly difficult to moderate a post which is in reply or response to your own post for fear of being accused of impropriety.

You are correct though, TFB should not need to be defended at any time, and that's according to the Forum Rules. But how would one approach such a post unless it were blatantly obvious? In the past at least one individual actually got to the point of needing to be banned, so it does happen.

In the future, I'd appreciate if you address issues of moderation via private message. Thanks for your feedback.


----------



## Solomon Parker

squarepeg said:


> i never thought about drones. is it necessary to allow some comb for drones if you are putting in the small cell foundation?


 Dee (I do as well) left a space at the bottom of the frame with no foundation so the bees would be able to build as much drone as they want. However, I believe this doesn't help all that much because the bees rarely join the comb with the bottom bar. One may even see this in deknow's videos of Dee working. It may be because she and I keep such large hives that the bees don't feel they need any more comb than they have. We also seem to have little burr comb as well.

That being said, with wax foundation, I don't see the bees having any problem re-working to drone if they want to. I've seen 2/3 of a frame or more on occasion. With PF frames, they will build drone between the tops and bottoms of respective frames. It may seem messy, but it gives you a chance to see your varroa load up close. It's actually kind of useful.

Dee and I also try to cull any frame which has more than 10-20% drone comb in it. I feel that some of the excessive drone comb that appears in kept hives is due to the bees being kept in a hive with movable frames and that the frames get moved.


----------



## Specialkayme

Solomon Parker said:


> Deal? Truce? Ceasefire?


Deal 



Solomon Parker said:


> Your bees are on cells measuring approximately 5.8mm +/- and you're here because you feel like you've hit a wall and what you're doing isn't working.


Sounds right.



Solomon Parker said:


> The question you're asking is whether or not to move to 4.9mm (or possibly 4.95mm) foundation. I would agree with you that what you're doing right now isn't working and I would further offer the conjecture that it will continue to not work in the future.


Agreed.



Solomon Parker said:


> Furthermore, you say that when offered foundationless frames, your bees draw 5.8mm comb rather than what aficionados expect which is in the 4.7 to 5.0mm range. Thus the remaining option is foundationed frames which should coax the bees into producing smaller cells and according to 4.9mm +/- proponents will help with varroa troubles.


If we assume small cell proponents are correct. I'm willing to stipulate to that for purposes of this thread (and section). Not a cheap shot, by any means. I don't have any experience with small cell, so I'm left to trusting those with experience. That's in large part why I started this thread, in this section 



Solomon Parker said:


> On a base level, the more drones infected with mites in relation to workers, the better the situation is for the hive. This is not taking into account possibilities for hygienic behavior developed in the bees over time due to selection pressure by the mites.


While we are here, let me ask a question. It sounds as if the goal of small cell is to sacrifice the drones. Right? By making worker cells smaller and keeping drone cells the same size, the drone cells look that much more inviting to mites, correct? So in a sense, you get more mites per drone cell in small cell than you do on standard (the word I'm using for 5.4mm) foundation, correct? Wouldn't that process create drones that are much weaker, creating a worse mating pool?

Theoretically, if the drones are sacrificed from small cell hives that are surviving mites naturally, there would be a greater number of drones in DCAs that are not from small cell. At that point, it's less likely that a hive that is dealing with mites successfully is able to pass on it's genetics. Isn't that counterproductive?



Solomon Parker said:


> Dee also mentions that hygienic behavior is better developed in bees not subjected to mite treatments.


I'm sure I'll get to this point when I read her articles, but why is that? Wouldn't small cell bees have less pressure from mites, reduicing the development of hygienic behavior? I would figure bees that have to deal with mites more are more prone to developing hygienic behavior. I could be wrong though.



Solomon Parker said:


> Dee claims that stabilization of the populations occur at cell sizes below 5.0mm and that further regression to 4.83mm (average size) is what is necessary to achieve real control over mites.


So, you need an average size at 4.83mm in order to achieve real control over mites, or just below 5.0mm?

I remember Mr. Bush mentioning 5.0mm, just wondering if this is different information.



Solomon Parker said:


> I submit to you that to control the mites, you must bring your cell size down considerably. Since foundationless is not achieving this goal, you must switch to foundation. The best results in regression have been had by those using Mann Lake's PF-120 frames.


I have never been a fan of plastic frames. I may have to experiment some more though.



Solomon Parker said:


> If you have any further questions or if you need a clarification, I will be happy to help.


Alright, while we are there, I've got a few. My basic understanding of small cell tells me that brood nest cells should be 4.9mm, but honey storage cells can/should be much larger, or 5.4mm, right? Or do you advocate that all cells, food storage included, should be 4.9mm?



Solomon Parker said:


> And again, I'm sorry for any misunderstandings or questioning of your motives.


Thanks sol. I really appreciate that.

Likewise, I apologize if I have insulted you.


----------



## Specialkayme

Solomon Parker said:


> Moderation is not the exact science you might think it could be.


I actually prefer your moderation strategy and style. I like the open marketplace of ideas, and I like that every post isn't deleted/edited at nauseum.


----------



## squarepeg

this thought occurred to me as i was tucking my bees in for the night.

to the point bluegrass made about the cells getting smaller in diameter with each successive brood cycle:

the method of measuring across 10 cells and averaging them would always give the same result, not taking into consideration the thickness of the cell wall.

it would be more accurate to measure a number of individual cells, the inside diameter, and average those.

those vernier calipers would be ideal for that specialkayme.


----------



## waholloway

I have read some of The information from the link Sol provided, and i may have misinterpreted, but: according to their research, although the bodies may have expanded, the wings did not, and also the armor plates did not grow, simply became loosely spaced (as opposed to tightly overlapping for protection). i think that would create major problems concerning weakness on the bee's physical structure to repel mites and other disease. so according to this, the body mass grew, but the exoskeleton did not, in proportion. Am I wrong on this?


----------



## Solomon Parker

Specialkayme said:


> It sounds as if the goal of small cell is to sacrifice the drones. Right?


If something must be sacrificed, we would prefer it was the drones. Workers on the other hand can perform duties which can suppress the mites further. A damaged worker is no good to anyone. A damaged drone is not even worth mentioning.



Specialkayme said:


> By making worker cells smaller and keeping drone cells the same size, the drone cells look that much more inviting to mites, correct?


That was Dee's theory. Whether or not the theory is true, it is common practice to strike or freeze drone brood because mites seem to be attracted to drones. So it lends some credibility.



Specialkayme said:


> So in a sense, you get more mites per drone cell in small cell than you do on standard (the word I'm using for 5.4mm) foundation, correct?


That's the theory. It may not be more in absolute numbers, but you're trying to shift the burden of the mites more toward the drones rather than the workers.



Specialkayme said:


> Wouldn't that process create drones that are much weaker, creating a worse mating pool?


A parisitized drone should, if all is working correctly, be chewed out before emergence. Even if it makes it without deformed wing virus, the chances of it being very competitive are slim. It may be ejected from the hive to starve to death or leave and be unable to maintain flight. It's hard to tell.



Specialkayme said:


> Theoretically, if the drones are sacrificed from small cell hives that are surviving mites naturally, there would be a greater number of drones in DCAs that are not from small cell. At that point, it's less likely that a hive that is dealing with mites successfully is able to pass on it's genetics. Isn't that counterproductive?


Well, funny thing. Dee claims that small cell drones are smaller and that smaller drones fly faster and are therefore more competitive. There is some evidence for this in reference to Africanized drones beating out European drones to mate. However, there are many factors affecting this aspect, feral populations, small cell populations, conventional sized populations, etc. If you want to influence your local DCA's you can always work to make sure there is more drone comb in your brood nest, the same as breeders do, to flood your area.



Specialkayme said:


> I'm sure I'll get to this point when I read her articles, but why is that? Wouldn't small cell bees have less pressure from mites, reduicing the development of hygienic behavior? I would figure bees that have to deal with mites more are more prone to developing hygienic behavior. I could be wrong though.


Dee claimed that chemicals in the hive affect bees' ability to sense problems within the cell. She put a huge emphasis on clean wax in her writings. I have always advocated genetics (hygienic behavior) as part of the equation. She said it was one third genetics, one third management and one third small cell if I remember correctly.



Specialkayme said:


> So, you need an average size at 4.83mm in order to achieve real control over mites, or just below 5.0mm? I remember Mr. Bush mentioning 5.0mm, just wondering if this is different information.


It's the same information. Dee calculated that 4.83 was what she needed for her location. She put together a map as well to show what sizes should be normal. http://www.beesource.com/point-of-v...ta-on-the-influence-of-cell-size/climate-map/ 



Specialkayme said:


> My basic understanding of small cell tells me that brood nest cells should be 4.9mm, but honey storage cells can/should be much larger, or 5.4mm, right? Or do you advocate that all cells, food storage included, should be 4.9mm?


I can only speak for myself and what I know of others, but as far as I've seen, we prefer to use all 4.9mm so there is interchangeability. Neither Dee, Michael, or myself use queen excluders and so the queen can range wherever she wants. It's part of a concept called Unlimited Broodnest or ULBN. In fact, if you wanted to, you could use your current comb as honey storage in the future. As I add new foundation into the brood nest, I put the old poorly drawn or excessive drone frames in the top of the hive to use for honey storage. I also space them 9 to a box just to press the point.


----------



## Michael Bush

>It sounds as if the goal of small cell is to sacrifice the drones. Right?

Not necessarily. That is merely one theory of why it might be working. I make no efforts to sacrifice or not sacrifice the. I let a hive do what it does naturally by not trying to effect the number of drones at all one way or the other.

>So, you need an average size at 4.83mm in order to achieve real control over mites, or just below 5.0mm?

Dee says that 5.0mm was small enough to handle Varroa problems, but not all her other problems. I find 5.0mm in the brood nest seems to work ok. 4.9m is probably a little better, but somewhere in the range seems to work. I'm only worried about the core of the brood nest, not the whole hive. Typically the core with foundationless in my hives tends to run about 4.6mm to 4.7mm and the outside edges are more like 5.1mm or so.


----------



## Michael Bush

>Why put all this effort into regressing bees? If you start them on 5.2, within two brood cycles those cells will be in the 4.9 range due to the cocoons left behind. This is why feral bees regress in size, because the brood cells shrink with each generation hatched out of them. 

In my experience it would take about 20 years to get from 5.2mm to 4.9mm with cocoons...


----------



## squarepeg

Michael Bush;749456 In my experience it would take about 20 years to get from 5.2mm to 4.9mm with cocoons...[/QUOTE said:


> if that's the case, forget what i said about the vernier calipers specialkayme.


----------



## Specialkayme

Solomon Parker said:


> Dee claims that small cell drones are smaller and that smaller drones fly faster and are therefore more competitive. There is some evidence for this in reference to Africanized drones beating out European drones to mate.


I wasn't aware that Africanized bees are smaller than European bees. But we don't get much exposure to Africanized bees in NC.



Solomon Parker said:


> If you want to influence your local DCA's you can always work to make sure there is more drone comb in your brood nest, the same as breeders do, to flood your area.


My comment wasn't speaking so much with you influencing your DCAs, as breeders do, but more with how they would naturally exist. It just seemed to be a criticism of small cell, assuming it functioned based upon a drone sacrificial theory. If I were intentionally breeding, I would be using more drone frame anyway.



Solomon Parker said:


> She put a huge emphasis on clean wax in her writings.


How does she advocate going about obtaining clean wax? Most foundation you purchase can't really be trusted, and I havn't had much faith in plastic frames. Foundationless didn't work for me (although it may for others), and making your own foundation is just way too costly.



Solomon Parker said:


> Dee calculated that 4.83 was what she needed for her location. She put together a map as well to show what sizes should be normal. http://www.beesource.com/point-of-v...ta-on-the-influence-of-cell-size/climate-map/


It's funny, based on her map (and I realize it isn't supposed to be that accurate), I'm located at that point on the eastern seaboard of North America that could be either yellow, blue, or green, lol. But interesting none the less.



Solomon Parker said:


> Neither Dee, Michael, or myself use queen excluders and so the queen can range wherever she wants. It's part of a concept called Unlimited Broodnest or ULBN.


I am familiar with ULBN, and have used it for a while now. I prefer to continue using it, and was concerned with having more than one type of comb, but your interchangability puts me a little at ease.



Solomon Parker said:


> I also space them 9 to a box just to press the point.


Nine to a ten frame box? You are referring to supers, and not brood boxes, right?

I'm assuming you use 1-1/4" frames as well, as Mr. Bush has advocated, correct? I have also been contemplating throwing some of them into the mix, but I'm concerned about making too many changes too quickly. If it doesn't work, I wouldn't be able to tell if it was frame spacing, small cell, the weather, beekeeper error . . . and the list goes on, lol. Thoughts on using 1-1/4" frames?


----------



## Specialkayme

squarepeg said:


> forget what i said about the vernier calipers specialkayme.


Lol, no offense SP, but I wasn't rushing out to take an average of 100 cells to see what came up . . .


----------



## squarepeg

shew, i'm so relieved!


----------



## Michael Bush

>How does she advocate going about obtaining clean wax? 

She makes her own foundation from her own wax.

> making your own foundation is just way too costly.

I agree, not to mention too much work...


----------



## Specialkayme

Michael Bush said:


> She makes her own foundation from her own wax.


And that's what she advocates everyone to do?


----------



## bluegrass

Michael Bush said:


> >Why put all this effort into regressing bees? If you start them on 5.2, within two brood cycles those cells will be in the 4.9 range due to the cocoons left behind. This is why feral bees regress in size, because the brood cells shrink with each generation hatched out of them.
> 
> In my experience it would take about 20 years to get from 5.2mm to 4.9mm with cocoons...


With all due respect Mr Bush.

David Cushman disagreed. I have been following his work for several years up until his untimely death and his methods were meticulous. The closest to scientific study you can get without an actual study. I don't know if you have ever read his work, but he left no stone un-turned when working this stuff out. 

He was also and advocate for making his own wax foundation. even went so far as to build the molds himself.

http://website.lineone.net/~dave.cushman/cellregression.html


----------



## squarepeg

going from 5.2 to 4.9 in two generations of brood equals a .15 reduction per brood cycle.

just two more brood cycles would get you to 4.6, and two more to 4.3.

not saying that the cells, don't get a little smaller with time, but they can't be getting smaller by .15 per brood cycle.


----------



## bluegrass

That is an issue that Cushman doesn't address... In a feral colony comb is getting turned over pretty frequently by wax moths, consumed, digested, and then replaced by the bees. 

But what about in a managed hive with brood combs that are years old? Do the bees scrub the combs out once they get too small?

I am just presenting the information... If making a choice on my own on cell regression I would not doubt Cushamn's method until I tried it myself. On the other hand I think he and Mr Bush are the American and British reflection of each other. What Bush is to the US, Cushman was to the British.


----------



## Specialkayme

I've been reading a number of Lusby's articles. Haven't finished them all, I've gotten through about seven so far. I plan on finishing the rest, but before I do I have a few thoughts floating through my head, and I figured I'd put them down here for comments.

I fully understand and agree with lusby's historical summation of the progression of foundation cell size. I've heard it before, so I'm willing to stipulate to the idea that larger cell sizes were created to make a larger bee, in the hopes that it would make a more profitable bee. I'll also assume she is correct in her comments about "feral" bee cell size. I don't have any information to refute this (although now that I think about it, Seely did a number of studies on feral colonies. I wonder if he ever measured cell size . . . ). So I'll stipulate that feral colonies are on 4.7 to 4.9 mm (or thereabouts) and foundations have been enlarged to (according to lusby) up to 5.7mm.

I will also stipulate to the idea that bees are under a number of stressors, more so recently than historically. Personally, I can attest to that, through my own observations.

Where she loses me is her connection between the two. I can't really say that larger cell sizes _caused_ any of these stresses, and I haven't seen any evidence put forth by lusby to prove the causation. I also can't really say, based on what I've read so far, that a smaller cell size would necessarily _solve_ any of these stresses, and I haven't seen any evidence put forth by lusby to prove the solution. 

She puts forth a number of theories on why it should work, which is all fine and well. Some of them might be true, some of them may not. But that's exactly what they are, theories. They are hypothesis that should be proved or disproved, and I'm not seeing any proof in either direction.

If we assume that feral bees, hundreds of years ago, were on 4.7mm cells. Since that time period, bees have been put in contact with dozens of additional parasites, pests, diseases, and predators. So the theory is to put them back to 4.7mm cells so they can adapt to the problems, as they did hundreds of years ago. But hundreds of years ago they weren't dealing with the stressors they are today. So by moving them back to 4.7mm cells, you are essentially putting them in a position in which they were not able to cope with those problems hundreds of years ago. Theoretically, the idea of putting them back in harmony of nature makes logical sense, but I don't see any actual evidence to show that it helps.

So while theoretically it may make sense, I don't see the connection, and I don't see any evidence proving the connection. It's an interesting idea, I'll put it at that, and it might make logical sense, but I can't necessarily say it's _true_.

I'm not cracking on anyone using small cell, or following lusby. I'm just trying to look at it scientifically and logically. Until it can be proven or disproven, it's still just a theory. And I know there are going to be a number of people who will point to their hives and say they are doing what Lusby recommends, and it's working. And that's great. But there are a number of people who are "successfully" keeping bees (depending on how you define success) without small cell. So neither the small cell, nor the large cell, beekeepers can definitively point to their cell size _*alone*_ and say that's what's working for them.

That's the only problem that I have with small cell. 

Forcing them down a path of cell size, based solely on a theory, seems extremely risky to me. Those are the reasons why I went with foundationless frames. It seemed less risky to me. I wasn't forcing the bees to do anything, based on any theory. They can just build what they think they need. But as previously discussed, that didn't pan out the way anyone expected (Except maybe Oldtimer, lol).

So, I've realized there is only one way around it. I've got to try it. I'm not willing to put all of my hives on small cell. I wouldn't be willing to experiment on all of them, and I don't have many left (two as of writing this, with a nuc on the way in April). So I figured I could take one hive and put it on small cell. If things go well, I can take it from there. Now all I have to do is come up with the cash to get the PF frames that are supposed to work the best . . . (strapped for cash ATM, all of my bee budget went toward nucs to replace losses . . . ).


----------



## squarepeg

that ought to be very interesting. i hope you'll keep us posted as to how things are progressing.

here's a link in case you haven't seen it yet. it's not a big study, but some interesting observations, and some additional references to add to your winter reading:

http://scientificbeekeeping.com/trial-of-honeysupercell-small-cell-combs/


----------



## Oldtimer

Good post Specialkayme, my thoughts when I read Lusby were exactly the same. All her theories are logical, plus she is a persuasive writer. But actual proof is not there. Doesn't mean she's wrong, and doesn't mean she's right.

If you go to small cell, my feeling is that it will "work". But I'm not thinking that for the reasons you might think.

My reasoning is, you have already been successful on natural comb. You still have two hives alive, and some here that are giving you advice have had results no better themselves and are calling themselves successful. So if you change to small cell, and continue to have similar results, by the measure used here you will be successful. In addition you may breed from your survivors, a method advocated by some successful small cell beekeepers.

So it will be the same old problem. You go small cell and achieve success, but never really know why.

For me, I would recommend you go small cell. Why? Because Lusby's theories may not be correct. But but they might be. That's about all I could say.


----------



## Specialkayme

Oldtimer said:


> If you go to small cell, my feeling is that it will "work". But I'm not thinking that for the reasons you might think.


I thought about that. Here's what I was considering doing, maybe you (or someone else) could give me some critique. This is all dependent on both hives making it through the winter. If one (or both) die out, I'm going to have to re-think things.

One of my "survivors" will continue to use foundationless frames. All splits from the hive will also be foundationless. The other "survivor" will be switched to small cell (not sure just yet if it will be wax or PF frames). All splits from the hive will also be small cell. The new nucs will remain on 5.4mm cell foundation. From there, at the end of a year or two, we could clearly see which one is working, and which one isn't. If the foundationless and the small cell are both surviving, we'll know it's more with genetics and management than cell size. If one dies out over the other, we have our answer. If it's close, we can see how many hives of each we have. If one was split six times over two years, but the other was split twice, we know one is a little healthier than the other.

A caveat should be mentioned, though. This is IN NO WAY the end all be all study of small cell, for SEVERAL reasons. One, we are talking about a very small set of hives. Two, one could argue that my "survivors" may just be next year's dead hives. For that reason, I'm essentially taking weak and dying hives and experimenting on them. If the small cell set dies, it might not be because of small cell, but it might be because they are so far gone I can't do much about it.

Another caveat. I'm not really willing to lose almost all my hives again, two years in a row (or two out of three). For that reason, I'm going to be ordering some HopGuard and have it chill in case I need it. If a hive starts to show signs of decay, I'm treating, regardless of what type of comb its on. I'm also going to be taking regular alcohol samples, and if the % gets too high, they get hit with some treatments. 

I'm not 100% sold on HopGuard just yet, but it does seem somewhat low-invasive, with zero comb residue. I'm also toying with the idea of MAQS (If I can get past it's $5 a treatment price tag . . . ), and essential oils. I know I"m going to get a ton of crap from folks for saying this, but if I take the same percentage of loss next year that I did this past year, I'm going to be out of the keeping thing real quick. I don't have the cash to buy back in, so if I had to choose I'd rather be a treating beekeeper than no beekeeper at all. Forgive my thoughts.



Oldtimer said:


> For me, I would recommend you go small cell. Why? Because Lusby's theories may not be correct. But but they might be. That's about all I could say.


That's kinda what I was leaning toward. From what I've heard, small cell can't really make them _worse_, right? Unless it's so much stress they can't take it . . . but that's another issue. So if I decided foundationless isn't working for me, and I have to put in foundation, 5.4mm foundation and 4.9mm foundation are my options. If they will both work, and neither will put me in a worse situation, but small cell has the potential to put me in a better situation, I mine as well try it. Worse case scenereo I'm in the same spot I would be if I didn't try it, and I'm just out the $$ it cost for the frames . . . long term it might be worth it (although short term my wallet is crying "no!" to the ~ $3.00 a frame price of the PF's . . . especially when I have a shed full of drawn and undrawn frames . . . ).


----------



## Oldtimer

Sounds like a plan.

Agree with your caveats also, an experiment of one or two isn't going to give reliable results. I have the same problem with my experiment of 5.

Re regressing a hive, because your bees are already fairly large cell, it's likely regressing will not go smoothly. I found it hard enough dropping down from a cell size of 5.5 mm. If you start with wax foundation I'm thinking you will have to cut out several times and the cost will go up. So plastic, may be the way to get things started. If plastic is an issue, you could switch back to wax once you've had a few generations through on the small plastic cells. The good thing is, once you've got that first small cell hive, it can be used to build more small cell comb if you want to increase sc hive numbers. Around 6 months ago I only had one small cell hive, now I have 6, by getting the hive to build comb flat out.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Specialkayme said:


> And that's what she advocates everyone to do?


I'm not sure if that's what she advocates directly, but she is a very vigorous proponent of clean wax and the only clean wax is your own (and hers and a couple other people). I brave the use of commercially available small cell foundation even though chances are it's somewhat contaminated because making your own foundation is an expensive proposition to get started in. Plastic frames are only sprayed with a thin coat of wax so possible contamination is minimized further.


----------



## Kieck

At this risk of derailing this thread, I'd like to point out a few basics of insect anatomy and physiology.

The sclerotized plates -- those hard and crunchy bits of insects -- do not change size after an insect reaches maturity. They harden, and those plates are the same size for the rest of the life of the individual insect. The width of the first abdominal tergite will be the same from day to day to day for an individual insect.

Those plates are held together by flexible membranes. The flexible membranes allow movement for the insects (they couldn't even crawl without those membranes. The membranes also allow from some expansion and contraction of the individual insects. Because of this possible expansion and contraction, individual insects can vary in dimensions somewhat from day to day, or even from second to second at times. These membranes are what allow queen honeybees to "get fat" and "slim down" at different times of the year.

I doubt that the differences in sizes from simple expansion/contraction from the connective membranes make for different sizes of cells. I also doubt the only differences in sizes of individual bees are attributable solely to expansion/contraction from these membranes.

Back to the discussion near the end of the thread, I think an important component will be doing mite counts in a consistent way. It could be that something else is or may give you grief as you go down this road. Having an idea of mite population trends could help you identify or eliminate mites as a cause of problems.


----------



## Oldtimer

You'd be correct Kieck.

Some of the scientific studies that have been done on the effect of small cell on varroa reproduction, have gone so far as to measure the width of the thorax of the bees and compare between the small cell, and the large cell bees. The finding has been that the small cell bees had (on average), smaller thoraxes. As the thorax shell is fixed size for life, these bees were genuinely smaller, not just because of expansion or contraction of membranes.


----------



## Specialkayme

squarepeg said:


> here's a link in case you haven't seen it yet. it's not a big study, but some interesting observations, and some additional references to add to your winter reading:
> 
> http://scientificbeekeeping.com/trial-of-honeysupercell-small-cell-combs/


Um, so . . . ALL hives died by the end of this study . . . not a very good study.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Don't forget.


> As a follow up to my HoneySuperCell trial, I restocked the hives, and have run them mixed arbitrarily in my operation of 500 colonies. In general, but not absolutely, we have avoided giving the HSC colonies mite treatments, just to see what they’d do. Danged if they don’t just keep plugging along–often outperforming the “normal” colonies alongside


----------



## Specialkayme

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I thought the conventional advice was to NOT use HSC frames, as it puts the regression behind by at least two weeks, right?


----------



## Specialkayme

Alright, I'm doing my homework and reading the Lusby's articles. Quite a few quotes made my eyes enlarge. I'd like to raise them here, as perhaps I'm making a larger deal than it should be:



> Retrogressing domesticated colonies, established on oversized foundation, requires a different approach. First, beekeepers must separate the comb sizes within their colonies to be retrogressed. This is best done going into winter, leaving the broodnest to settle into the smallest drawn comb available to overwinter upon. Then when the honeybees are at their smallest body sizing going into Spring for the year, just before brood-rearing begins, an old-fashioned hive shake-down should be accomplished. This is done by physically shaking the bees off of the combs and restarting like a shook-swarm, into a super filled with new undrawn frames of 4.9mm foundation, sitting upon a queen excluder, sitting upon a bottom board. Honey-syrup and a pollen patty (made with honey and pollen only) may need to be supplied to induce bees to draw wax foundation. Use a tight top cover to close. DO NOT REMOVE QUEEN EXCLUDER FROM BETWEEN BOTTOM BOARD AND SUPER UNTIL FOUNDATION IS DRAWN AND QUEEN IS LAYING ON A MINIMUM OF 2-3 FRAMES.


Mainly, she talks about doing a shakedown in early spring "right before brood-rearing begins." What? Around here, that time is roughly January 15th, if not earlier. If I did a shakedown of a hive, removing all comb and putting them on foundation, I'd have a starve-out in a day, two max. That's even with a feeder. If I waited till middle of March I'd have a better chance, but even still . . . What gives?



> PROCESS FOR SPEEDING-UP RETROGRESSION: This is a definite multi-year application to accomplish. Depending upon the size of the beekeeping operation, it can take anywhere from 3 to 15 years average to accomplish.


So, if it's going to take me at least 3-15 years to successfully regress (and that's assuming I move from 5.4mm bees, and not the 5.9mm bees I have), and I'm not supposed to treat in those 3-15 years, how am I ever supposed to have any bees left over at the end of that process? If it takes three years to get the cell size down to 4.9, and I'm going to have mite issues if I'm not under 5.0, how do I even stand a chance?



> BEES THAT WILL NOT CORRECTLY DRAW OUT FOUNDATION OVER THE COURSE OF THE YEAR WILL SUCCUMB TO DISEASE, DIE AND/OR NOT OVERWINTER PROPERLY. DO NOT TRY TO SAVE THEM OR YOU WILL PERPETUATE YOUR MITE AND DISEASE PROBLEM. TREAT THIS AS SURVIVAL OF FITTEST ONLY, AND EXTINCTION FOR THAT WHICH WILL NOT RETROGRESS TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM BIOLOGICALLY BACK TO TRADITIONAL BEEKEEPING.


Alright, I see what she is trying to say here, but I'm sorry, this just isn't going to fit into my schedule. Her plan to regress is to force them onto foundation. If they make it, great. If they don't, sucks to be them. Your yard is better off without them.

That's true, to a point, when you have 100 hives in a yard. It really isn't true when you have two. I can't really take those risks this year, so if that's the plan I might have to rethink her regression plan . . . or the regression plan generally . . .


----------



## Michael Bush

>Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I thought the conventional advice was to NOT use HSC frames, as it puts the regression behind by at least two weeks, right? 

Actually it's instant regression in one step, but it does set the colony (not the regression) back two weeks while they balk at using it. Compared to three change overs of comb without over stressing the bees, I would say it puts regression ahead about a year to a year and a half compared to wax or natural comb.


----------



## Oldtimer

Her basic reasoning is sound, you just need to factor in regional differences, plus maybe go plastic foundation.

What she's saying, is she thinks there are assorted sized cells in the pre-regression hive, which in your case with natural comb, there will be.

Therefore, she says in fall, put the smallest sized cells where you think the main cluster will be. So that by spring, any bees raised will be smaller than if you hadn't done that. Then in early spring (and for that part you'll need to factor in your own regional requirements), you shake them onto small cell. 

I've noticed that bees under stress, and needing to get new bees quickly, will build smaller cells. You'll see that with extra small swarms. So that method will be the quickest way to regress. 

However, Dee is prepared to melt combs not properly built and make them into new foundation, and keep doing that, till the hive is regressed. Most of us probably are not prepared to do that, so plastic foundation or comb can be easier to get a quick result. If the comb is a mess you just scrape that bit off with your hive tool and let the bees do it again, no financial cost is incurred. 

When I regressed my first hive, I used wax foundation but had to sacrifice a few sheets. As I only had one hive, there was plenty of time to keep a close eye on things, and I just ensured that no brood that was not small cell size got to hatching stage. In that way, even though at first the bees were not drawing all of the comb at small cell size, in a couple of months the hive had a good proportion of small bees and started drawing the combs quite well, almost perfect. Now, that hive draws combs 100% perfect, if conditions are right for that. It's not nessecary for the process to take years.


----------



## Vance G

I regressed mine pretty substantially by giving them 4.9 mm plastic frames and every box they moved up into was more of the same. I scraped the badly drawn ones after the brood emerged and made them try again. All colonies are not equal in drawing either. Some switched easily, some continue to make a mess. I really need to put in some foundationless and let them have the drones they want, maybe that will help in getting good comb drawn. So far, all the bridge comb between boxes has been solid drone comb and brood. All the upper deeps they are wintering in have had the frames shaved and contain 11 frames and were the combs drawn after the early regression messes were made. Hopefully the regression will have the desired effect on varroa load. I am going to count mites til I know for sure. I will be overjoyed if the small cell alone is the magic bullet, but plan splitting and brood breaks too. What has really become obvious listening to the tales of woe---is that you can't do nuthin! Maybe if you start out with perfect resistent bees, but if they exist there sure aren't enough to go around yet.


----------



## StevenG

They exist, Vance. You just have to get your order in to the breeder early enough to assure getting them when you want them.
Regards,
Steven


----------

