# Mite leveling in a yard.



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

Just got back from two days at the Pa. State Bee Association. Alot of good speakers. Mary Ann Frazier, Nancy Ostiguy, Diana Cox-Foster, all from Penn State. Also, Nathan Rice, USDA beltsville. Heather Matilla, Cornell. Eric Haubruge & Bach Kim Nguyen, someone where foreign??? Dave Miksa, Miksa honeybees in Florida. And a host of other speakers.

One of the hot topics lately on beesource is this idea of mites "leveling" out within a yard. I feel this is one of the personal "theories" that some have come up with to discredit J. Berry's research on mite drop and mite counts between SC and LC hives.

What a pleasant surprise to read the schedule of speakers and to find out one of the talks was entitled "Effective Varroa Mite Monitoring - Can Mite drop from a specific colony accurately predict mite drop for neighboring colonies?"

The research was conducted by Penn State University and Post Grad Mike Williams.

The research was based on time and space. The research was "SUPPOSED" to show how mites and associated disease was transmitted throughout an apiary. Models were set up with spacing and circular hives with inner and out rings of colonies. The idea was to show if mites counts were a certain level or changed at a certain rate within one hive, how would that effect hives nearby.

The findings? Glad you asked...NO CORRELATING IMPACT!

It was noted that based on what they thought would happen, that they were surprised with what they actually found.

This research was written and presented as a preliminary report, as the final report has been sent for a thesis review and possible publication. What ever all that means.

A very lengthy discussion after the talk was based on the very discussion on this site as to some indicating taking a hive with high counts, and a hive with low counts, and observing a "leveling" out over a claimed period of one week. We also discussed the research from J. Berry and the fact that if her experiment was set-up with one type hive along side another type, (SC and LC), what would be the possibility of flawed data based on mite transfer on some level allowing "leveling out" of mite counts and loads. The response..... NO WAY! Not based on models and test conducted just this past summer that were geared directly with this same subject matter and research in mind.

Yes, drifting and virus can be seen traveling through a yard over a season. But the data clearly showed that mite transfer was very LOW, and was not a factor in impacting hives from a mite load basis.

I started this thread as the final report has not filed, and will be hopefully submitted for review sometime the first part of this coming year.

I will happily refer back to this particular thread for all to read as soon as I am aware of it being published.


----------



## peggjam (Mar 4, 2005)

These studies don't mean much without peer review, and another reseacher dupilcating the results with a seprate study. Until that happens I don't put much stock in any of them.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Now where have I heard THAT before?


----------



## peggjam (Mar 4, 2005)

Barry said:


> Now where have I heard THAT before?


 
Who you talking too.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>I feel this is one of the personal "theories" that some have come up with to discredit J. Berry's research on mite drop and mite counts between SC and LC hives.

Actually the subject was talked about as long ago as 2002 by Dr. Rodriguez in the FGMO forum where he described marking bees to see how much drifting affected things and I quoted several studies in the small cell thread, which of course are being treated as if they were made up just for this case and not as if they were research. I also had info posted on this concept two and a half years ago on my web site. But of course, now we just made it up the other day to discredit J. Berry.  Yes, now it's being discussed again because of the Berry study. But it has been discussed and even researched before that.


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi Guys and BjornBee,

>personal "theories" that some have come up with to discredit J. Berry's research....

What! "come up with to discredit"? Why does so much boil down to the perception of attacks and discrediting? I shared what I had. But "come up ... to discredit" deals with my motivation which you know nothing about. And I resent your inference! Nothing in J. Berry's report discredits me. But your words do. Have I read too much into your words?

No mite immigration? I've seen research to the contrary. If I recall correctly, prior research was done that indicated an average mite immigration of about 10 to 20 mites per day. That's what I saw in my little test. So which research should one believe. 

And if mite immigration is no problem between hives within a yard, then there shouldn't be any worry about them migrating between yards. Or between outfits. Or between countries.

So, why all the mite research then? Why do researchers go to such great lengths to equalize mites when conducting research? And why are all those beekeepers dumping all those pesticides into those hives? Just kill those mites once and then no problem. That was the thinking 15 years ago. And recent history, thinking NZ, has proved it not only outdated but erroneous again. 

And when "mite transfer was very LOW", mites are no big problem then? Yeah, Right!!! Just how do they get around so fast, as mites don't survive for long outside the hive? Maybe it's not the bees or the small cell. Maybe those researchers have just breed some very SLOOOOW mites :>) Unfortunately, the rest of us have the fast ones :>))))))

Well, mites are no problem for some right now. But they aren't keeping bees the same old way as they did when mites were a big problem for them. They are thinking about and caring for bees in a whole new way. And their hives are more than survivors. They are thriving. More healthy. And more productive than at any time before.

But those stuck on the same old treadmill are getting the same old results. Mites are as big a problem as ever, even with the latest research. And most got on that treadmill by following the latest research. That's how I got on it. But it's sure not how I got off it. If I'd followed the latest research I'd still be on it.

There are new rumblings in bee research suggesting the benefits of a clean broodnest, the importance of hygienics, broodnest cleansing and some recommending not treating. Maybe someday modern beekeeping will swing that way for most. But that's a two decade old hat for small cell beekeepers, many who are approaching a decade of working with, not toward those goals.

Now I've got a question or two. How come those who are doing small cell are having so much success in a variety of locations, races and situations? Yet, our researchers can't even get their hives to survive, treated or not, let alone thrive. Recent research shows little difference in long term survival between treated and untreated hives.

Why, when those who are doing small cell, universally report how disastrous the first season appears, do researchers think they can beat the curve and reach a conclusion after a single season? Is it arrogance or ignorance?

And a few suggestions:

If mite drop from a neighboring colony can't be used to predict mite levels in adjoining colonies, then the commercial boys had better sample each hive for mites to determine when treatments are needed. A few hives in a yard won't be enough. Or they could just treat everything, every year. And be sure to use a little extra pesticide or leave a few strips in just in case. No change here:>)

I suggest that anyone wanting to test small cell out, check with those who are succeeding with it and then see if they can do it for themselves. Such a visit might easily settle the 'if' part. It maybe mysterious, but it's not magic. If a skeptic like I can do it, then anyone can. 

The next step is 'how'. Doing it is the cheapest way to learn this step. Then once having done it, maybe then, they can figure out the whys. It's impossible to get the whys until one gets the hows. And I wouldn't commit to any long term research until the if had been ascertained.

To date, I haven't seen any research that has even come close to establishing the hows, let alone the whys. And from the nature of the research, I doubt whether the if was ascertained either.

And I'd suggest that anyone who thinks that any of the small cell studies to date are a definitive analysis of small cell should go back and read about small cell for themselves. Because this is a sure indication one knows even less about it than the researchers do.

And a final rambling thought.

Maybe the scientific method is too narrowly focused to really benefit todays beekeepers. It may be very beneficial to physicists, etc. who are intent on getting to the smallest division of matter. But a beekeeper is focused on the interaction or very large scale systems. The factors involved in those interactions overwhelm the splitters which characterize much of todays science.

Regards
Dennis


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Much like politics and religion, SC vs LC is obviously a polarizing topic. As with all such topics people are typically passionate in their opinions. There is very rarely any success in swaying someone away from that opinion....regardless of the side they've taken in the debate. The only thing that gets accomplished is to create hard feelings. Many, an otherwise good friendship, has been broken and for no good purpose. I really think we need to let this topic rest for a while.


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

Dennis,
Why the confusion between two ideas?

1) Yes, mites do travel between hives and apiaries. I have stated so now several times.

A virus in one hive is sure to travel through drift and will effect the entire yard possibly by the end of the season. Yes large operators with thousands of hives VERY close to each other on pallets, while also doing management tasks such as open feeding from barrels, may see a faster spread. The test after all was based on 1 meter distances between hives.

2)Mites don't travel enough as the tests show, by having it reach a point of leveling through drift and natural foraging activity by having spaced hives.

This is what I have seen in thousands of mite counts in hundreds of yards. Huge differences between hives, all summer long, seen with continual trends supporting the variations that each hive shows, based on queen and bee type, etc.

It's not a "yes it happens" or No it does not" thing. Of course mites drift. Just nowhere anything close to the claims now being suggested, and reaching a point of 'leveling out".

Why does all this matter?

You can read just above how some, with their own ideas and observations, so quickly and casually dismiss controlled studies due to it not being replicated, etc. I only wish we has enough university bee yards and staffed bee labs to cover all the studies with blind, double blind, etc. but this complaint that's its not good enough to consider any merit, while we have such a small underfunded industry, I guess is to be expected.

Although dismissing a university study so casually also takes into question those "observations" and untested "theories" from the likes of other beesource members. I'll take peggjam's whole "It takes smallcell three years to work due to needing the feral population to be lowered also, etc, etc." as an example. I may argue the details and conflicting information I see, but I hardly say his information is not worthy due to lack of controlled studies. Makes your own one hive "observation, as well as peggjam's "ideas" seem absolutely worthless don't you think?

Nobody is saying that bees don't drift. Studies have shown this. But no study, including this one that I mentioned, has bees drifting and exchanging mites in the forage area, that could be even close to assuming or claiming that mites "level out" within any time frame, whether it be a week or year. Is that so hard to keep separate and understand. They are two separate points that are separate. Not really that hard to understand.

You can now stop claiming that anyone wanting to check out smallcell to just try it. I have said that as more people try it, more will come forward and claim its not as magical as some claim. And with continued studies, it may be a piece here and there, but eventually the data, the personal experiences, and supporting information will change this little sacred claim by smallcell people. I have no problems stating this. I base it on my own testing, other peoples input, and research, that is now questioning some of these so called "unchallenged " claims that have been made for years. Sorry if it may take awhile to get everything to "double studies, replicated, peer reviewed" status now being sought by some.


----------



## peggjam (Mar 4, 2005)

"You can read just above how some, with their own ideas and observations, so quickly and casually dismiss controlled studies due to it not being replicated, etc. I only wish we has enough university bee yards and staffed bee labs to cover all the studies with blind, double blind, etc. but this complaint that's its not good enough to consider any merit, while we have such as little industry, I guess is to be expected."

One only has to look at the history of the egg to see the damage that one unrepicated study can do. Remember when they studied eggs, and reported that they were high in chlosterall? Do you understand the damage that did to the egg industry? That damage continues today, even after countless other studies have found that eggs were indeed high in chlosterall, but it was the "good" chlosterall that was high, and very low in the "bad" chlosterall. None of these studies mean squat, until they are peer reviewed, ad dupicated.


----------



## peggjam (Mar 4, 2005)

"Makes your own one hive "observation, as well as peggjam's "ideas" seem absolutely worthless don't you think?"

I think that it would also include YOUR observations in the worthless catagory as well.

I understand in YOUR mind, that the only oppinions that matter are your own. Hate to burst your bubble, but just because YOU failed with sc, doesn't mean that everyone ELSE will also fail. It is a mindset that YOU just don't SEEM to get. But that's YOUR loss, not ours.


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

Is that it? To not even stay on topic, and bring eggs into it? Of course there have been bad studies?

That's like saying I dismiss every laypersons observation based not on merit, but because some other layperson made a bad comment or made a bad observation. To dismiss one due to another?

I guess a layperson like yourself peggjam, with little actual experience in beekeeping, means...how did you say it?..."means squat!". I don't see it that way of course... 

So I'm to give you consideration, while dismissing controlled university studies, based on an false egg claim of years ago? You "crack" me up! No pun intended.


----------



## peggjam (Mar 4, 2005)

BjornBee said:


> Is that it? To not even stay on topic, and bring eggs into it? Of course there have been bad studies?
> 
> That's like saying I dismiss every laypersons observation based not on merit, but because some other layperson made a bad comment or made a bad observation. To dismiss one due to another?
> 
> ...


 
Believe what you like, do what works for you.


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

peggjam said:


> "Makes your own one hive "observation, as well as peggjam's "ideas" seem absolutely worthless don't you think?"
> 
> I think that it would also include YOUR observations in the worthless catagory as well.
> 
> I understand in YOUR mind, that the only oppinions that matter are your own. Hate to burst your bubble, but just because YOU failed with sc, doesn't mean that everyone ELSE will also fail. It is a mindset that YOU just don't SEEM to get. But that's YOUR loss, not ours.


"our loss"??? Speaking for the group I see. 

Getting personal are we? I was making points based on points of association. The point being "questioning' the reasoning of dismissing others information and comments based on others faults or by association. Kind of like saying if you can't respect one persons ideas, based on higher qualifications than your own, how can anyone take you serious when your qualifications and quality of information may be less? Its a 'thinking" statement. Not making claims about anyone in particular.

I never said that "everyone" else will fail at SC. I said many times that there are success and failures with both LC and SC. But it certainly isn't the mystical magical trip that some claim.

Who said I failed at SC. Not me. Never said it. I'm just more down to earth and suggest that there are other factors of success between both LC and SC, not entirely based on cell sizing.


----------



## peggjam (Mar 4, 2005)

"Getting personal are we? I was making points based on points of association."

No, you were just plain bashing people.


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

Want to keep going?


----------



## peggjam (Mar 4, 2005)

Go ahead, contiue to do what your doing, at some point nobody will take you seriously.


----------



## Keith Jarrett (Dec 10, 2006)

peggjam said:


> Go ahead, contiue to do what your doing, at some point nobody will take you seriously.


That's already happen.


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

Peggjam, your experience and own information on your website brings into question your knowledge and experience as speaker for all smallcell people. Your own site mentions that you use miteawayII for v-mite control. Are people to assume that your statements and stance not just on your ideas of feral colony varroa control, but your own comments on smallcell are accurate and truthful?

How can you argue and comment about smallcell on the level you do, and also claim to treat both spring and fall? To suggest that you are still regressing, or needing to treat, only suggests that your own observations must be incomplete? You are not fully off treatments, or not fully on smallcell. I know there are perhaps explanations, but your sitting on the fence, stating claims of absolute, but your record states otherwise.

For me, I have bot LC and SC, and have not treated for 5 years. I don't treat both spring and fall, and then make claims based dealing with ideas of not needing treatments and the success of one or the other, while I'm unwrapping the next pail of miteawayII.

Seems odd to me...


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

Nice Keith. Very professional....


----------



## Keith Jarrett (Dec 10, 2006)

I know, two company three's a crowd.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>2)Mites don't travel enough as the tests show, by having it reach a point of leveling through drift and natural foraging activity by having spaced hives.



I will see your unpublished study:



INFLUENCE OF VARROA DESTRUCTOR ON FLIGHT BEHAVIOUR OF
INFESTED BEES, Jasna Kralj, Stefan Fuchs Presented at Apimondia 2003-- this one points out that Varroa infested bees drift more than uninfested bees contributing to the problem."

And raise you four published ones:

"After treating five colonies of the Group 1 in autumn 1990, the mite population in treated and untreated colonies equalized during late summer and autumn 1991 probably because of drifting and robbing as suggested by Sakofski et al. (1990), Buchler and Hoffman (1991) and Gretti et al (1992). This result stresses the importance of treating all colonies of an apiary simultaneously."

Varroa jacobsoni Oud. in cold climates: population growth, winter mortality and influence on the survival of honey bee colonies, Seppo Korpela; Aasine Aarhus; Ingemar Fries; Henrick Hansen, Journal of Apicultural Research 32/3/4): 157-14 (1992)


That mites even out in an apiary:


Seasonality of honey be colony invasion by Varroa jacobsoni Oud. Sakofcki, F; Koenger, N: Fuchs, S (1990) Apidologie 21(6):547-550 1360/91

Varroatransfer swischen Volkern:AsmaB, Faktoren und Konsequenzen, Buchler, R; Hoffmann, S (1991) Deutches Imker-Journal 2(10):376-381. 227/93

Reinfestation of acaricide-treated apiary by Varroa jacobsoni Oud., Greatti, M; Milani, N; Nazzi, F (1992) Experimental and Applied Acarology 16(4):279-286


Plus if you want a little more, there are some charts from one of Rinderer's studies showing mite populations in control (domestic) and Russian colonies in the same apiary. When the controls were all dead the mite in the Russians decreased.

The text of some of these in here:
http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/Organicbeekeepers/message/37423


>Although dismissing a university study so casually also takes into question those "observations" and untested "theories" from the likes of other beesource members.

Like the five I just referenced that you have already so casually dismissed?


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>But no study, including this one that I mentioned, has bees drifting and exchanging mites in the forage area, that could be even close to assuming or claiming that mites "level out" within any time frame, whether it be a week or year.

All of the above observed it in several months.


----------



## peggjam (Mar 4, 2005)

"Peggjam, your experience and own information on your website brings into question your knowledge and experience as speaker for all smallcell people. Your own site mentions that you use miteawayII for v-mite control. Are people to assume that your statements and stance not just on your ideas of feral colony varroa control, but your own comments on smallcell are accurate and truthful?"


This also brings into question your ability to read, anything and understand what it says.

I should use all caps here so that you can read it: I have not used any treatments since the fall of 2006, in the fall of 2006 I treated half my hives with MiteAway II, that is it. If you can read, I have also mentioned this in *several* other threads....but I guess that means you either can't comperhend what you are reading, *or* you are not reading what others are posting.

I also updated my website, so you should no longer be confused......


----------



## peggjam (Mar 4, 2005)

BjornBee said:


> Nice Keith. Very professional....


 
Kinda reminds me of *your *posts. Most if not all of them.


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

No MB, I did not dismiss any of the tests. It was not me that questioned those reports due to them not being exactly replicated. I think your confusing me with perhaps another.

Accepting the fact that mites transfer is one thing. I do agree. Just not on a level claimed here to suggest that side by side hive will maintain equal, or statistical comparison equality.

These studies for the most deal with step one, that being acknowledging the fact that mites do travel through an apiary. (Conducted 15 years ago, when no information on such matters even existed) We know from such reports that mite do transfer, and disease can also. That's what these tests were out to prove. And they did that. Although the facts seem wishy washy on the surface of some of the reports, using words such as "perhaps", "probably', etc.

This was before people for the most part consider things like threshold testing, treating selected hives instead of whole yards, etc. 

There is always conflicting questions with research, with sometimes small model changes being the difference. Many times, as example, one study is out to show that mites do in fact travel between yards. While another test seems to be focused on how much they travel in mite load. 

And certainly in just about most research of this nature, over time, with enough testing, conflicting results are found.

I myself, have mite counted thousands of hives. All showing drastic differences between mite counts within the same yard. My own experience shows that mite counts do not equalize or level out no matter how many related tests show otherwise. Maybe I have superior bees that are not influenced as much as your weakly bees that allow outside influences from neighboring hives. 

It would interesting to see how many people had their hives mite counted from state inspectors, or took the time to do this themselves. Maybe a poll?

Myself, I don't see it. Drift yes. Mites transfer throughout the year on a slow migration and impact, Yes (To me what the studies show for the most part) But I see no data, and no experience with mites transferring on a level that allows a leveling out of mites loads between hives in a season, let alone a week.

I don't pick and chose between research, based on what I want to believe. I base it on its entirety, and my own observations. But I will accept a challenge for testing my, or another yard, that has no treatments (with mite loads), and will track the mite counts throughout the year And I'll lay money on the fact that hives do not level out on the scale claimed on this site.

Anyone actually doing mite counts between hives in a yard, can see drastic differences between the counts.


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

peggjam said:


> Kinda reminds me of *your *posts. Most if not all of them.


Good one....


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

MB, since your at least actually offering information and having dialog, let me ask a couple questions. (This is what I thought would happen when I started this thread. Some questions, exchange of ideas, possibilities, etc. You can see that never happens. It went straight to the bashing phase...  )

In J. Berry's study. lets assume "leveling out" occurred and skewed the numbers. This is the way I IMAGINE it would of worked...

LC and SC started at some point on the graph.

SC maintained low levels of mites due to shorter capping times and claims of 50% reduction in mite reproduction numbers, and suppose "other" factors that some mention.

LC starts a mite explosion. The points on the graph would show that LC mite loads is far exceeding SC.

After mite load on the LC hives peak, a slow and steady (I'll maintain that these things DO NOT happen overnight) mite increase in the SC hive can be seen. Since you reference a report or two that suggests mite transfer over "several months", I guess we can rule out immediate mite load or simultaneous mite load transfer from a constant plotting on the graph.

But I don't see that. I see a steady increase with no spikes, no suggestion of LC breeding mites, then transferring them over, or anything else out of the ordinary.

Can you comment?


----------



## peggjam (Mar 4, 2005)

"You can see that never happens. It went straight to the bashing phase...  )"

Started right at post #8, so I have to wonder, why you bothered to start this thread at all.........


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>I don't pick and chose between research, based on what I want to believe. I base it on its entirety, and my own observations.

What are you saying the difference between those two is? It's very inconvenient to believe things that are not true. I base what I believe on my own observations.

>In J. Berry's study. lets assume "leveling out" occurred and skewed the numbers. This is the way I IMAGINE it would of worked...
>LC and SC started at some point on the graph.
>SC maintained low levels of mites due to shorter capping times and claims of 50% reduction in mite reproduction numbers, and suppose "other" factors that some mention.
>LC starts a mite explosion. The points on the graph would show that LC mite loads is far exceeding SC.
>After mite load on the LC hives peak, a slow and steady (I'll maintain that these things DO NOT happen overnight) mite increase in the SC hive can be seen. Since you reference a report or two that suggests mite transfer over "several months", I guess we can rule out immediate mite load or simultaneous mite load transfer from a constant plotting on the graph.

I would expect them to happen at a fairly steady rate.

>But I don't see that. I see a steady increase with no spikes, no suggestion of LC breeding mites, then transferring them over, or anything else out of the ordinary.

Why wouldn't they drift at a fairly constant rate?

>Can you comment?

I can speculate the same as everyone else.

If you look at Rinderer's work on Primorsky (Russian) queens, he sees the Russian mite population on the Primorsky colonies follow the domestic colonies up albiet in smaller numbers until the domestic colonies die, then the mite population on the Primorsky colonies drops dramatically. The chart is at the end of the .pdf file referenced above. Contrary to the usual pattern observed of mites increasing in the fall, when the domestic colonies died it dropped from what looks like on the chart about 4000 mites per colony to less than 400 mites per colony very rapidly. That sure looks like that mite load was coming from the domestic colonies.

There are several possible mechanisms to explain Some of Dr. Seeley's recent work too. He took some feral colonies and put them on standard foundation in an apiary to further measure their mite resistance and saw their mite numbers soar. One explanation (the one he offered) is that the mites in the forest were different and less virulent. Another would be that the size of the comb changed (which, of course seemed obvious to small cell beekeepers). Another would be that the mites in the apiary drifted to the feral colony and wiped them out. The feral colonies he is studying are quite isolated so they he believes they are not affected by domestic colonies.

This seems to be something no one wants to take into account in their research. Probably because to do so would make it very difficult to keep an even playing field. But not doing so may create TOO even of a playing field...


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

MB, which PDF file are you talking about? I would like to see the timing of the mite decrease along with the other hives dying. It may not of been known back then, but mite counts naturally drops back down after fall brood rearing ends. This is also about the same time that most early winter losses can be seen. On a graph, mite levels are increasing throughout fall brood cycles, then dips back down.

To get a true read and make claims on hives crashing and other hives mites counts being impacted, would have to take into account the natural increase and decrease of mites throughout the year. To eliminate such fluctuations, followup tests would need to be done at other times than just fall/early winter. Like artificially killing a hive during periods of hive stability such as mid summer. Please tell me he did this testing to eliminate these factors.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

This one:
http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/Organicbeekeepers/message/37423

Is on the organic beekeepers group. If you like I can email it to you if you don't want to have join the group to get access.


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

MB, Please do. 


Thank you.


----------



## MichaelW (Jun 1, 2005)

just read this one

Reinfestation of acaricide-treated apiary by Varroa jacobsoni Oud., Greatti, M; Milani, N; Nazzi, F (1992) Experimental and Applied Acarology 16(4):279-286

and put the others on my list, except the German one. I don't read German.

The one above does not look at or say that "mites even out in an apiary". They are looking at where the infestation comes from. In that study, they determined infestation was coming from robbed feral bees crashing from varroa. 

I think Bjornbee's point of


> Accepting the fact that mites transfer is one thing. I do agree. Just not on a level claimed here to suggest that side by side hive will maintain equal, or statistical comparison equality.


is a good point to note. This referenced study does not look at this question in any way. I'm interested to see what the other ones say.

I appreciate people like Bjornbee and Jim Fisher whom are willing to go against the grain to ask tough questions. We have all kinds of beginner beekeepers here, some of them investing thousands upon thousands of dollars to start up a dream. Some just trying to enjoy the bees. If someone sees what they think is disinformation and see it as their responsibility to address it, I can respect that. Its then the other beekeepers responsibility to decide what they think is the most accurate information on the specific subject. More information is better.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

MichaelW said:


> If someone sees what they think is disinformation and see it as their responsibility to address it, I can respect that.


Yes, as long as the respect cuts both ways when there is a differing of opinion.

- Barry


----------



## MichaelW (Jun 1, 2005)

Here's the abstract which pretty much sums that one up. Additionally, note that they found drifting drones did not affect reinfestation rates.

Reinfestation of acaricide-treated apiary by Varroa jacobsoni Oud., Greatti, M; Milani, N; Nazzi, F (1992) Experimental and Applied Acarology 16(4):279-286

Abstract The sources of reinfestation of a treated apiary byVarroa jacobsoni Oud. were studied in Friuli (North-Eastern Italy), in an area with a high density of colonies. Ten colonies, initiallyVarroa-free, were treated with Apistan or Bayvarol strips and mites killed by these treatments were counted twice a week for 1 year. Five hives were provided with ldquodrone excludersrdquo, to avoid the entrance of drones from other apiaries. Nectar and honeydew flow were monitored.
The reinfestation rate was low during spring, varied between 1.6–13.7 mites/day/colony during June, July and first week of August, and rose impressively during September and October (up to a mean of 75.6 mites/day/colony); it was relatively high when nectar flow was scarce. The presence of drone excluders did not help to limit the number of mites imported: drones did not seem to be the main cause of reinfestation. The coincidence between the increase in the reinfestation rate and the scarcity of nectar flow and the massive importation of mites, observed especially in September and October, suggest that reinfestation was mainly caused by robbing of infested colonies (mostly feral swarms) by the bees of treated colonies.


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

Thanks MichalW,

Are those numbers the mites actually transferred each day? Or were they the mite counts of the hives after re infestation happened? The way its worded makes me wonder. But how did they test for mites entering the hive every day if that's what they are suggesting?


----------



## MichaelW (Jun 1, 2005)

The numbers are mites entering hive per day. They measured by caging the queen and killing all the mites with Apisand and Perizin in the abscence of capped brood. Then with queen released 19July-27September colonies where treated with Bayvarol strips and Apistan (alternating?) replacing strips every 2 months. This way they figure that since these chemicals kill mites very quickly, before they would have time to enterer cells, they would be killing all the incoming mites which they then counted on the bottom board. The only comparison made is between drone exclusion or not drone excluded.


----------



## peggjam (Mar 4, 2005)

"The reinfestation rate was low during spring, varied between 1.6–13.7 mites/day/colony during June, July and first week of August"

These three months are interesting, as most likey there is some flow on, and if infestation was only at half the maximum, that would still represent a rapid increase in mite numbers in untreated hives.


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

Thanks MichaelW.

I'm really skeptical of the huge mite increases at the end of the season based on robbing of ferals. I also am wondering how they confirmed how they were sure NO mites were reproducing. It mentions replacing strips every two months, but we are only talking about a time frame from July to September. Hmmm. Were they opening up cells to confirm no mites being reproduced?

I think that mite increases from robbing behavior would be seen as very sharp peaks in daily counts. I has eluded this earlier in questioning the absence of such points in looking at J. Berry's information. I don't see it with the SC and LV hives as I would expect if the data was plotted smoothly and then a rapid peak from one day to the next. I would think that rapid spikes could be seen from day to day if robbing was going on. Anyone have a study or report that would add to this?


----------



## MichaelW (Jun 1, 2005)

There are some pretty sharp peaks in their graph as the honey flow stopped and, as they assume, robbing began. There are spikes within the period of dearth as well.

Here's how they looked for reproduction.


> After this treatment, the proportion of newly emerged, light-pigmented mites killed by the acaricide treatment was rather low (about 1.3%): this suggests that little reproduction of the mite took place inside the experimental colonies, most incoming mites were apparently killed before they could reach a brood cell. In fact, Milani and Barbattini ( 1989 ) observed that about 90% of mites leaving capped brood cells when the bees emerge are killed by Bayvarol before they reach another cell; similar results were obtained with Apistan (Borneck and Merle, 1989).


but no not as good as looking in cells.


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

MichaelW,
I guess if you read it correctly, and assume, that mites were coming in from feral sources from robbing, based on spikes.
I guess also I should assume that this was not a factor in J. Berry's study using the same logic in the absence of the same spikes. Instead of making ferals an issue, this data actually makes or suggests its a non-issue.

This of course does show in robbing, mites do transfer. However, this does not show or suggest anything in relation to "leveling out". I knew mites would transfer in a higher level based on robbing. Not sure how all this has anything to do with leveling out in a yard between two supposed different selected hives, with different mite handling capabilities.

Even if both hives (LC and SC) spiked from incoming mites due to robbing, I still say that on the graph you should of seen this, and one hive should of still been lower based lower mite reproduction.

Of course now, even though the graph and data show otherwise in J. Berry's study, someone will now suggest that the SC hive had more bees, and thus more foragers, and thus more mites being brought back, solely based now on robbing of nearby feral colonies......


----------



## TwT (Aug 5, 2004)

bahahahahaha!!!! I just thought of something, maybe the reason the LC hives had the mites they had was because the was robbing the SC hives , bet if they checked they would have found SC mites on them large cell bee's    , sorry could help it


----------



## MichaelW (Jun 1, 2005)

article review #2, I'll try and look at another one tomorrow.

Seasonality of honey be colony invasion by Varroa jacobsoni Oud. Sakofcki, F; Koenger, N: Fuchs, S (1990) Apidologie 21(6):547-550 1360/91

This is another study where they simply looked at number of mites killed daily through a season with strips in. This time with no difference in any of the colonies. They counted mites from early may to end of September. The plan was to determine the seasonality of varroa invasion as the title says. They invade much more in late season again, robbing noted as a main likely source. They where not looking at the question of if mite infestation "levels out" in the yard but they do state, "Numbers of mites differed over a wide range between monitor colonies in the same apiary, and no difference was apparent in relation to their position within the row of colnies (in) or apart (out)."

But hold on to your hats, later on they say, "The number of transferred mites correlated strongly with the average infestation of the neighboring colonies.", which is consistent with another study. So they did see that some mites from next door do end up in the hive in question, but it obviously dosen't level out mites within the entire yard as there was a "wide range".

The main problem with whomever originally cited this study to the "leveling out" theory or that drift would significantly effect varroa counts and interfere with studies, is that it does not look at that question specifically, just like the other one we just talked about. But the following one looks like it does. I haven't read it yet.

Neuman, P., Moritz, R. F. A., and Mautz, D. (2000). Colony evaluation is not affected by drifting of drone and worker honeybees (Apis mellifera L.) at a performance testing apiary. Apidologie 31: 67-79.

The impact of drifting workers and drones on evaluating performance data of honeybee (Apis mellifera carnica) colonies was studied using DNA microsatellites. Colony size, honey yield and colony level of infestation with Varroa jacobsoni were evaluated from 30 queenright colonies. Individuals (n = 1359 workers from 38 colonies, n = 449 drones from 14 colonies) were genotyped using four DNA microsatellite loci. Maternity testing was used to identify drifted individuals. The drifting of workers ranged from 0 to 14% with an average of $5 \pm 0.7$%. The amount of drifting drones was significantly higher ranging from 3 to 89% (average of $50 \pm 6.8\%$). No significant correlations were observed between the amount of drifting and colony sizes. Likewise, the correlations between drifting workers and drones with the phenotypic variance for colony honey yields and levels of infestation with V. jacobsoni were weak and in no case significant. Thus, the low levels of drifting workers (due to performance apiary layout) and the high levels of drifting drones did not interfere with performance testing in this study.

that one looks to be a free-bee if you want to check it out here
http://www.apidologie.org/index.php...129&url=/articles/apido/pdf/2000/01/M0110.pdf


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

Two things here, for those of you with more experience to hash out:

1) If "small cell" reduces mite reproduction, and drifting/robbing/migration is fairly uniform, shouldn't the SC colonies still have fewer mites? They're getting the mites from their neighbors, but not adding to it from mites reproducing as rapidly within their colonies, right? And, are mite-loaded bees more likely to drift to SC colonies than to LC colonies? Otherwise, the drift from one LC hive to another LC hive should equal that from one LC to one SC, correct?

Which brings up the second:

2) Is mite migration from LC to SC significantly greater than migrations frm LC to LC or from SC to LC or from SC to SC? Are mites deliberatly moving to SC colonies? Otherwise, shouldn't the first question come back into play, with lower numbers of mites still existing within SC colonies? Or, is mite migration far more important to mite populations within hives than mite reproduction is, and we should scrap any management techniques that attempt to lower mite reproduction in favor of techniques that attempt to lower mite migration/dispersal from one colony to another?


----------



## peggjam (Mar 4, 2005)

"Or, is mite migration far more important to mite populations within hives than mite reproduction is,"

IMHO no, mite migration is not more important than mite reproduction. Mite migration will certainly add to the mite levels in any given hive, but unless they are bringing in alot of mites everyday, it shouldn't outweigh mite reproduction.


----------



## Moonshae (Jun 7, 2007)

MichaelW said:


> I think Bjornbee's point of is a good point to note. This referenced study does not look at this question in any way. I'm interested to see what the other ones say.
> 
> I appreciate people like Bjornbee and Jim Fisher whom are willing to go against the grain to ask tough questions. We have all kinds of beginner beekeepers here, some of them investing thousands upon thousands of dollars to start up a dream. Some just trying to enjoy the bees. If someone sees what they think is disinformation and see it as their responsibility to address it, I can respect that. Its then the other beekeepers responsibility to decide what they think is the most accurate information on the specific subject. More information is better.


Yes. And the more I see people arguing about these things (as a new beek) is that what works for one person may not work for another, and that there are likely very many confounding factors that cannot be controlled for in any given study, or any number of studies. And with real research being poorly funded at best, experienced beeks are going to generalize based on what works for them, in their situations. 

Being able to see all the things that work for different beeks gives us newbs different things to try when one or more suggestions fail.


----------



## Bizzybee (Jan 29, 2006)

"Much like politics and religion, SC vs LC is obviously a polarizing topic. As with all such topics people are typically passionate in their opinions. There is very rarely any success in swaying someone away from that opinion....regardless of the side they've taken in the debate. The only thing that gets accomplished is to create hard feelings. Many, an otherwise good friendship, has been broken and for no good purpose. I really think we need to let this topic rest for a while."

Dang beeman! You shouldn't have wrote this in invisible font! I woulda missed it if I hadn't had my 00 spy glasses on. 

I suppose the cause has no reason aside from self satisfaction? It's a little frustrating sometimes in knowing that many ideas and insights are thrown aside by would be qualified participants because they simply don't want to get involved in such an exchange. Although at times I must admit it can at least be a source of dry entertainment if you're in a pinch.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Bizzybee said:


> Dang beeman! You shouldn't have wrote this in invisible font! I woulda missed it if I hadn't had my 00 spy glasses on.


I actually have the ability to become invisible myself so, I suppose, it should come as no surprise that many of my posts are invisible as well. Its OK though, as I also leave my ego at the door when I enter these boards.
You are right, they do provide entertainment on an otherwise quiet morning.
See ya


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

You guys, drifting between colonies is only going to reinfect your clean hive. Drifting, or robbing from neighouring yards,

The amount of mites that drift into your hives is negliable compaired to thier impact of their reproduction on that colony, that year or the next.

I would even argue drifting isnt really an issue in a well placed bee yard. I believe robbing is the main culprit as to drifting. Always the strong robbing out the weaker dieing hives. Same principle goes for AFB infections and spead.


Its not like the bees gather themselves up and scatter themselves into different hives everyday,.?


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

I found these interesting:

Bee Culture Dec 2007
Cold Country Queens
By Kim Flottum

Pg 24 2nd column 1st full paragraph
"The biggest problem with mites and Russian bees comes when Russian
colonies are in the same yards as non-Russian bees. They will become
fantastically infested with Varroa. This pressure then, is still more
than even the best Russians can handle and once-a-year, or
once-every-other-year soft treatment is required..."

2nd paragraph
"But in an all Russian apiary, the possibility of not having to treat
even once a year is probable."

Beeyards
By Larry Connor
Pg 27 2nd column bottom of 1st full paragraph
"Do I want 30 colonies providing a flood of Varroa mites into the area
every Summer as the drone production stops and the worker brood
production slows? It is something significant to consider before
setting up the apiary at my best friend's field."

Apparently some people think it's significant...


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

MB,
Look hard enough and you can always find contradictory statements. Sometimes even by you.

A couple weeks back, in a discussion about smallcell, you made mention that a positive to smallcell was some study that made reference to smallcell bees chewing down the comb at a faster rate than large cell, and thus was somehow healthier and presumed to contribute to smallcell survivability.

But yet just a couple days ago, you also stated that drawn plastic comb, once used, acts just like regular comb. You even made the comment that it was a "great idea" to use plastic drawn comb.

Yet I have never seen bees chew down plastic comb, never heard of it, and don't expect I ever will. 

So, I agree, it was interesting to read the article. But take it at face value, with perhaps some marketing involved.

I actually think the article did a disservice to russians to suggest that unless all feral colonies and surrounding yards are also russians, that they are so susceptible to mite overload. They suggest that going from treating once a year or every other year with mite pressure, to "But in an all Russian apiary, the possibility of not having to treat
even once a year is probable"...is an observation at best, with the use of "probably" leaving much interpretation.

And I question treating hives instead of requeening or taking out the weak links in the apiary. He does suggest that its treatment on a colony level and not a yard level.

A lot to think about.

Anyways.....acknowledging mite load transfer was not the original point. It was that hives would maintain "level' mite loads through continuous mite load transfer. Not as Larry suggests by having it happen at a particular time of year.

Nice try, but the points are not connected. I think everyone here has commented that mites do transfer. The difference was to take it to the level to suggest that hives maintained in the same yard will see "leveling" out, and have comparable mite counts. The above comments don't support or suggest anything to the contrary.


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

[MichaelW wrote:]
> I appreciate people like Bjornbee and Jim Fisher whom are willing to go 
> against the grain to ask tough questions

So, let me get this straight - Bjorn says some things, while I post 
nothing to the thread at all, yet I still stand accused of "going
against the grain" along with him? Interesting. 

I've got an alibi. I was in Jamaica from Nov 20 - 27.
Left the laptop home. (Beaches and computers don't mix,
on so many levels.) The scurrilous and slanderous 
accusation that I might share any views with Bjorn is 
thereby baseless. 

In regard to Jenifer Berry's in-press findings, I've got a tiny advantage
over the others posting on this thread, as I've both *read the actual
paper* in pre-print form, and I also attended the SNEBA meeting in CT
in Nov where I *listened to a talk she gave* on her findings.

In science, it helps to read the paper, and to listen to the people who 
did the work before critiquing their work, as one then has something
akin to a clue about what was found, one has a glimmer as to what,
if anything, is being claimed as to conclusions, and can address specific
facts. And yeah, I agree that this is so rare out "on the internets", it 
sure is "_going against the grain_". The "grain" is that some folks think 
that an opinion is just as good as a few gigabytes of hard data, that
30-year-old studies are just as good as more recent ones, that finding
a paper with a Google keyword search is just as good as reading and
thinking about it, and so on and so on.

In regard to "Mite Leveling", _there simply isn't any such thing_.

To claim it does it exist attempts to contradict both every
set of mite-count data every assembled, not to mention
common sense about how varroa reproduce and varroa populations
grow within a bee colony.

There certainly is reinfestation of mite-free colonies via drifting and
robbing bees, but there simply is no mechanism by which colonies
in the same yard would end up with similar varroa loads as a result.
The astute student of varroa will note that the heavily infested 
colonies would continue to see varroa population rates that increase
"exponentially", and the recently-reinfested colonies will never 
catch up with the mite population of a more heavily infested colony, 
as they are merely "starting out" their infestation with a few varroa. 

There's lots of studies out there that have looked at varroa levels,
so there's lots of examples documented of just how wide the
varroa infestation level varies within a yard. Anyone who tracks
their varroa levels (this excludes nearly all readers here) can 
simply look at their own historical notebooks and data, which
show the same thing. The 39-cent spiral notebook is perhaps
one of the most valuable beekeeping tools available, yet it
remains ignored by the bulk of beekeepers. 

In mite studies, one goes through a labor-intensive process of 
"equalizing mite loads" between hives by dumping all the worker 
bees into a large screened box, and then scooping out equal
amounts of bees into each nuc or hive. The idea here is to
equalize both starting mite and bee populations.

If "mite leveling" was something that actually happened, there
would be no need to go through all that work, would there?

Even if mite leveling were something more than a completely
inaccurate depiction of the life-cycle of varroa within a
bee colony, it certainly would not explain how the small-cell
colonies ended up with (statistically) significantly *more* varroa 
than the large cell colonies.

Don't claim or scoff "_because the small-cell colonies had more bees_"
until you see the actual paper. The measurement was 
"mites per 100 cells", so it was not dependent upon 
relative colony populations.

And while were on the subject, does anyone actually buy the
claim that small-cell bees somehow have shorter capped periods?
That within a few generations of downsizing, one can see a change
in gestational time, something that would be a genetic change,
normally something that takes eons? 

By the same logic, why don't smaller women give birth in shorter
periods than large women, and why aren't all twins born in less
time than single child births? 

I think the problem here is that the claimed "shorter" capped period
is well within the normal "Bell Curve" of data one is going to get when 
one looks at the issue.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Jim Fischer said:


> it certainly would not explain how the small-cell
> colonies ended up with (statistically) significantly *more* varroa
> than the large cell colonies.


You and Berry are not on the same page.

http://www.beesource.com/forums/showpost.php?p=273138&postcount=219

"it's not statistically significant" - Berry


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Michael Bush said:


> Apparently some people think it's significant...


Having followed this thread, I don't think anyone ever had a doubt that some people think its significant.



Barry said:


> You and Berry are not on the same page.


Actually, I understand that during the last round of data collecting at least one of the sampling techniques (I don't remember which one) had a significantly higher mite load on the small cell. Ms Berry reported at the recent SNEBA meeting.


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

Barry (not to be confused with "Berry") said:

> You and Berry are not on the same page.

I can't help to sense that my veracity is being questioned.
Yes we are on the same page. She authored a paper, and 
sent me a copy. I read it, *the very same pages. *Those pages say up front that the difference _*IS significant*_, 
and the data meets the usual requirement for statistical 
significance, in that p <= 0.5.

> "it's not statistically significant" - Berry

Sorry I haven't seen or heard that tape. I only spoke directly to 
Jennifer one-on-one for about a half hour at the SNEBA meeting,
and we chatted off and on some more for about 2 hours afterwards 
when a group of us went out for drinks and munchies. 

And, oh yeah, I also read the paper itself. That helped, too. 

Was the tape you mention made before she had looked at her 
Fall (end of 2nd season) data? I would agree that with only 
partial data, those partial results might have only supported a 
conclusion that there was "no difference" between the two sets 
of hives. But that's a no-brainer, as mite populations tend to 
go up as the season progresses, and we all know that varroa
takes 2 years to get to a population level that causes hives
to "crash".

As I've pointed out many times before, mite populations grow at
a slow linear rate for most of spring and some of summer, and
then start to "go exponential" when the mites per bee ratio 
reaches some critical point. I agree that one will not see
much difference worth writing home about until one sees
that exponential ramp-up. Fall data is crucial to understanding
the impact of mites, as fall is when mites kill colonies.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Jim Fischer said:


> > You and Berry are not on the same page.
> 
> I can't help to sense that my veracity is being questioned.


I can understand that seeing that you mentioned that you haven't watched her video. Watch it.



> > "it's not statistically significant" - Berry
> 
> Sorry I haven't seen or heard that tape. I only spoke directly to
> Jennifer one-on-one for about a half hour at the SNEBA meeting


Sorry, I only quoted her own words from her presentation. I have no other point to make. Until there is written or spoken word from her to the contrary, anything else is hearsay.

- Barry


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Yet I have never seen bees chew down plastic comb, never heard of it, and don't expect I ever will.

The "chewing out" is the old cocoons, not the wax. 

A Biometrical Study of the Influence of Size of Brood Cell Upon the Size and Variability of the Honeybee (Apis mellifera L.)
by Roy A. Grout, 1931
http://www.beesource.com/pov/lusby/grout/review4.htm

>That within a few generations of downsizing, one can see a change
in gestational time, something that would be a genetic change,
normally something that takes eons? 

You don't need ANY generations. You merely need drawn 4.9mm comb, an observation hive, some bees and a queen. There is no genetics involved.


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> can understand that seeing that you mentioned that you haven't 
> watched her video. Watch it.

This is getting well past silly. I don't need to watch any outdated 
videos, I have spoken to her in person, at length about the matter. 
I've also read the actual paper. I also listened and watched her 
present her _*final results *_at SNEBA, which match what she wrote
for publication, and what she said to me.

> Sorry, I only quoted her own words from her presentation.

I understand - that was a presentation of preliminary results, 
which are called "preliminary" because they aren't final yet.

> Until there is written or spoken word from her to the contrary, 
> anything else is hearsay.

Well, then today is your lucky day, as I'm in a charitable mood, 
and will let you listen to her more up-to-date SNEBA presentation here:
http://bee-quick.com/presentations/jen/SNEBA_jen_small_cell.mp3

After listening, you will apologize for the heavy-handed implication
that I was either (a) lying or (b) confused.

Can't stay here and type details, just listen to the audio - "Marriage of
Figaro" is at the Met tonight, and then off to catch the 2nd set at the 
Blue Note. ("Date night", Opera, and Jazz - life is good!)


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

Sorry MB, but the chewing out and replacing of comb that I have observed included the cell walls. Sometimes just down to the base, and sometimes to include the base.

If removing and chewing down meant only the cocoons, why would they not do this every brood cycle? And who knows, maybe they occasionally do. But when I have seen it done on a infrequent basis, presumably for comb changeover, it included more than just cocoons.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Sorry MB, but the chewing out and replacing of comb that I have observed included the cell walls. Sometimes just down to the base, and sometimes to include the base.

Sometimes, of course. Often when it's infested with lesser wax moth larvae etc.

>If removing and chewing down meant only the cocoons, why would they not do this every brood cycle?

A top and bottom tolerance on size would cause them to chew them out when they fall below the bottom threshold.

> And who knows, maybe they occasionally do.

You notice when they chew it down to the midrib. How would you notice when they chewed out a little cocoon? Ever find bits of cocoon on the bottom board?


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

MB, 
Can you post those studies or information you listed in the past concerning bees chewing down cells, (or just the cocoons)? I'll have to read that stuff again. Thank you.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Jim Fischer said:


> which match what she wrote
> for publication, and what she said to me.


That's great Jim. But to date, all the rest of us have is a video of her giving details of her study. When the paper is available, I'll read it.



> > Sorry, I only quoted her own words from her presentation.
> 
> I understand - that was a presentation of preliminary results,
> which are called "preliminary" because they aren't final yet.


Call it what you want, but no such label was given. I quote again from the presentation:

"Here are our results. This is not an opinion, I'm only telling you what we found in the research." - Berry

"These are the results." - Berry

- Barry


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> That's great Jim. But to date, all the rest of us have is a 
> video of her giving details of her study. 

I provided a link to the full audio of her _*much more recent*_ 
talk at SNEBA in Nov. You can listen to what she said, and
all will become clear.

Here's the link again:
http://bee-quick.com/presentations/j...small_cell.mp3

So, listen to the audio, and you will have a more up-to-date
report, one that matches the actual paper, one that will
not lead to all the misconceptions floating around.

> When the paper is available, I'll read it.

Well, first you said "_Until there is written or spoken word 
from her to the contrary, anything else is hearsay._" I have 
provided exactly what you requested, word *directly* from her 
to the contrary.

Now that you are confronted with exactly what you demanded,
suddenly you want to wait even longer for the paper to appear 
in _Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata? _Fine, whatever. 
Stay in denial.
Gee, I'm surprised that you subscribe to that journal. 

But the elaborate and convoluted defense of "_mite leveling_"
is, as found by the Penn State team, and reported upon
by Bjorn to start this thread:

a) Does not exist in outside the imagination of a few people
who lack basic knowledge about bee/mite biology and
reproductive cycles

b) Does not explain the results of the Berry data at issue, 
in that "mite leveling" certainly cannot explain why small 
cell colonies had significantly *MORE* mites per 100 brood 
cells (both numerically and statistically) than colonies 
with "standard" cell sizes. 

c) Exposes the entire small cell group to additional snickering
from those who have been snickering for years. 

This is a poor stance for the small-cell faction to take, as the
larger picture is ignored. The larger picture is that research
types are no longer ignoring small cell, so the question
"_why not just put the small cell colonies in a corner and
watch them survive for n seasons?" _becomes an appropriate
question to ask.

Sheesh, you guys would die of dehydration while you argued
over whether a glass of water was half full or half empty!


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Can you post those studies or information you listed in the past concerning bees chewing down cells, (or just the cocoons)?

I've been looking for the complete study by Roy A. Grout on the subject. He did the research, but I have not found a complete copy of that, only a synopsis. He does mention some of these concepts in the research posted above, and other research on the subject but not in detail. The synopsis was that the size of the bees would be reduced over time until it got to a certain level and then would level out as the bees chewed out the cocoons.


----------



## MichaelW (Jun 1, 2005)

Jim, you says that Jennifer now says significant at point 5 egh? Well that is disappointing. I'm going to do something crazy here and..............take your word for it.

Well OK, thats not crazy, it could be called reasonable though. But, I'll check the audio out when I get a chance. Thanks for posting it.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Jim Fischer said:


> This is a poor stance for the small-cell faction to take, as the
> larger picture is ignored.


I already stated my stance earlier:
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showpost.php?p=270735&postcount=37


----------

