# Small Cell... Just a thought



## Chef Isaac (Jul 26, 2004)

I have been thinking hard about small cell lately and got some small cell frames and will shake some packages into them this weekend. 

Anyway.... I have been thinking that since varroa is less present in small cell, that will decrease stress which might decrease other diseases, etc. 

Do you all think there could be a link like this? Less varroa mites=less stress=less disease

My line of thinking is that when we are working a lot for example and when we get stressed, sometimes we get a cold or sore throat which causes more stress which can lead to more of a sever cold. 

What do you all think?


----------



## Hobie (Jun 1, 2006)

Sounds quite logical to me. However, since varroa is only one of many possible sources of stress to a colony, I do not see small cell/less varroa as a panacea.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Chef Isaac said:


> Do you all think there could be a link like this? Less varroa mites=less stress=less disease


You just laid the perfect foundation for this thread to go 30 pages or more. I ain't touching this one.


----------



## Chef Isaac (Jul 26, 2004)

Hobie:

I see your point however the point is the minamize stress to a colony and if one can midagate mites, it would lower the stress which might lower the trigger effect for our diseases.


----------



## Chef Isaac (Jul 26, 2004)

Sorry Berry but I would love to talk about this. Not looking for arguments but would love to see what other people think.


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> I have been thinking that since varroa is less present in small cell...

There's only one problem with the above - your basic premise is
flawed.

The two studies done so far on the issue, the UGA (Jennifer Berry) study, 
with both small-cell and control hives in the same apiaries, and the Florida
study, still onging, which puts the two types of hives in different yards,
had very similar results.

The small-cell colonies have more mites per 100 brood cells sampled, even 
using "established" small-cell colonies.

While there has been much discussion of the Berry study intended to
disparage the findings and/or the author of the study, the essential
critique was that small cell colonies were somehow showing *higher* mite
counts than the nearby control colonies due to some sort of robbing or
drifting mechanism that was neither explained nor documented as to
how this might result in higher mite counts than the source colony or
colonies.

The Florida study cuts the critique off at the knees, by keeping
the small-cell bees far away from the controls. 

The good news is that both studies should be published soon, which will
allow us to move on to the actual factors at work, if any. 

As far as "stress" goes, using the term at all is a hand-waving attempt to
create an excuse for bee diseases, pests, (and, sometimes, beekeeping
mistreatment) that cannot be subjected to testing and objective metrics. 
It is a sloppy term for saying "we have no idea what the problem is". It 
presumes that things that bother people would also bother bees, which
is the worst sort of anthropomorphism.

Anything said to "reduce stress" on bees should be examined with the
same critical eye that one would examine something said to "build
up the immune systems" of bees. Neither claim can be verified, so
both are the language of charlatans and snake-oil salesmen.

Bees suffering from varroa infestation are suffering from varroa infestation,
and need no additional terminology to explain the pathology or the
symptoms. The mites spread viruses, all well-known as to their own
symptoms and pathology, and the mites weaken the bees through the
non-viral aspects of parasitism.

Bees are simple creatures, yet beekeepers still argue over basic 
principles, like "hives in full sun" versus "hives in shade". Each camp
argues that the bees are "stressed" by situating the hives "wrong",
even though each camp suggests the exact opposite placement
in terms of something so basic, so simple.

Yield per hive varies under the two conditions, with a slight advantage
being given to the "full sun" camp, but there are simply too many
variables in play to ever settle this "for certain". Breed of bee,
local bloom schedule versus ambient temperatures, there's too many
variables to make any useful statement about more than any one
specific yard at a time.

I, for one, want my bees to maintain a sense of urgency about their
situation, as it tends to result in more foraging and less goofing off.
Anyone with an observation hive can confirm that bees are nowhere
near as busy as one might think, taking one foraging trip, and then
goofing around the hive, even "sleeping" head-inwards in a cell for
much longer than the time spent on the foraging sortie.


----------



## db_land (Aug 29, 2003)

*Fewer mites == less stress on beekeeper*

At least for me there's a lot less stress!

I know small-cell, or the process of moving to small-cell, or mite resistant bees or a combination of factors (not all of which are known) have reduced if not eliminated the mite problem for me.


----------



## Scott J. (Feb 6, 2007)

Issac,
The jury is still out for me. I started the regression process last season. I am still working in foundation to have the bees draw it out well. Some hives do better that others in drawing it out. Move badly drawn frames to the outside then up into the supers and finely cull them as the bees regress down in size. Do not mix large cell in with the SC. The bees really make a mess of the SC if you do. Any way I can talk to you more about it if you like when I pick up the nuc from you. Scott.


----------



## Oldbee (Sep 25, 2006)

When you are talking about "small cell", do you mean 4.9 cell size exclusively or does that include the Dadant 5.1 < ; maybe other suppliers?


----------



## Scott J. (Feb 6, 2007)

My definition of SC is 4.9. The 5.1 size would be in the regression stage.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Jim Fischer said:


> > I have been thinking that since varroa is less present in small cell...
> 
> There's only one problem with the above - your basic premise is
> flawed.


Both of your premises are flawed, unless CI is meaning "eventually" there is less varroa present.

In time, there is less varroa in SC, just not the first year according to the data Jim sites.

OK, now I really mean it, I'm staying out of this one!


----------



## Chef Isaac (Jul 26, 2004)

Jim:

Thank you for your input. I really appreciaite it a lot. Thank you for all your hard work. I have a few side questions for you and feel free to answer in a PM is you would like so we do not curve this forum away from the topic too much at least  

You contribute to this site a lot but I havent seen you take a stance on what YOUR opinion is on how to deal with varroa mites. What is your stance on it? 

For me, I am looking for options and possabilities. I hate using chemicals. I am breeding local queens and bringing in new stock that contributes to hygenic behavior. 

This is the reason for wanting to try small cell. I have talked to a lot of people and I am willing to give it a try. 

I do think there could still be a link between stress and diseases. You say bees are simple and I remember one of my professors saying the same thing about humans. 

I think this (small cell) is something I would like to try. Why not? I am not going by anyones findings.. .why would I? I have some frames, some extra packages and will give it a try. 

I know one thing is that I dislike the thought of using chemicals.


----------



## Chef Isaac (Jul 26, 2004)

I am not saying that BAM..... bees on small cell=less varroa. I never assumed that. Eventually, yes.


----------



## Angi_H (Feb 9, 2008)

Ok here is what I am finding. I did a cut out 2 months ago there brood cells measured 4.6mm there pollen and stores measured 5.0mm. These guys had been up in that old house for at least 2 to 3 years with no treatments and no intervention whats so ever. They have no mites even 2 months down the road mite counts and pulling drone still show 0 mites. They are natural small cell. Thoses genes if I can afford queen grafting stuff there will be queens made from this hive for splits.

Now the recent 3 swarms I got they are drawing out anywhere from 4.7mm to 4.9 and are on either small cell 4.9mm starter strips or are on Mann Lake pf100 and pf120 and they are showing no mites they are also very dark bees and tiny bees much smaller then my packages.

My 2 packages I am doing rapid regression with one where it is on Perma Comb Mite counts on these after first brood hatch is 0 mite drop on stickey board. hat does not mean that thy dont have mites. It just means that none fell. Even though I did a powdered sugar shake to check for drop as well there was 0 mites. 

The other package is going much slower with drawing out the Mann Lake PF120 and PF100 which is 4.95 all messed up. If it doen not have stores or eggs in it I have been scraping it off and allowing them to re draw. They are going slow due to this. Once the perma comb hive is slowly moved over to small cell 4.9 starter strips the perma comb will be moved over to the other package. They will slowly as they regress have no room in the cell to house the mites and there for will be mite free. And over years you will see healither hives. The organic beekeeping forum is where I have learned alot of stuff about small cell the the bennifits of it with people who have been using it for years and have done the slow regression way and have seen first hand the difference it does makes in the bees health. Just dont mention anything to do with feeding artificaly or medicate and you get all sorts of posts bad mouthing it and telling you to not mention it again as it is not allowed on the forum. Are they are for all natural which also means no esentual oils. Which I use them as well as powder sugar shakes. I just keep my mouth closed over that one. But it is a good place to learn about small cell. Also read all of the stuff on the honey super cell page about the bennifits of it and what not. I will be doing all larg cell bees I come across into a more natural cell size.



Angi


----------



## Chef Isaac (Jul 26, 2004)

Thank you for your post Angi. Very informative! 

Did you ever shake a package onto small cell?


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

Barry said:

> Both of your premises are flawed, unless CI is meaning "eventually" 
> there is less varroa present.
> In time, there is less varroa in SC, just not the first year according 
> to the data Jim sites.

But Barry, you've not yet seen the data, have you? You've certainly 
seen and heard some presentations from Jennifer Berry, but the final 
data from both studies have yet to be published, and the list of 
pre-print recipients has been very limited.

Fair warning, the attempt to claim that the data is only "first year"
will result in egg on the face of anyone who makes the claim.

Most of all, the rabid reaction to any questioning of "small cell" is
around here getting more any more amusing as time goes on. 

Here's an idea - examine the data, and THEN comment on the studies.
How's that sound? It would work a lot better than randomly making
what amount to accusations about studies one has not yet even read.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Jim Fischer said:


> Barry said:
> 
> > Both of your premises are flawed, unless CI is meaning "eventually"
> > there is less varroa present.
> ...


You're right Jim, I haven't read the final papers. However, Unless Berry was lying at her presentation (which I have no reason to believe she was), her study did not cover a period of several years. The one in Florida you mention is still ongoing, so we'll all have to wait and see what pans out. I won't use information that is held confidential between a select few to support a position. Until a paper is made public, it is of little value.

My statement primarily reflects my own firsthand experience and the experience of many who also have firsthand experience. Sighting a paper that contradicts a reality for me and others will not make it any less a reality.



> Here's an idea - examine the data, and THEN comment on the studies.


Sure, will do. The data that has been made public, I've commented on.


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

Although I would've phrased it differently, I agree with Jim for the same reasons which he cites. Small cell may have benefits, but it is not clear what the benefits are or how they occur. I suspect that chief among the benefits/hows are increased comb culling and encouraging beekeepers to rely less on non-sustainable use of "hard" treatments.


----------



## drobbins (Jun 1, 2005)

>and encouraging beekeepers to rely less on non-sustainable use of "hard" treatments.

but the conventional wisdom is we "need" hard treatments to keep our bees alive
how can "relying" on them less be good?
are you suggesting if we simply go "cold turkey" everything will be fine?

Dave


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Aspera said:


> I suspect that chief among the benefits/hows are increased comb culling and encouraging beekeepers to rely less on non-sustainable use of "hard" treatments.


Suspecting doesn't change the facts, at least the facts about what I've done with SC. I haven't culled comb in the last 7 years. Before that, I culled comb that wasn't drawn properly. There was no "less" use of hard treatments, there was only no use of any treatments.


----------



## Chef Isaac (Jul 26, 2004)

Jim:

You are quick to site papers. Do you believe everything you read? Have YOU actually TRIED small cell? So basically you (excuse me... the papers) are disproving what others say have been working for them.


----------



## Joseph Clemens (Feb 12, 2005)

*I appreciate science and common sense*

Hello advocates of chemicals for treating honeybees in order for them to "survive". Go ahead and spend your money on these pesticides, pollute your honey and contaminate your beeswax. I do care, I want beeswax I buy to be free of pesticide residue. Scientific studies are very interesting and I believe they can help us to understand many things. But if science tells me that the sun is the moon and the moon is the sun -- thank you very much, but no thanks.

As for me and my bees, we will continue as we always have, no chemical treatments, just healthy, vigorous bees.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Joseph Clemens said:


> Hello advocates of chemicals for treating honeybees in order for them to "survive".


Just so I understand your statement. Are you suggesting that everyone who doen't embrace small cell are 'advocates of chemicals for treating honeybees in order for them to "survive"?'


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

testing small cell by itself is missing the point.

watch the video's i've posted of some of dee's bees. these bees are the result of her management practices...which includes small cell, open local mating, clean foundation, no inputs at all, feeding back honey instead of sugar/hfcs, being largely left alone, unlimited broodnest, unrestricted drone production, and a few more things that are not at the top of my head first thing in the morning.

i'm also working on some tapes that were filmed in officially recognized (and sampled) ccd yards....those that survived are doing great, and most of the deadouts were made up with splits (early, before the first real flow).

if one were going to try and determine "what makes a healthy human", they might look at a healthy population, and see a balanced diet, exercise, job satisfaction, rewarding hobbies, love, a not polluted environment, etc. would a "scientist" determine that a balanced diet does not lead to a healthy human because testing of balanced vs unbalanced diets didn't show a difference in health between humans that live in a sewer pipe? that job satisfaction doesn't contribute to health because humans who go from a rewarding job to a 6'x6' home cubical are not healthy?

this is the kind of thing being studied by berry et al....and by a lot of other "scientists". 

dee's operation is the subject of many arguments...but now the videos are online, and you can see for yourself....these bees are healthy, and they have not been treated.

imho, the first step is to replicate this operation as closely as possible. clearly what she is doing _is_ possible, so it should be reproducible by any competent beekeeper who follows her program. then, you can try to eliminate variables (what if we put these bees on lc comb, what if we use factory queens, what if we give them apistan).

the proof is in the pudding...and dee's got the pudding! you want to debunk her? you've either got to claim she is lying and is actually using all kinds of treatments and packages from austrailia (i've been through every inch of her workshop and outbuildings...the strongest "chemical" there is a 20 year old bottle of bee-go that hasn't been used in years), or you've got to admit that some aspect(s) of what she is doing works.

replicating what the "big boys" do is hard, as their methods are closely held secrets (and by all accounts, often illegal and dangerous)...but dee has layed this all out in the pov section....step by step. there is no excuse for there to be no studies/trials trying to replicate "the whole" of what she does with the bees.

this is a no-brainer...and any scientist worth the air they breath should be able to see this without me pointing it out...why don't they?

deknow


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

> there is no excuse for there to be no studies/trials trying to replicate "the whole" of what she does with the bees. -deknow


Most of the experiments along those lines that are currently in progress are trying to tease out which parts of some of these sorts of programs actually have an effect on _Varroa_ mites, and which do not.

Since most strong proponents of "small cell" proclaim that it's simply the size of the cells that matters, that's where the research has started.



> you've got to admit that some aspect(s) of what she is doing works. -deknow


Sure. . . maybe. See, when "new" pests appear in an area, they tend to cause real problems for a while, then kind of reach a balance with their hosts and may cause fewer problems. That initial surge as the pest invades may be far more significant than they will ever be again in the future, even if nothing is done by humans.

And some LC beekeepers report good success without treatments, too. So, are you suggesting that a beekeeper who has changed nothing, suffered heavy losses to _Varroa_ initially but now loses bees rarely to _Varroa_, and uses no pesticide treatments is lying?


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

> Most of the experiments along those lines that are currently in progress are trying to tease out which parts of some of these sorts of programs actually have an effect on Varroa mites, and which do not.


...yet, they ignore the possibility (the strong possibility) that it is a combination of management techniques that helps. before you can do a good experement, you need to be able to maintain a good control group. in this case, a control group would be bees kept as dee keeps them, as that has been proven to be successful. you simply cannot test one variable at a time to disprove that an integrated system works. 
varroa mites are a small part of the problems that are being faced by beekeepers. when there is a model that clearly demonstrates overall colony health (in a way i doubt any of the bee labs can demonstrate with their colonies), why focus on varroa? fwiw, going through 500 of dee's hives, i saw one varroa on a drone pupa, and one on an adult bee (in the same colony) in a photo after the fact.



> Since most strong proponents of "small cell" proclaim that it's simply the size of the cells that matters, that's where the research has started.


first of all, i don't know who the "most" is you are referring to, but the most visible, and most successful "proponent of small cell" (dee) has never said so....and you would probably know that if you had read her pov section on this very website. and even if what you state above were true (it isn't), why do those doing research have no responsibility to figure out some of this stuff on their own? are they too focused on the "trees" to see the "forest"? researchers write their own proposals...they don't simply follow what "most proponents of small cell" claim and blindly do experiments...they are supposed to use their educated brains to run good experiments.



> Sure. . . maybe. See, when "new" pests appear in an area, they tend to cause real problems for a while, then kind of reach a balance with their hosts and may cause fewer problems. That initial surge as the pest invades may be far more significant than they will ever be again in the future, even if nothing is done by humans.


yet our bees are less healthy than they have ever been...or do you disagree? most beekeepers are still treating for varroa 20 years later, and many loose their bees to varroa or pms. do you not treat for varroa 20 years later? i have no idea what your practices or experiences are, but are varroa not an issue for you?



> And some LC beekeepers report good success without treatments, too. So, are you suggesting that a beekeeper who has changed nothing, suffered heavy losses to Varroa initially but now loses bees rarely to Varroa, and uses no pesticide treatments is lying?


...i never said (nor implied) any such thing. as far as i know, there are no lc beekeepers that use no treatments with hundreds of hives that are showing what their "success" looks like to the rest of the beekeeping world. yes, i've heard claims also, but seen no one who is willing to go out on the limb that dee has gone out on to help other beekeepers replicate what they have done. certainly there are queen breeders that claim varroa resistance...but who has hundreds of them that doesn't treat on lc comb? will they post videos of their operation? ...and once again, varroa is only a small part of the problem here, unless you think that "ccd" and nosema ceranae are simply manifistations of varroa.

for myself, i have no idea if sc helps or not....i do know that dees management practices are successful, so i'm following them as closely as possible to try and replicate/adapt them for my markedly different climate. of course there is a bee lab in the same climate as dees bees are in...they don't need to adapt anything, yet the most noise we've heard from them is the invention of a better artificial feed. how do they manage their hives? are they using treatments? do they not worry about varroa 20 years after the fact? what are they actually doing?

deknow


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

> you simply cannot test one variable at a time to disprove that an integrated system works. -deknow


Right. But you also cannot use only that one variable and expect to get the same results. And you cannot claim that only that one variable will produce the same results (I don't mean "you" personally, here).



> first of all, i don't know who the "most" is you are referring to, but the most visible, . . . . -deknow


Ah, c'mon! Go through BeeSource, do a search on "small cell" and read the threads. You'll find pages upon pages upon pages of material, and most of the beekeepers advocating "small cell" make fairly blunt statements only about the sizes of the cells reducing _Varroa_ numbers.

After that, try Googling "small cell."

While Dee Lusby may be your role model in bee management, and while she's certainly a visible proponent of certain management techniques, her "visibility," if you will, seems less than the collective numbers of other SC proponents.



> yet our bees are less healthy than they have ever been...or do you disagree? -deknow


I do disagree, but only because I have found no evidence to support your statement. How do you measure "health?" And how do you compare what is current to what existed in the past, unless you are using standardized measurements?

I read of plenty of beekeepers who seem to have very "healthy" bees. I read reports here on BeeSource of any number of beekeepers who lose very few colonies each winter, both in numbers and in percentages of their total hives.



> do you not treat for varroa 20 years later? -deknow


First, you should know that I have not been keeping bees for 20 years yet, and I did not keep bees "pre-_Varroa_."



> i have no idea what your practices or experiences are, but are varroa not an issue for you? -deknow


_Varroa_ are an issue for me, but likely not in the way you expect. As you maybe know from other threads, I'm working on a project comparing SC and LC. Right now, the issue is a *lack* of _Varroa_. The bees I'm using -- both SC and LC -- simply do not have enough mites to demonstrate any difference. I'm trying, then, to *increase* mite numbers (bet you never thought you'd hear of a beekeeper trying to do that, huh?).

But all that is off the topic of this thread. All I was wishing to point out was some of the intents involved in the research to this point, and to try to avoid more "research bashing" in some of these threads. If your management techniques are producing results acceptable to you, why change? But why criticize others for trying to gain information about some of these issues?


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

Kieck said:


> Right. But you also cannot use only that one variable and expect to get the same results. And you cannot claim that only that one variable will produce the same results (I don't mean "you" personally, here).


who has done this? please quote them.



> Ah, c'mon! Go through BeeSource, do a search on "small cell" and read the threads. You'll find pages upon pages upon pages of material, and most of the beekeepers advocating "small cell" make fairly blunt statements only about the sizes of the cells reducing _Varroa_ numbers.
> 
> After that, try Googling "small cell."


...i started with googling 'small cell beekeeping' (no quotes). i'm sure you didn't do what you suggested i do (google "small cell"), as you would realize that small cell carcinoma is a subject much more talked about than small cell bees.

that said, the first 2 links are to michael bush's site (who keeps small cell, breeds from feral stock, only feeds in emergencies, rears his own queens, doesn't migrate to the almonds, doesn't treat). 

the next link is to....beesource, dee's own pov articles...which are quite detailed.

i'll let you wade through the rest of it to figure out who says what...and granted, you will find dee and michael claim that sc reduces varroa...but don't forget, that is because it is their experience, not because they read it somewhere (scientific journal, blog post, or other source). transitioning to sc is a big step, and it's no wonder that it gets a lot of the attention here and on the organic list. but who giving advice can you quote who says that nothing else is important?



> While Dee Lusby may be your role model in bee management, and while she's certainly a visible proponent of certain management techniques, her "visibility," if you will, seems less than the collective numbers of other SC proponents.


who are you talking about? ...and more importantly, what relevance is there? without a doubt, dees writings are the gold standard (and the original) writings on sc. i assume you read them before embarking on your experement? 
more to the point, who convinced you that sc was the only thing that mattered wrt varroa, and what did they say to make you believe that?




> I do disagree, but only because I have found no evidence to support your statement. How do you measure "health?" And how do you compare what is current to what existed in the past, unless you are using standardized measurements?


specifically, i was quoting maryanne frazier...and certainly what i percieve to be the general mood amongst beekeepeers i know and correspond with online. didn't we just hear reports of the 40% loss by the biggest beekeeper in the almonds? and a projected near 40% die off nationwide? aren't the beelabs getting emergency funding from the govt, universities, bee clubs, individuals, corporations because of the ccd crisis?



> I read of plenty of beekeepers who seem to have very "healthy" bees. I read reports here on BeeSource of any number of beekeepers who lose very few colonies each winter, both in numbers and in percentages of their total hives.


citing specific numbers would be helpful here. i read some of this too, but i haven't seen enough to convince me. i've had local beekeepers (face to face) tell me they don't treat...then admit that they feed fumidil (or they will lose their bees), and use apistan in hives with high mite counts. these are people i know. i'm not saying i distrust anyone, but what we have done with dee's videos is not expensive or hard. when i look in the journals and onine, i see largely hives of 2 deeps, a queen excluder, and a bunch of honey supers stacked ontop. i don't know if they feed (most do i suspect), and i don't know who treats and who doesn't. all that said, i have yet to see photos or videos that look as strong, healthy, and ready for the flow as the bees i saw in arizona. if anyone has anything else that looks like that, show me the bees, i want to see!



> First, you should know that I have not been keeping bees for 20 years yet, and I did not keep bees "pre-_Varroa_."


neither did i 



> _Varroa_ are an issue for me, but likely not in the way you expect. As you maybe know from other threads, I'm working on a project comparing SC and LC. Right now, the issue is a *lack* of _Varroa_. The bees I'm using -- both SC and LC -- simply do not have enough mites to demonstrate any difference. I'm trying, then, to *increase* mite numbers (bet you never thought you'd hear of a beekeeper trying to do that, huh?).


that's a good problem to have 



> But all that is off the topic of this thread. All I was wishing to point out was some of the intents involved in the research to this point, and to try to avoid more "research bashing" in some of these threads. If your management techniques are producing results acceptable to you, why change? But why criticize others for trying to gain information about some of these issues?


you are missing the point. what you have in dee's operation is a long term operation that exists without having been treated. this is an integrated system that is demonstrated to work. in order to determine what parts of this system are important, one needs to first be able to replicate her operation as a control (if you can't, then you have to figure out what the differances are, they may not be obvious). if you can't replicate the control, the working model, then how can you tell what components are important? if sc is an important aspect of her system, and you can't get her system to work as a whole, how can you test for the role sc plays? you simply can't. 
i say this from experience...i'm doing some experements myself at the moment. i use multiple controls, and thus far, the controls have not matched up with each other. given that, what have i learned about my non-controls? NOTHING! until the controls all are consistent, i can't learn anything.
as for research bashing, i stand by everything that i have written on beesource, bee-l, and the organic list as being fair criticism. feel free to quote me on something you think is simply 'bashing'.

deknow


----------



## Joseph Clemens (Feb 12, 2005)

beemandan said:


> Just so I understand your statement. Are you suggesting that everyone who doen't embrace small cell are 'advocates of chemicals for treating honeybees in order for them to "survive"?'


Not at all - I only use small cell, natural comb, etc. because it is not mainstream. I like doing things that are a little more uncommon. I have never used man-made chemical treatments on my bees. Once I became informed of the mites and discovered _Varroa destructor_ on my bees, my first thought was how horribly ugly they were, and for what they did to our bees. I realized that my bees were survivors because they had already survived more than five years without any treatments. Then I heard about small cell - I decided to try it, not to help my bees with mites, but because it was something I had never tried before, and it sounded like fun.

Small cell or not - often it is hard to find very many mites.

I only wish more beekeepers were able to keep bees without chemical treatments. My main reason, selfish though it is; wanting to have confidence that when I buy beeswax that it will not be contaminated.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

> who has done this? please quote them. -deknow


http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=217868&highlight=small+cell

http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=217906&highlight=small+cell+mite

http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=216162&highlight=small+cell+mite

I can keep going, but I think -- if you've been reading these sorts of threads here on BeeSource -- that you already know that some beekeepers here on BeeSource talk only about cell size in regards to mite control, and readers are left with the impression that "regression" to "small cell" alone will take the pressure off of their bees from mites.



> i'll let you wade through the rest of it to figure out who says what... -deknow


Been there. The problem I have with such things at this point is that stipulations seem to be added as studies do not support claims that SC reduces mites. The most recent example is Berry's study, and the sudden claims that any advantage of having SC hives is lost to "mite leveling" if SC and LC are kept in mixed yards.



> who are you talking about? -deknow


You. Based on this:



> i do know that dees management practices are successful, so i'm following them as closely as possible to try and replicate/adapt them for my markedly different climate. -deknow


and here:



> what we have done with dee's videos is not expensive or hard -deknow





> in order to determine what parts of this system are important, one needs to first be able to replicate her operation as a control -deknow


But "replicating Dee Lusby's operation" isn't the point. 



> if you can't replicate the control, the working model, then how can you tell what components are important? -deknow


Let's say that we start with "cell size." If cell size alone offers effective mite control, that simply using smaller cell sizes should work. If it doesn't (as we would find out from an experiment), then we add the next variable, alone and in combination with the cell size. And so on. If all parts of Lusby's management techniques are vital for _Varroa_ control, then no one could control _Varroa_ without using all parts of the management system. Yet others seem to get control without using all parts. So, some parts are likely unnecessary.

I suppose we could start with "local bees" versus "imported bees," but, from my experience, the origin of the bees seems to have little to do with _Varroa_ control.



> feel free to quote me on something you think is simply 'bashing'. -deknow


OK.



> this is the kind of thing being studied by berry et al....and by a lot of other "scientists" -deknow





> there is no excuse for there to be no studies/trials trying to replicate "the whole" of what she does with the bees. -deknow





> this is a no-brainer...and any scientist worth the air they breath should be able to see this without me pointing it out...why don't they? -deknow


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

...i wish there were an emoticon for a large eye roll.....

i'm assuming that you are largely talking about michael bush in the threads you are linking to? he's pretty careful to say what his experience is, what has worked for him...and not to generalize and say "this will do that for you". what you are complaining about is people saying that "this will do that", when all he says is "this did that in my case". again, specific quotes would be more helpful (and revealing) than posting links to threads.

sc may well not reduce mites when combined with all possible management techniques...is that hard to understand? the berry study does not say that sc does not reduce mites, it says that her experiment, with her management practices, under the conditions she was working, that sc didn't reduce mite loads.

if in fact, i'm the "visible proponent of sc" that you refer to, i doubt i have ever said that all one needs to do is small cell, and i doubt i convinced you to run a trial by anything i've written. i repeat the question:
who convinced you that small cell is worth looking into, and what evidence did they use to convince you?

replicating dee's operation is not the point....keeping healthy bees is the point. doing so without treatments is important to me...and dee is able to do both. so you think we should take the totality of "common" beekeeping practices that have led us to where we are, and change one thing at a time, when in fact it is unlikely that only one thing is wrong?...in fact this approach seems to me to assume that there is one thing to fix, and the bees will be ok. no, you emulate the system that works (which in this case, is dee's), get it working, and then deconstruct it.

if one were looking for a cancer treatment, and there was a good anecdotal example of people being cured by eating earthworms, would you start by deconstructing the worm, and doing trials one chemical compound at a time? ...or would you start with the whole worm, see if it's effective, and then try to figure out what the important components of it's makeup are. with the first approach, you spend years and millions of dollars before you can even determine if the original anecdotal information had any merrit (and you might never discover it if it is an interaction between several components)...with the second, assuming there is nothing toxic in the earthworm, you can start feeding cancer patients earthworms while you figure out what are the important parts.

you start with replicating what works...what you propose...one variable at a time...then start combining them is a good way to have funding for a long time, but a lousy way to come up with solutions quickly.


...and again, i stand by my statements that you quote. imho, they are well deserved.

deknow


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

> i'm assuming that you are largely talking about michael bush in the threads you are linking to? -deknow


In part, but not entirely. See, if you keep up with the "SC" threads here on BeeSource, you'll soon see that quite a few beekeepers are convinced that cell size alone will control mite populations. Several of them are fairly strong advocates of it. I've read suppositions that smaller cell sizes lead to shorter capping times, which in turn leaves less time for mite reproduction. I've read speculations that smaller cell sizes leave less room in the cells for mites. I've read hypotheses that mites are relatively larger to smaller bees from smaller cells, and the mites are then more readily apparent to the bees, so the bees are more likely to groom off the mites. All of these ideas are centered solely on cell size; other management techniques are ignored. So, drawing the obvious conclusions, cell size is all that matters.

BWrangler (a. k. a. Dennis Murrell) is very open and reasonable in his comments about small cell. I've appreciated his insight especially. Michael Bush has been candid and frank about his experiences. Barry has largely been fair about his comments, in my opinion. While I don't always agree with them (or others), I appreciate their comments.

With my apologies to Dennis for dragging him into this, I think his Web site is fairly clear that "small cell is key." 

http://bwrangler.litarium.com/small-cell/

As far as "experiences," on one hand you're telling us that the proponents of SC are simply telling of their experiences (and we're obviously drawing our own conclusions from their experiences), and on the other, you're telling us that we should not consider the experiences of researchers who have not had the same sorts of experiences as some of the SC proponents, because, in your words, if "you can't get her system to work as a whole, how can you test for the role sc plays?"



> if in fact, i'm the "visible proponent of sc" that you refer to, -deknow


My misinterpretation. I thought you were asking who viewed Dee Lusby as a role model.



> you start with replicating what works...what you propose...one variable at a time...then start combining them is a good way to have funding for a long time, but a lousy way to come up with solutions quickly -deknow


You're assuming that outside funding for such projects exits.

And you're also assuming that I have not produced similar results through other methods. In fact, both SC and LC hives seem to do very well here with deliberate "mismanagement" in my efforts to increase mite populations. What does that say? Maybe beekeepers should attempt to raise mites?



> ...and again, i stand by my statements that you quote. imho, they are well deserved. -deknow


Those are your opinions, and you're entitled to them, but please don't suggest that they are fair criticisms of previous, ongoing or future experiments. For example,



> they are supposed to use their educated brains to run good experiments. -deknow


is not a comment on the particular merits or demerits of a study. Is it "bashing?" I contend that it is.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

Kieck said:


> In part, but not entirely. See, if you keep up with the "SC" threads here on BeeSource, you'll soon see that quite a few beekeepers are convinced that cell size alone will control mite populations. Several of them are fairly strong advocates of it.


so what? you are now quoting "*several*[advocates of small cell]" rather than earlier when you said:


> Go through BeeSource, do a search on "small cell" and read the threads. You'll find pages upon pages upon pages of material, and *most of the beekeepers advocating "small cell"* make fairly blunt statements only about the sizes of the cells reducing Varroa numbers.





> Since *most strong proponents of "small cell"* proclaim that it's simply the size of the cells that matters, that's where the research has started.


and


> Since *most strong proponents of "small cell"* proclaim that it's simply the size of the cells that matters, that's where the research has started.


will you please stop? anyone who is really interested in sc beekeeping has read what dee has written in the pov section here...and has probably subscribed to the organic list. it isn't suprising that there are several people who misstate (or make up) the attributes of SC...just as there are on any topic in the universe.
truth is, cell size, when combined with no treatments, open mating, housel positioning, unlimited broodnest, clean wax, local environment, and a few other factors in some combination they work. people logging onto the biological forum are looking for this kind of approach (in general), so once they commit to SC (which is easy with a new package, and hard any other way), they have spent time and money, and are motivated to follow such practices...so it isn't surprising that some subset of the people who try it find success, even i they think all they are doing is "going small cell".
i don't keep up with the small cell talk much on beesource, as i'm pretty convinced that using any treatments is bad for the bees longterm, and find that the discussions are too treatment oriented at beesource.





> I've read suppositions that smaller cell sizes lead to shorter capping times, which in turn leaves less time for mite reproduction.


suppositions? have you read michael bush's website?
http://www.bushfarms.com/beesnaturalcell.htm#preandpostcappingtimes


> I've observed on commercial Carniolan bees and commercial Italian bees a 24 hour shorter pre capping and 24 hour shorter post capping time on 4.95 mm cells in an observation hive.


i know michael, and if he says he measured it, he measured it.



> With my apologies to Dennis for dragging him into this, I think his Web site is fairly clear that "small cell is key."


so what? he's not allowed to have an opinion? he's not allowed to imply "based on the way i keep bees"? whenever he makes a statement on his own website he must justify it to you? ...and most of all, his words paint the words of "most" sc proponents?



> As far as "experiences," on one hand you're telling us that the proponents of SC are simply telling of their experiences (and we're obviously drawing our own conclusions from their experiences),


for the most part, the proponents of small cell are also proponents of unlimited broodnest, no (or little) treating, leave honey with the bees and don't simply feed back sugar, housel positioning, open local breeding, etc. those that are not are not really "the influential" SC beekeepers. by far dee and michael are the most visible and influential proponents of SC...and neither of them would tell you that all you need to change, no matter what you are currently doing, is change to small cell.




> and on the other, you're telling us that we should not consider the experiences of researchers who have not had the same sorts of experiences as some of the SC proponents, because, in your words, if "you can't get her system to work as a whole, how can you test for the role sc plays?"


the challenge is keeping the mite counts down, and keep the bees alive. dee has demonstrated a working system, the researchers have not (without chemical or mechanical treatment). you seem to be having good results with whatever you are doing.....and perhaps you will demonstrate that there are other factors at work, and SC has no effect...i have no bias either way.

small cell seems to work for many people...but it's not the only thing they are doing differently (or advocating)...so pay attention to someone that has a working system, on a larger scale than most studies (600+ colonies), that hasn't been treated. although changing a large operation to SC is hard, it's easier with HSC. aside from this initial cost (and perhaps breeding through some stuff, depending on the stock you start with), the rest of these management techniques are free. no special equipment, no new products, no purchased queens, no feeding, no medications, etc. this is a cheap study to run, just a little field work (dee visits each hive between 5-9 times a year).

i don't really understand why you seem to feel "duped" by people overstating the role of SC...this is common in beekeeping (more/less ventilation, wrap or winter or not, feeding, splitting, queen rearing, etc), and usually if you look to the smarter people in the room, you can figure out what is really being claimed by people who know.




> You're assuming that outside funding for such projects exits.


well, you seem to be running your study...i'm working on some stuff. have you noticed that the great beekeeping books in the past were, for the most part, written by commercial beekeepers. they did their own studies to figure out what works. now, the books are written by people that work in labs. i want to read books written by people who can keep their bees alive and whos bees support them. these are the people that should be chasing down problems, as they make money from solving problems fast and for the long term.



> And you're also assuming that I have not produced similar results through other methods. In fact, both SC and LC hives seem to do very well here with deliberate "mismanagement" in my efforts to increase mite populations. What does that say? Maybe beekeepers should attempt to raise mites?


that's encouraging...what do you attribute your results to?



> is not a comment on the particular merits or demerits of a study. Is it "bashing?" I contend that it is.


please don't take a phrase out of context. you were blaming the fact that studies were being done on SC rather than the whole approach because


> most strong proponents of "small cell" proclaim that it's simply the size of the cells that matters,


which, first of all, you haven't demonstrated at all, and secondly, my comment was designed to point out that the researchers do not need to simply follow what people tell them...their jobs as researchers is, in part, to design good experiments. in context it was:


> why do those doing research have no responsibility to figure out some of this stuff on their own? are they too focused on the "trees" to see the "forest"? researchers write their own proposals...they don't simply follow what "most proponents of small cell" claim and blindly do experiments...they are supposed to use their educated brains to run good experiments.


deknow


----------



## Flyman (Jun 11, 2007)

*Pkgs on Small Cell*

Man!, miss two days of keeping up with beesource and then find this thread, cool.

Chef, you ask the question about starting packages on small cell. On March 21st I started 10, 3 lb packages of MH on a combination of Dadant Small Cell and Dadant Medium brood. This mix went like this. The center six frames of foundation were SC the outer four (two on each side) were MB. 

The reasoning is that in almost all natural nests, the center of the brood nest was small cell and get progressively bigger the farther out from the center. This is an experiment, but it seemed reasonable hypothesis.

Anyway, the bees drew out the foudation on all frames in about 10 days. All colonies are very healthy and busy filling their first super. Haven't done a mite count and probably won't till later after main flow. I think the experiment was a success. The future problem I see is in frame manipulation. Making sure a frame of MB doesn't get stuck in the SC brood nest. However, I did mark all frames with foundation type and year.

Hope this helps,

Tom


----------



## Oldbee (Sep 25, 2006)

*Dadant "medium" brood.*

I may be wrong but my interpretation of the foundation in the Dadant catalogue is that "MEDIUM BROOD" means simply that it is somewhat thicker and NOT reinforced with any wires. It could be large cell,.. although they do make it in 4.9 small cell also. Not sure about the 5.1 size right now.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Flyman said:


> The future problem I see is in frame manipulation. Making sure a frame of MB doesn't get stuck in the SC brood nest. However, I did mark all frames with foundation type and year.


Tom,

I believe this is the reason some of us stick with all SC comb. I know Dennis has shown that only a percent of SC is needed to maintain healthy bees and I can see this working well for TBH people, but I have not wanted to keep track of different cell sizes on comb so I only keep SC.


----------



## MichaelW (Jun 1, 2005)

Dee promotes raising bees from wild stock in AHB areas. The video Deknow published is the "proof in the pudding" so to speak. It shows clear AHB characteristics that would be completely unacceptable to most beekeepers and beekeeping areas in the US. Shure, you might as well use small cell foundation for AHB, as thats what they build naturally. EHB don't naturally build smaller cells in my experience. Her success in keeping bees alive could be 100% due to AHB genetics. There's nothing new or ground breaking about that. South American beekeepers have been doing that for decades. 

Also, whats with this concept that researchers don't know what its like to keep bees? Where do the bees for these research projects magically appear? Sure they don't have to make their operations profitable, but how could they when subjecting them to many risky 'treatments/protocols' that most business minded beeks can't afford to do, such as converting a portion of their operation to small cell and keeping it separate from the large cell group? There's a significant expense in that separation. Each time you reduce the amount of standardization in your operation it is costly. Sometimes research requires you to make your yards sick to see what happens, look at where they are trying to recreate CCD. You can't do this and sell splits, honey, and cart bees all over the pollinating circuit.

If you think the Lusby's are doing "research", you don't know what research is. They tried something different and it worked for them. Thats not research.


----------



## Keith Benson (Feb 17, 2003)

Barry said:


> Sighting a paper that contradicts a reality for me and others will not make it any less a reality.


But is it the reality for you, or merely what you think is the reality? That is the big question. Now I am not saying you are drinking the Koolaid here, merely suggesting that if a well designed experiment directly contradicts what you think you know, you need to re-think your position. I did not say change, I said re-think. 

What you state above amounts to, "I know what I believe to be reality and what I want to be reality, so no one will be able to prove otherwise."

In my reality, my three best hives not small cell, nope I don't use chems, but I do think beekeeper stupidity and neglect dictated by circumstances makes my bees reality a poor representation of the reality of small cell. IF you went by my "reality" small cell would not look so favorable. 

Keith "it is better to be correct than comfortable" Benson


----------



## Chef Isaac (Jul 26, 2004)

I do think that trying small cell is a better crack to varroa then throwing chemicals into the hive only for a short term solutions. I think the the change of success via Dee, bush, and others concerning small cell is something to look into. I would rather try it then read some paper on it and take it for "the word".


----------



## Chef Isaac (Jul 26, 2004)

MichaelW:

Maybe the answer is to cross breed. Some of AHB charactoristics with EHB.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

> It shows clear AHB characteristics that would be completely unacceptable to most beekeepers and beekeeping areas in the US.


the question that this statement brings to mind is, "how acceptable is a 30-90% die off to most beekeepers"? how is honey going to be made? how are crops going to be pollinated?

deknow


----------



## MichaelW (Jun 1, 2005)

Chef Isaac said:


> MichaelW:
> 
> Maybe the answer is to cross breed. Some of AHB charactoristics with EHB.


Sounds like a non-starter to me. EHB are perfectly capable of surviving varroa. Why introduce genes with very clear aggressive components that have been shown to be very difficult to breed out?

To trade calm bees for aggressive bees for an easy fix to the varroa problem would eliminate beekeeping as an option for large areas of the US. It only takes one beekeeper that does not give a darn about their neighbors to get anti-beekeeping ordinances put into place. Toying with AHB in any moderately populated area is irresponsible and can have a devastating impact on the "innocent bystander beekeeper".


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

michaelw....yet, despite the hard, soft, and illegal varroa treatments used throughout the us, bees are dying...and according to the experts, in general, they are not healthy. so we should ignore the _only_ demonstrated example of really healthy, thriving bees we have in the country? and it's an operation bigger than most research uses? seems like a nobrainer to me.

deknow


----------



## MichaelW (Jun 1, 2005)

deknow said:


> the question that this statement brings to mind is, "how acceptable is a 30-90% die off to most beekeepers"? how is honey going to be made? how are crops going to be pollinated?
> 
> deknow


You act like all beekeepers are experiencing that. You act like there is no alternative to keeping great bees. I see great bees all the time. I see untreated European bees both crash and flourish. Mega hives with stacks of brood that are not diminished in their strength in the least bit when compared to your video of Dee's bees. And you can open them up without gloves, pull out frames, look for the queen without smoke, and not have what you see in video of Dee's yard.


----------



## MichaelW (Jun 1, 2005)

deknow said:


> michaelw....yet, despite the hard, soft, and illegal varroa treatments used throughout the us, bees are dying...and according to the experts, in general, they are not healthy. so we should ignore the _only_ demonstrated example of really healthy, thriving bees we have in the country? and it's an operation bigger than most research uses? seems like a nobrainer to me.
> 
> deknow


The only demonstrated example of really healthy thriving bees??? You've got to be kidding!!! Thats one example of thriving bees, with an attitude problem. I see plenty of really healthy thriving bees without an attitude problem. Some are treated, some treated softly, and some untreated.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

...can you please post pictures/videos of such bees? ...or point me to where they are published? what you describe is not what i see online, or in the bee journals. also, along with the photos/videos, it would be helpful to know what (if anything) the bees are treated with, and what the feeding practices are.

the bees i've shown are untreated, and never fed sugar/hfcs.

my thinking here is that if people did have hives that strong, they would be bragging about them, and that the pictures in the bee journals would reflect the existence/abundance of such bees...i have not seen it.

deknow


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

> Also, whats with this concept that researchers don't know what its like to keep bees?


i never said that. my point is that if the goal of research is to help people (mostly commercial, because most bees are kept by commercial beekeepers) keep strong, productive hives, then most (if not all) of the research should be done using such hives....or it doesn't necessarily apply.

i contend that the great beekeeping books were written by commercial beekeepers (with very few exceptions), and there is a good reason that these books have stood the test of time, and risen to the top of our list of litterature.

would a commercial farmer take advice from a researcher that grows tomatoes in a flowerpot? does data derived from such research apply to commercial growers?

i'm ignorant as to what the labs use for bees to study...please enlighten me. are they "flowerpots", or are they "farms"?

deknow


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

MichaelW said:


> It shows clear AHB characteristics that would be completely unacceptable to most beekeepers and beekeeping areas in the US.





deknow said:


> the question that this statement brings to mind is, "how acceptable is a 30-90% die off to most beekeepers"? how is honey going to be made? how are crops going to be pollinated?
> deknow


If I understand your reply, deknow, you are advocating that beekeepers intentionally maintain AHB colonies in the US?


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

please look through the whole thread here.

i am advocating _not_ taking one aspect of an integrated system that has been shown to work, and testing it in the absence of the _rest_ of the integrated system as a way to disprove the integrated system.

i'm also advocating "not throwing the baby out with the bathwater". with the losses we are seeing, we may well have to change what our standards of "acceptable" are. for instance, a cancer treatment often has very, very unpleasant side effects, that if one saw a video of, one would be very turned off to the idea of chemotherapy....yet we don't rule such things out. probably could make a similar case with something more common than cancer...childbirth.

as far as ahb...i'm not convinced at all. what i experienced is not what i'm told ahb is. it's also well documented that ahb semen was brought from brazil ON PURPOSE for breeding purposes, quite separate from the "migration north from brazil" that is often cited as the source of ahb.

deknow


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

fwiw, i've asked for such photos/videos from a number of sources, including here, bee-l, and on the organic list...as well as to individuals (some of whom are bee inspectors by trade). not a single one has responded with anything. let's see the pudding. it's easy to claim "my bees this" or "i've seen plenty of bees that..."...and not too much harder to shoot a picture or a video these days if the claims are accurate.

i'd love to find out that there are lots of bees as healthy as what we saw in AZ, but simple unsubstantiated claims don't do the trick in my book.

deknow


----------



## MichaelW (Jun 1, 2005)

I'm not going to take the time to videograph strong colonies just to prove my point. Sorry, I'm just too busy. 

I don't usually brag about my own bees, because I don't really brag about anything. But I will do some bragging just to attempt to satisfy your request. I started the winter with 26 colonies, lost one queen in one of those and had to combine it by spring. This spring I figure I've added 65 colonies to that number by making splits. Most queens where bought, some raised, and there where a couple swarms. I plan to make about 12 more splits about July, which should be no problem. Looks like I should still get a good honey crop and can supply that statistic when its done, just remind me. Most of those 25 colonies where very strong to be able to split like that. 5 colonies that where fully foundation colonies where strong enough to produce 16 splits + 1 empty comb. 5 colonies that where fully foundationless where strong enough to produce 10 splits - 8 empty and honey combs. I had to make up these from other colonies. The foundationless colonies where clearly weaker (but still healthy) compared to the standard foundation colonies. 

My beekeeping is going great. I would never consider using a more aggressive bee to help with diseases. I don't really have a big problem with diseases. A friend of mine overwinters about 100 colonies, has great bees, and would not consider doing that either. I've been trying out some 'resistant stock' from a reputable breeder, and I'm dropping them due to an aggressive streak in them. In my limited experience with this 'resistant stock' its not proving any more resistant to diseases than the Carniolian/Italian Hybrids I mainly use.

I treated in the fall with Fumidil-B, about 2/3rds of the colonies took the feed. I feed lots of sugar water in the fall due to drought. I did many mite counts and varroa was very low, but went ahead and treated with Apilife-Var due to one foundationless hive in a study that went over the threshold. I figured I would just treat them all then let the varroa go through the second fall of the study.


----------



## Keith Benson (Feb 17, 2003)

deknow said:


> my thinking here is that if people did have hives that strong, they would be bragging about them, and that the pictures in the bee journals would reflect the existence/abundance of such bees...i have not seen it.


I think you are wrong. Some folks would be bragging, some folks are just like that. Not everyone is. If you are using this as your yard stick you will forever be lead about by the loudest opinion. I have had LC untreated bees that were easily as strong as the colonies I saw in the video. Big whoop. Heck, I still think they got that way in spite of me, not because of me. While yes, colonies are dying, many are not. If bees were perishing at the rate that some of the more vocal SCers say, the only bees in N.A would be in Dee's, Micheal's and some guy named Myron's hands.

I think there are a number of ways to interpret that video. I have spoken with people who have visited Dee's yards and gotten very different descriptions of her operation. Some of the opinions I have heard have been obviously colored by the persons personal pre-existing biases before they ever went to see her place, others seemed quite objective, but are still almost diametrically opposed to one another.

Jut another reason to take what people post with a grain of salt, no matter what side of the fence people are on.

Are Dee's bees nasty? They don't seem to be particularly calm to me, but then again, maybe I have different requirements and standards for the way my bees behave. I would commit a little regicide were they my bees (in fact I am planning a little right now for a trio of hives that are no where near like what I saw in the video. But I am funny that way.

Keith


----------



## MichaelW (Jun 1, 2005)

deknow said:


> fwiw, i've asked for such photos/videos from a number of sources, including here, bee-l, and on the organic list...as well as to individuals (some of whom are bee inspectors by trade). not a single one has responded with anything. let's see the pudding. it's easy to claim "my bees this" or "i've seen plenty of bees that..."...and not too much harder to shoot a picture or a video these days if the claims are accurate.
> 
> i'd love to find out that there are lots of bees as healthy as what we saw in AZ, but simple unsubstantiated claims don't do the trick in my book.
> 
> deknow


If your not willing to take beekeepers word for it, why should we be the ones to take the time to prove what we say to you? If you can't believe such a simple statement, you clearly don't have much respect for your beekeeping peers. I suggest you get out and visit more beekeepers that don't use AHB genetics and see what their operations are like.


----------



## Keith Benson (Feb 17, 2003)

Chef Isaac said:


> You are quick to site papers. Do you believe everything you read?


Why do some people persist in automatically linking the giving of weight to peer reviewed scientific literature to a proclivity to believe everything one reads? It is almost the opposite - if you read them correctly that is. IF you aren't picking it apart as you go, then you are not getting much out of the experience.
A quick question if I may: How do you know Dee's and Michael's bees are doing well? 

wait for it 

wait for it

Because you READ it here?  (of course I am playing with you a bit because for all I know you have been to both of their places.)

Just because someone says their bees are healthy doesn't make it so. Just because someone who has healthy bees says it is because of this manipulation or that, doesn't make it so.



> Have YOU actually TRIED small cell?


I dunno about Jim, but I have, for several years now. I see no real downside to it, but am not certain I see the upside yet. In fact, if you run the numbers my LC hives have done better. Don't bother with the numbers though, the N is way to small and there are confounding variables that render any reliance on my sample to ask the question of SC efficacy totally irrelevant, if not misleading. 



> So basically you (excuse me... the papers) are disproving what others say have been working for them.


Yep, it is a common theme in science. History is replete with people who thought they knew how the universe worked . . . and were wrong. 

If one of the things Michael touted was to sprinkle gold dust on your inner covers by the light of the harvest moon, would you go for it? Even if his bees are doing well he says and that it is GD that is doing it? Nope, you wouldn't. Just because SC sounds more reasonable than GD, the principle when asking the question is the same: Is this factor one of the reasons why their bees do well? Do you want to know, or just know what some other folks think?

I wouldn't argue about whether or not Dee or Michael's bees are healthy, I am happy to take them at their word that they are. The question is, what parts of their operations are important to emulate for the same results, and what parts are irrelevant and a waste of time and energy?

Keith


----------



## Keith Benson (Feb 17, 2003)

Chef Isaac said:


> I do think that trying small cell is a better crack to varroa then throwing chemicals into the hive only for a short term solutions.


I agree. At worst you just have some drawn comb and a lot of bees . . . unless the original data from the Berry study continues the same, then there is a potential downside.



> I think the the change of success via Dee, bush, and others concerning small cell is something to look into.


Sure, sounds reasonable. But lemmie ask you. By what parameters are you defining their operations as a success? I am not attacking your choice, been doing it myself for several years, I just want to know how you decided that theirs are successful operations worthy of emulation? 



> I would rather try it then read some paper on it and take it for "the word".


Fair enough, I would suggest a better approach might be to do both . . . until some more data is available, and then you might be merely re-inventing the wheel, regardless of what the outcome of the research is.

Keith


----------



## Chef Isaac (Jul 26, 2004)

Wow, gone for half the day and a lot to respond to. Here we go:

MichaelW:

I think you took my post about cross breeding differently then what I meant. Now, with the honeybee gnom project, I think they might be able to do a respectable cross between EHB and AHB without the agreesivness of the AHB. I am not sayign this is the answer but what I do know, is that chemicals, FOR ME, are not the answer. I woudl even go out on a limb and say that the use of chemicals have brought us to the point where we are now with the bees. But please, that is only my opinion. I am not willing to debate on that because, as with all of us, our opinion is ours. And if you are all like me, it changes from time to time . 

I do think that we are going to see genetics of honeybees plasy more of a roll in things. I cant wait to see what comes! 

Keith:
I am not saying I do not respect the scientific papers. I do. However, I also am not one to take things people say for the hard trouth. Things that interest me, I will try. In this case, it is the small cell. The theory of it sounds good so why not give it a try? 

Your comment about how I see success is a good question. I would like to be able to keep bees without any chemicals and, in my journey, find a peaceful way to live with varroa mites. It is deaper then that though. I would like to raise my own queens more and more because, what is coming out of some of the mass produced queen factorys is not good. So to get back to your question, small cell really has me intrigued. I read and read on it and was willign to try it. Why not? 

I know I did not answer yoru question right, Keith. What defines success... If I am loosing bees and someone else is not, I would like to know what they are doing differently. 

Yes, you are right, I might be reinventing the wheel... but you know... it will be FOR ME and the beekeepers in MY area. No hurt in trying. 

Scientific studies are meant to be picked apart.


----------



## Chef Isaac (Jul 26, 2004)

What is working for Dee, is working for dee. What is working for M. Bush is working for Bush. What is working for you, is working for you. I do not think picking apart and arguing is going to accomplish much. Just learn and take what you want from it. 

Run you apiary the way that coincides with your philosphoy. For me, I do not want to use chemicals to keep my bees alive. But that is just me!!!


----------



## Chef Isaac (Jul 26, 2004)

I would ask for all the beekeepers to just respect eachothers decisions and how they are fighting the varroa mites. This thread was not meant to be an arguing season but rather a way to learn.


----------



## Keith Benson (Feb 17, 2003)

Chef Isaac said:


> I would ask for all the beekeepers to just respect eachothers decisions and how they are fighting the varroa mites. This thread was not meant to be an arguing season but rather a way to learn.


I don't think it is an argument, just a discussion. This is a discussion board after all . . . 

Keith


----------



## Chef Isaac (Jul 26, 2004)

Keith:

Your probobly right! 

I do have hope in small cell at this moment. Chemicals are out of the question. I also think that grafting from your survivors are important to. This is something I am working on. I also have a vision of bringing beekeepers in our area together with the intent of breeding better queens. 

Do I think these will work? I hope it will. If it does not, that is ok as I have learned and that is a great thing. 

I just thing there are serious ramifications when using chemicals. Right now, everything seems to be flying under the radar but one mis step but someone using a chemical in a different way or homemade chemicals and it gets into the honey and the news latches on, that day will REALLY suck.


----------



## MichaelW (Jun 1, 2005)

EHB are perfectly capable of being maintained without chemicals. There was a great article the other month in ABJ about achieving a balance with your bees with Varroa. I don't have the issue around me right now, anyone remember? I don't believe this fella is using AHB.

I'm not arguing either, I'm discussing. Its easy to sound more fired up with text. I do believe though that toying with AHB can and will bring great harm to the "innocent bystander beekeeper" via ordinances. It might even bring harm to some trespassing kids that don't know better.

As far as chemicals and Varroa go, I'm perfectly content giving a thymol product once a year. 

I have also added drone comb trapping to my general management in some hives. Drone comb trapping is probably the most researched, most proven, simplest, and most ignored organic beekeeping method out there to control Varroa. The easy way seems to be, some frames with starter strips, cut and toss, or cut and feed to the chickens.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Keith Benson said:


> What you state above amounts to, "I know what I believe to be reality and what I want to be reality, so no one will be able to prove otherwise."


Keith -

I don't think that's what it amounts to. If you look at the context in which my statement was made, I was responding to Jim asserting that an unpublished paper proved that there will be more mites in a SC hive verses a LC hive and that this is so, well beyond one year, according to another unpublished paper. The way Jim talks, it's several years to perhaps always being this way. Reality in my SC experience does not agree with this. After an initial higher mite load, which one could see without making mites drop, the signs of mites dwindled. This happened within the second to third year.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

ok, so i'm being told the following (it seems to me):

1. that i should believe whatever another beekeeper tells me. i knew my mother told me to believe everything i read on the internet for a reason . are we going to simply ignore that hives being stolen, lying about treatments (shop towels and such), beekeepers having their hives turned over, selling sick bees...are all committed by beekeepers? no, we should simply trust what anyone who claims to be a beekeeper says on the internet?...and that not doing so means that i don't respect other beekeepers. also note, that my own observations are not being "trusted" by other beekeepers here, even though i provide the video to show that we are not freaking out or being stung very much at all. how many times would you get stung going through 100 of your hives in a day and only smoking 5-6 of them, ripping apart and making splits?

2. that although a gardening magazine will have pictures of the most impressive plants/gardens they can obtain, that cycling magazines will have photos of the latest, greatest, and most expensive bicycles, that bodybuilding mags will show the biggest, buffist bodybuilders they can get, that cooking magazines have photos of mouth watering dishes...that beekeeping mags will not have pictures of the most productive, impressive hives they can get their hands on?

honestly, i've stuck my neck out pretty far here....and made quite a number of claims. these are the things that i get jumped on for?

michaelw and keith, it sounds like your operations are doing great...and i doubt i've said anything to belittle your efforts or experience. you can choose not to believe me if you like, but i've been upfront and honest. i didn't simply make claims, i provided video to support what i've said. the 2 videos that are posted are not edited after the fact...i left the weak hives in with the strong, showing entire yards. fwiw, a "demonstrated example" means that there is evidence to examine....you both may well have examples of happy, healthy, strong bees, but you have not _demonstrated_ that to be so.

we spent 7 working days with dee and the bees...it took me a couple of days to get my "bee legs", and although i'm proud of some of the still photography i've done in my lifetime, i'm not a videographer (outside of videotaping meetings and using the camera as a vcr for recording our multimedia concerts, i've never shot video before this trip, and a little on our previous trip out there in feb.). we did not pick and choose the "best" yards to film...i shot the first few days, got an idea of what dee was doing and talking about, and shot both of these videos at a point where i could do some narration on the spot, and before i ran out of tape/discspace. both of these yards shows every hive in the yard...the small amount of editing was done in camera...in mendoza, i paused the tape between hives to save tape. in north kings, i shot the whole yard in one shot, with a brief pause for dee to put her spats on. it would be easy to only show the 5 strongest hives in each yard, but that isn't what dee, ramona, or i wanted to show...we wanted to show the whole experience. there was no "setup" here, and aside from mendoza where dee made an effort to show the camera what was going on, the work came first by a longshot...filming was filming the work, not a tour of the hives....and what was shown was typical of what we saw in all the yards.

it's also worth noting that when we were done, dees hives numbered about 600...which is a much larger sample group than either of you could show if you were willing to do so....again, a flowpot vs a farm, a totally different animal.

it's also worth noting what time of year these videos were shot in. this is not at the height of a flow when most are used to seeing strong bees...this is the buildup to a flow...without stimulative feeding, without treatements, and only being visited about 5-8 (if doing 2 harvests on the main flow) times a year. these are bees that can take care of themselves without fumidil, without thymol, and be productive.

also, in some sense, dee is breeding for "cow resistant bees", as all these hives are in open range area, and it was unusual to not see at least one turned over in a yard (the ones that were turned over with the boxes off to the side, and the inner and outer cover stacked on the bottom board, with an empty beer can nearby was probably 2 legged cows). bees that aren't defensive enough to keep a cow away aren't well adapted to this environment.

it would be nice to compare apples with apples. what do the hives at the tucson bee lab look like? what about other beekeepers in the area? is this taboo to ask such things?

deknow


----------



## MichaelW (Jun 1, 2005)

Oh, OK, now the only healthy hives that count are the ones run by large scale beekeepers. Thats fine.

If you choose to believe that the Lusbys' are the only large scale beekeepers with healthy hives, I don't really care, but I will call you out on the sheer improbability of that.

More about numbers. A yard of bees is a yard of bees.
Beekeeper A could have 30 yards with 20 hives each.
Beekeeper B could have 1 yard with 20 hives.
Neither beekeepers are migratory.
If beekeeper B spends the same amount of time in his one
yard that beekeeper A spends in 1 of their yards, whats the difference?

Also I never said the hives you showed weren't healthy, I'm saying I would
not have them, and they would be unacceptable to many beekeepers
due to their clear aggressive behavior.


----------



## MichaelW (Jun 1, 2005)

> it's also worth noting what time of year these videos were shot in. this is not at the height of a flow when most are used to seeing strong bees...this is the buildup to a flow...without stimulative feeding, without treatements, and only being visited about 5-8 (if doing 2 harvests on the main flow) times a year. these are bees that can take care of themselves without fumidil, without thymol, and be productive.


In my experience, bees look like that during the buildup to a flow, not usually during a main flow. The buildup period is when they really gear up. During the main flow, they pack in so much honey, it restricts the brood area.

I don't doubt that Africanized bees can handle the Varroa on their own. Thats still zero incentive to me to use them.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

MichaelW said:


> Oh, OK, now the only healthy hives that count are the ones run by large scale beekeepers. Thats fine.


...except that i never said that.



> If you choose to believe that the Lusbys' are the only large scale beekeepers with healthy hives, I don't really care, but I will call you out on the sheer improbability of that.


...again, i never said that either...but i suppose it supports your "straw man" approach to discussing this.



> More about numbers. A yard of bees is a yard of bees.
> Beekeeper A could have 30 yards with 20 hives each.
> Beekeeper B could have 1 yard with 20 hives.
> Neither beekeepers are migratory.
> ...


...there are a number of differences. one being sample size (60 hives vs 20). one being diversity of the sample (if all hives are in one yard, then weather, local contamination, and other local factors are likely to affect all of the hives).
i have no idea how many times a year you visit your hives, or the amount of time you spend doing so. if this is an attempt to make a comparison, it would be helpful to share your data wrt how many times you visit your hives, and how long you spend doing so. given that you treat with fumidil and apilife (as well as testing for mites and such), i'm assuming that you see your bees more than 8 times a year (which is the high number that dee would visit hers if going for 3+ harvests).



> Also I never said the hives you showed weren't healthy, I'm saying I would not have them, and they would be unacceptable to many beekeepers
> due to their clear aggressive behavior.


again, i never said you claimed otherwise...another straw man. what i said was that we don't see examples of anything like this in the bee mags, and i haven't seen anything online. i've asked for examples over and over, yet instead of citing some examples, or posting some, you claim that i said things i didn't.

deknow


----------



## MichaelW (Jun 1, 2005)

you said


> it's also worth noting that when we were done, dees hives numbered about 600...which is a much larger sample group than either of you could show if you were willing to do so....again, a flowpot vs a farm, a totally different animal.


I said,


> Oh, OK, now the only healthy hives that count are the ones run by large scale beekeepers. Thats fine.


Was it a stretch in interpretation? you decide.

I said,


> If you choose to believe that the Lusbys' are the only large scale beekeepers with healthy hives, I don't really care, but I will call you out on the sheer improbability of that.


you said


> ...again, i never said that either...but i suppose it supports your "straw man" approach to discussing this.


you previously said


> Originally Posted by deknow View Post
> michaelw....yet, despite the hard, soft, and illegal varroa treatments used throughout the us, bees are dying...and according to the experts, in general, they are not healthy. so we should ignore the _only_ demonstrated example of really healthy, thriving bees we have in the country? and it's an operation bigger than most research uses? seems like a nobrainer to me.


and I quote, "...only demonstrated example..."

Maybe I'm not using a "straw man" maybe you're misrepresenting your view.



> i have no idea how many times a year you visit your hives, or the amount of time you spend doing so. if this is an attempt to make a comparison, it would be helpful to share your data wrt how many times you visit your hives, and how long you spend doing so. given that you treat with fumidil and apilife (as well as testing for mites and such), i'm assuming that you see your bees more than 8 times a year (which is the high number that dee would visit hers if going for 3+ harvests).


I'm not beekeeper B. I'm speaking hypothetically. Sure I check my bees often because I enjoy it. Usually I open them up and say, yep there still there, doing fine. I can do it without them all falling out of the hive and attacking everything around. You should check out some bees like that, its pretty neat.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

Let's fish or cut bait, here, already. Dee Lusby is a capable person, deknow, and can stick up for herself. You're impressed by her bees, obviously, but that doesn't mean that her system is the best for everyone, or would even work in every situation. Let's talk about your bees.

You've made claims about Lusby's bees being "healthy." Are your bees healthy? How do you measure "health," in the first place? Have you visited other commercial beekeeping operations to inspect their bees for comparison?

Honestly, from the video I saw, I didn't think Lusby's bees were particularly "boomers." The hives seemed alright, and maybe not everything showed up on the video, but I'm accustomed to seeing hives that seem a lot more populous, and a lot "busier" than those hives. The numbers of bees coming and going from the hives seemed low, in my opinion. How do your bees compare to those seen in the videos?

Some specific measures that I use in comparing hives: 

Winter survival. For migratory beekeepers, this is less an issue if it's an issue at all.

Little or no disease. By disease, I'm meaning AFB, EFB, Nosema, etcetera.

Few parasites. Specifically, _Varroa_ or trachaeal mites.

Storing surplusses of honey. I realize this isn't a direct measure of "health," but drastically unhealthy colonies do not produce large yields of honey, in my experience.

To me, "chemical free" does not equate to "healthy." Equating the two seems like saying, "I had a bacterial infection four weeks ago, I went to doctor, took antibiotics for 10 days, got over the infection, but am 'unhealthy' because I used antibiotics to help fight the infection."


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

> ...flowpot vs a farm, a totally different animal.


does not say:


> only healthy hives that count are the ones run by large scale beekeepers.


...as you are claiming...it says they are different. do you disagree?

...you missed a quote, michael:


> fwiw, a "demonstrated example" means that there is evidence to examine....you both may well have examples of happy, healthy, strong bees, but you have not _demonstrated_ that to be so.


...did i miss the post where you posted pics of your hives? ...or told me where online, or in what mags i might see a "demonstrated example"? i don't think so. oh, i forgot that i'm supposed to believe everything that a beekeeper writes on the internet 



> Sure I check my bees often because I enjoy it.


...and i expect you don't have to drive up to 2 hours to get to your hives either.

deknow


----------



## MichaelW (Jun 1, 2005)

deknow said:


> does not say:
> ...as you are claiming...it says they are different. do you disagree?


Yes I disagree. I said, a yard of bees is a yard of bees. The hives is not in a pot, its sitting on the ground in a yard with some number of other bees around it. All 600 hives are not in the same yard. That would would be a different animal. Also a migratory operation vs. permanent yards would be a different animal. But Dee isn't migratory is she?

Your demands for photographic evidence is ridiculous. I would rather let you believe in your mind I'm making this up, then to go take a video.



> ...and i expect you don't have to drive up to 2 hours to get to your hives either.


No, I wouldn't do that with gas prices and all.

I do have a yard an hour away in an area I like to go hiking and camping in. At the end of June it will have been there a full year, and I don't believe I would have visited it more then 8 times. I don't really know though as I didn't photograph myself checking them each visit, so I couldn't 'prove' that statement to you anyway. I'll be starting another yard up there with about 12 hives that I know I won't be getting to more than about 8 times a year. But alas, you'll never really know if its there or not, since I don't plan to visually document my presence there.


To treat bees for pests, with minimal visits:
1. when harvesting last of the honey supers, put on Apiguard treatment #1.
2. two weeks later bring Apiguard treatment #2, feeders, and sugar water with fumidil.
3. pickup feeders next time your at the bee yard.

The only possible extra trip would be #2. But if your like me, I'll take more honey then I would need to leave for the bees to overwinter with, so they are going to need to be feed anyway. Also, its worth planning on feeding in my area as the summer droughts can be pretty hard on the fall nectar flow.


----------



## MichaelW (Jun 1, 2005)

forgot to say, good points Kieck.


----------



## MichaelW (Jun 1, 2005)

allright, here's some documentable "evidence" of strong hives outside of dee's apiary.

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/feb/20/teenagers-hobby-buzzing-with-cash-for-college/

This story contains info about a fella in our association that once got 18 supers of honey off a single queen unit hive. He was within a half gallon of the record, which begs the question, who has the record? Odra is known for miles around for strong hives. If you don't believe me, ask Walt Wright, he went to visit him as he is the only person he knew of that beat Walt's record for the most honey off one hive. Niether Odra or Walt are organic beekeepers. He probably spends more time per hive then the Lusby's but when time pays in big honey rewards who needs numbers?

17 year old Corey got 100 gallons off 8 hives, I'd say thats pretty good. Thats only about 5 medium supers per hive, but with only 18 months of experience, I'm impressed. I'm confused if you think small beekeepers count or not, but thought I'd put this info out anyway. Way to go Corey!!!!

Oh yea, many agricultural science statisticians say that once N= about 20 you've reached infinity. As in, once N increases above 20 your not making your experiment any more accurate of a sample of the population. Thats is very generic however, and many factors can effect that, but my point is you don't need 600 samples to have an accurate subsample of a management practice.

A picture of Odra's and his hive was featured in either ABJ or Beeculture. I'll see if I can dig it up and post it.


----------



## MichaelW (Jun 1, 2005)

hmm, while I was making up some sticky boards I got to thinking about Kiecks points.

Hard data is much more significant than a video snapshot in time. The video only tells us what some hives looked like at a particular time. A time when bees are supposed to be building up to reproductive (swarm) strength.

The true results of a management style only comes out when the data comes in. Such as
How many pollinating units produced and survived to overwinter.
How much honey produced.
How many splits produced.
How many packages produced.
Take the yield in marketable products, divide by # hives and that will get you an idea of the strength or success of a management style. You still have to factor in costs in time, money, and lost hives, but yield/hives would be a start. The only thing the video says is these hives where fairly strong then, but did they swarm? did they produce anything? It also says they where aggressive, which goes under a cost in my bookkeeping.


----------



## Keith Benson (Feb 17, 2003)

Barry said:


> Keith -
> 
> I don't think that's what it amounts to. After an initial higher mite load, which one could see without making mites drop, the signs of mites dwindled. This happened within the second to third year.


Fair enough, there are some folks whom will see what they want to see when it comes to small cell and no one will tell them otherwise. For some it is an idea worth investigating, for others it is . . . well it appears to be much more than that.

Having said that, were you letting the bees re-queen themselves during this time, or were you buying queens? I guess given my own (admittedly very limited) small cell experience, I am wondering if the small cell has much to do with it at all. Clean comb, breeding from survivors, intense selective pressure (what percentage did Dee loose when she embarked on this mission?) all seem to have a significant beneficial effect. I think that there are a host of other management choices that feed in (and I know others are saying this) but the question then comes, "is 4.9 and the aggravation of regression actually worth it?". I dunno. I don't think there is enough information to make an informed conclusion.

Getting nice small cell combs is not always easy, especially if you live in an area like I do.

Keith


----------



## db_land (Aug 29, 2003)

Hey Keith, I'm curious about the basis for this statement:

"Getting nice small cell combs is not always easy, especially if you live in an area like I do."

What is it about your area that makes getting small cell comb any more difficult than getting large cell comb? 

After almost 5 years I'm about 95% converted to SC -- I simply don't buy any large cell foundation (plastic or wax) and replace existing combs with SC as needed. So far the only varroa mite (dead or alive) I've seen this year was on a freshly built comb from a cut-out removal. I don't attribute the lack of varroa solely to SC, but SC seems to have gotten the ball rolling.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Keith Benson said:


> were you letting the bees re-queen themselves during this time, or were you buying queens?


Except for the very first year I started beekeeping, I've never purchased queens. I've always let the bees re-queen themselves.


----------



## Keith Benson (Feb 17, 2003)

db_land said:


> What is it about your area that makes getting small cell comb any more difficult than getting large cell comb?


We have a very intense spring flow, and then not a lot after that. SO the colony expands PDQ and then gets right into honey collection mode and they seem to have some difficulty sticking with the 4.9 plan once that happens. Of course it could be that the beekeeper is giving them grief . . . I can get combs drawn, but they make a switch early on and things get a little wacky after a while. There is an incentive to use larger cells for honey, and the bees are shrewd about such things. 

There is a very well know Small cell advocate and heretic who has occasionally echoed my sentiments, but that is for him to chime in with if he should so choose.



> After almost 5 years I'm about 95% converted to SC -- I simply don't buy any large cell foundation (plastic or wax) and replace existing combs with SC as needed. So far the only varroa mite (dead or alive) I've seen this year was on a freshly built comb from a cut-out removal. I don't attribute the lack of varroa solely to SC, but SC seems to have gotten the ball rolling.


What else are you doing? In 5 years you have shucked 95% of your comb, sounds like you are on your way to nice contamination free wax . . .you can see where this leads.

I just don't know. I would love it if it were as good as people say. It may be.

Keith


----------



## Keith Benson (Feb 17, 2003)

Barry said:


> Except for the very first year I started beekeeping, I've never purchased queens. I've always let the bees re-queen themselves.


And if you have a dead out, you make a split . . .from a hive that has survived obviously . . . ?

Keith


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

I've got probably 40 to 50 sheets of wired small cell foundation and 20 to 30 sheets of 5.1 for deeps that I was planning to feed to my solar wax melter when the weather got warmer. I'm about 15 miles north of Athens, GA. Anybody that would want to drop by and pick them up could have them for free......good riddance.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Keith Benson said:


> And if you have a dead out?


Yes, I make a split. My circumstances the last five years have not allowed me to give any time to my bees. Casual infrequent observance has seen one hive bee less only to have it reestablished. I figured a swarm came in and took up house duties. Outside of that, I've always seen normal activity from the hives. I just moved them to my own property and now plan to get back into it, actually taking honey off.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Regarding the findings of the Berry study showing high mite loads in both the SC and LC hives, this was discussed on BioBee years ago. Happen to find a couple posts from there.

http://www.beesource.com/bee-l/bioarchive/sep2002/msg242.htm
http://www.beesource.com/bee-l/bioarchive/sep2002/msg247.htm
http://www.beesource.com/bee-l/bioarchive/sep2002/msg367.htm


----------



## Keith Benson (Feb 17, 2003)

The key will be the findings from later in the game. I haven't seen them so can't comment. 

I suspect thought that I can predict the reaction to them, regardless of the results.

Keith


----------

