# Un-regressed Bees



## Dave W (Aug 3, 2002)

Greetings demerl51,
Your new page LOOKS GREAT! The info is also very interesting









Please allow me to offer some info that may or may NOT affect your conclusion.

I started my package 2 yrs ago on foundation that was purchased in 1987 (No typo - 1987). This foundation had been stored in my basement in original boxes. As I have noted many times here, and on other posts, I have LOTS of mites, and they WERE on CLEAN WAX.

Something tells me to "becareful" with this new approach. . . . but, PLEASE keep us informed









thanks


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

I lost hives to Varroa in 2001 that were started in 2000 on new 5.4mm Duracomb that I bought in 1974. (No typo - 1974) While I think clean wax is important, it will not keep your bees alive.


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi Guys,

I may have to go back and look at my web page again. I hope I haven't mislead anyone. I typed it up in a few idle moments.

When I put those small cell bees back on clean, large cell comb, I got all the advantages of small cell except mite tolerance. The un-regressed bees, that had survived mites for several years without treatment, when on small cell comb, needed treatments to survive when on large cell comb. And they needed it by the end of the first season.

They had the same health, overwintering, spring buildup and production as the small cell bees, but absolutely no mite tolerance at all.

Some have claimed that most of the effects of small cell are the result of genetic selection and not cell size. I'm sure that is a factor for the overall performance of the bee. But mite tolerance itself appears to be mostly controlled by cell size.

Excluding mite tolerance, the effects of clean wax on colony health was surprising. Much that has been attributed to cell size is probably the result of clean wax. Anyone starting out with clean equipment should make every attempt to keep it clean. Definately use non-contaiminating mite treatments if your bees are on large cell size foundation.

Regards
Dennis


----------



## Dick Allen (Sep 4, 2004)

>Some have claimed that most of the effects of small cell are the result of genetic selection and not cell size. I'm sure that is a factor for the overall performance of the bee. But mite tolerance itself appears to be mostly controlled by cell size.

One of the claims Ive heard a few times is small cell bees emerge from their cells in a shorter time frame than larger cell bees. If that is true, it explains a good deal of the mite tolerance. Mites of the Honey Bee has a chart on page 140 showing the number of mites emerging with the bee. Shave off just one day and there is a significant decrease in the number of mites.

My one small cell hive appears to be alive and well. Through out the winter here, which has been relatively mild, Ive seen a few bees out for some fresh air when the temperature gets into the high 20s to low 30s. The bees were large cell Carniolan when I hive them last spring on previously drawn 4.9 comb. I think now they may have become AHB, that is Alaskanized Honey Bees. I sure hope so.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

I have observed the shorter pre AND post capping times on 4.95mm. One day shorter for each.


----------



## Dick Allen (Sep 4, 2004)

Certainly this is hypothetical, but looking at the chart, if it's true that 2-days are shaved off time spent in the cell then it seems no wonder the mites aren't a problem. What puzzles me is why you guys are seeing this chewing out in small cell (another strike against the mites) when it doesn't seem to happen in larger cell. Any ideas?


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi Guys,

The chewing out behavior appears to be a natural response to broodnest infestations. Barry has found that bees will uncap brood when a comb is infested with wax moth larva. He has some neat photos of it here, at beesource. I'm just not sure where. A close examination of that comb shows the process is the same, but can easily be differentiated from uncapped mite infested pupa.

When a beeyard is first established on small cell comb, mite overload quickly occurs. Whole combs of uncapped brood can be found and almost all of them will have multiple mites in the cells. But once the bees become stabilized on small cell, it's very hard to find any uncapped pupa. Debris on the mite tray indicates that it continues, but at a very reduced rate, even when they have a few un-regressed mite producing hives setting next to them :>)

Absolutely nothing is know about the how cell size or broodnest structure might interacts with bee behavior. But it must be important because every kind of natural broodnest I've measured has those same kind of components built into it.

Just how do bees determine how much and what type of comb is in a hive? And how to build the different types of comb, when needed, in the right locations? How do they know when to attach a heavy comb to the sidewall of a top bar hive and leave an adjacent, lighter broodcomb almost unattached?

I'm sure there might be some kind of pheromonal clues for some of this behavior. But I'll speculate that they might also use some kind sound or resonance type sense. Maybe they can hear it in human terms :>) Or would it be feel the sound in bee terms :>))) Maybe they can hear the mites better in a smaller sized cell?

The faster hatching period with small cell could compliment the uncapping behavior which would just reinforce how important the broodnest structure really is.

Regards
Dennis


----------



## Guest (Mar 2, 2005)

Hi demerl 51, Is the photo of the section of worker pupae with cappings removed representative of the bees removing infected pupae? It looks like "bald headed brood".


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>What puzzles me is why you guys are seeing this chewing out in small cell (another strike against the mites) when it doesn't seem to happen in larger cell. Any ideas? 

I don't have any theories really. Just the observation that they do. I guess it comes down to the question: How do they detect the mites in the cells? By smell? Vibration? I suppose it could be that the varroa moving around in there make some kind of vibration and they sense that better when the cell is smaller. Or, as Dennis suggests, that the smaller bees have better senses. I have no idea why.


----------



## Guest (Mar 2, 2005)

>Certainly this is hypothetical, but looking at the chart, if two-days are shaved off time spent in the cell then it seems no wonder that mites aren't a problem.

Could it be that simple? If memory serves me correctly, the original host of varroa, Apis cerana has a development time for workers of 19 days while our bee, Apis mellifera's is 21. On cerana, varroa can only reproduce well on drone brood but on mellifera it can reproduce well on everything but queens. Mite populations in cerana colonies are kept in check because of this while populations explode in mellifera colonies. 
Are you guys aware of any research done on the development time of mellifera in small cells?


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

My own observations. I've timed them in my observation hive. 19 days on 4.95mm. One day shorter pre capping. One day shorter post capping.

Another advantage to small cell, the varroa seem to prefer the drone cells more. Probably because the worker cells are smaller.

Dee Lusby calls this the "pseudo drone" effect of the large cell. In this theory, the varroa sees a 5.4mm cell and thinks it might be a drone. But the varroa sees a 4.9mm cell and knows it's not a drone.


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi Guys,

Bald headed brood is the same thing. Others around the world have reported finding bald headed brood without finding any mites. But if I found the uncapped brood in a country without mites, I would suspect another kind of brood pest and look very closely.

Maybe, some lucky beekeeper could get the next pest named after him, like exterminatihivae demerli or something :>)))

Regards
Dennis


----------



## KyBee (Mar 1, 2005)

Posted by Dennis:

"I may have to go back and look at my web page again. I hope I haven't mislead anyone. I typed it up in a few idle moments."

Nope. I read it all the way through and it was clear to me that you were saying small cell is the key to mite resistance. Someone not reading it all the way through might think you were saying otherwise, but I thought you were very clear. 

It's scaring me though. I'm starting out my first hives next week on small cell wax from Brushy Mountain. I don't want to treat with chemicals, but nobody around here knows anything about oxalic or any of the non chemical treatments. 

Are my new packages going to be MORE susceptible to mites during the first season while I'm trying to get them to draw the smaller cells as compared to how they would do on regular foundation?


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Are my new packages going to be MORE susceptible to mites during the first season while I'm trying to get them to draw the smaller cells as compared to how they would do on regular foundation? 

No. They will be less. IF (which you are not saying you are) you were doing shake downs of a colony, the stress of the shake down might put them at a disadvantage for stress related diseases, but they would not be more susceptable to mites.


----------



## KyBee (Mar 1, 2005)

Whew. Thanks Michael. :0)


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

>> Are my new packages going to be MORE susceptible 
>> to mites during the first season...

> No. They will be less.

So, the mere use of "Small-Cell" foundation
means LESS susceptibility of even BRAND-NEW
packages to varroa, even when they have yet to
draw a single "small" cell, and may be several
regressions away from anything that might come
close to being a "small cell"?

So if I just take a package, and put it on
small cell foundation in an (perhaps failed)
attempt to get them to "regress", the colony,
they will still somehow instantly be LESS
susceptible to varroa?

I'd sure like to hear more about this, as
it seems to defy any concept of causality
of which I am aware.

I'd buy "no less, no more", but "less" just
cries out for a rational explanation.

...and don't tell me it is because a
"crystal structure" somehow magically
changes due to heat or mechanical
manipulation!


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>So, the mere use of "Small-Cell" foundation
means LESS susceptibility of even BRAND-NEW
packages to varroa, even when they have yet to
draw a single "small" cell, and may be several
regressions away from anything that might come
close to being a "small cell"?

I have yet to see any large cell bees draw anything larger than 5.1mm for worker brood, especially on 4.9mm foundation and this is sufficient to make some difference in the capping and post capping times and the varroa reproduction. I've yet to see a hive crash from the varroa that were on them when they arrived. The mites will have to reproduce and they will do less of that even on a first regression.

>So if I just take a package, and put it on
small cell foundation in an (perhaps failed)
attempt to get them to "regress", the colony,
they will still somehow instantly be LESS
susceptible to varroa?

Yes. I have never seen a "failed attempt to regress". I've heard of people saying they wouldn't go smaller than 5.0mm or even 5.1mm but I have not seen it. But even at 5.1mm they are partially regressed from 5.4mm I have never seen bees on their own draw 5.4mm worker cells. And I have seen a evidence of less mites at that size. I HAVE seen large cell "unregressed" bees with NO foundation build as small as 4.7mm worker brood.

>I'd sure like to hear more about this, as
it seems to defy any concept of causality
of which I am aware.

Have YOU seen bees draw, on their own, let alone on 4.9mm foundation, 5.4mm cells? I haven't.

>I'd buy "no less, no more", but "less" just
cries out for a rational explanation.

Shorter times, less Varroa, what exactly do you not get?


----------

