# Huber's New Observations on the Natural History of Bees



## Fusion_power (Jan 14, 2005)

Its been a well known fact since Langstroth's time that some races of bees build combs closer together. There is an article in the January 1977 Gleanings by Charles Koover on this subject. I've used 31 mm spacing now for 28 years. I much prefer 31 mm (just under 1 1/4 inches) to standard 1 3/8 inch frames but only in the broodnest, not in supers.

Its significant that the efforts of beekeepers for the last 150 years were devoted to larger cells and wider comb spacing. The bees don't use this naturally.

Fusion


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi Guys,
Very interesting!

I don't think the bees have changed much since Huber's time. When given their own chance, they will construct brood comb in the same manner as they did back then.

An interesting experiment might be to take a naturally tapered brood comb, one that has the largest worker cells at the top and even smaller than small cell size at the bottom. And then compare the hatching time for worker larva in the different size cells on the same comb.

Regards
Dennis


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> Isn't this a shorter capping time and shorter
> emergence time? Twenty days instead of the
> currently accepted 21?

You have to imagine a bell curve. The bulk of the
bees emerge on day 21, but some do emerge on day
20, if you mark observation hive glass, and keep
careful track of the hour each egg was laid, and
the date/hour of capping, and then emergence.

> It's not difficult, of course, to verify shorter
> capping and post capping times on natural sized
> cells.

Has anyone done this in a manner suitable for
publication yet?

> Obviously natural cell size has always been...

Let's not forget that Hubert was BLIND!!!
I, like many, enjoy his writings, but I'm not
going to assign much precision to the measurements
of an 18th Century BLIND MAN.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Let's not forget that Hubert was BLIND!!!
I, like many, enjoy his writings, but I'm not
going to assign much precision to the measurements
of an 18th Century BLIND MAN.

I'm not certain if this is chronological snobbery-- that an 18th Century man isn't intelligent and therefore can't count days; or abled body snobbery-- that a wealthy, intelligent blind man with a singularly intelligent assistant can't think analytically, let alone count to 20.

That was the argument at the time too when they didn't want to believe that a queen mated in the air outside the hive and they didn't want to believe she only mated during one period for life and many other things contrary to the currently held opinions that he observed. They would point out that he was blind and simply laugh as if that was disproof enough of such foolishness. But most everything he came up with turned out to be consistent with what one can observe now and they were observations that no one had made at the time. All of his measurements have turned out to be very exact. With the exception, of course, that he can't count days and his comb spacing is too small.  

I agree that not all bees emerge in precisely the same amount of time. You become acutely aware of that when raising queens. Occasionally in hot weather some emerge on day 15. (potential disaster) Occasionally in cold weather they emerge on day 17. But they usually emerge on day 16.

Worker brood is similar, I'm sure. But I've seen most of the ones on 4.95mm cells (wax dipped PermaComb) emerge in 19. I'm sure, simply because of the weather and because of variations in natural cell size that one can observe shorter and longer times on natural cells (as Huber would have been). But I've consistently seen shorter times and apparently so did he (or, if you will, his assistant).


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> I'm not certain if this is chronological snobbery-- that an 18th Century man 
> isn't intelligent and therefore can't count days; 

Please >>> READ <<< what I write before mounting your usual high-horse.
I mentioned his blindness and his century in regard to your unquestioning
acceptance of his "measurements" of cell sizes. Go to a museum and look
at what passed for a ruled scale in the late 1700s. Then tell me how accurate
their measurements could be.

> I agree that not all bees emerge in precisely the same amount of time. 

I'm glad you agree with well-known fact, so I'll go back to the issue of capping
and emergence of smaller-celled bees. Where is the bell curve centered?
I'm sorry to be mean, but one must know the median!


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Please >>> READ <<< what I write before mounting your usual high-horse.

I did.

>I mentioned his blindness and his century in regard to your unquestioning
acceptance of his "measurements" of cell sizes. 

Unquestioning? I come to the same conclusions by my own observations before quoting his. I would hardly call that unquestioning. This is simply showing independant confirmation of the observations of myself, Baudoux (which you can discount since it was a hundred years ago) and at least two of the posters above in this thread making at least five of us (Huber, Dennis, Fusion_power, Baudox and myself) confirming the same observations on comb spacing.

As to the "cell sizes" I mentioned no measurements of cell sizes nor did Huber. "Please >>> READ <<< what I write before mounting your usual high-horse." I did mention that natural comb is spaced smaller.

>Go to a museum and look
at what passed for a ruled scale in the late 1700s. Then tell me how accurate
their measurements could be.

We've been measuring things quite small, such as a grain (1/7000th of a pound) or 1/64th of an inch for centuries. And we aren't talking about measuring the width of a cell down to 1/10ths of a mm, we are talking about measuring the spacing of the comb down to one line (1/12th of an inch or 2mm). The other thing we were discussing was how many days which are much easier to measure than small distances.

>> I agree that not all bees emerge in precisely the same amount of time. 

>I'm glad you agree with well-known fact

Interesting to be put down for simply agreeing with your "unquestioned acceptance" of a "well-known fact". 

>, so I'll go back to the issue of capping
and emergence of smaller-celled bees. Where is the bell curve centered?

My measurements narrow the curve quite a bit on two counts. First they were in a observation hive in a house that stays about the same temperature all the time (@70 F) and second they were in wax coated PermaComb with a very consistent cell size of 4.95mm equivalent (meaning I take into account the difference in cell wall thickness).

The results are fairly consistently about 19 days. I'm sure if the cells were natural built and varied as the natural worker comb does, from 4.6mm to 5.1mm, there would be variation from that and then if the temperatures varied more it would vary more because of that. But under the controlled conditions I've been measuring them it's pretty consistent. I can't get it down to an hour without missing a lot of work to watch, but I check at least every eight hours and it came to 19 days even everytime I've tried it.

>I'm sorry to be mean...

Really? I have never gotten that impression.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

Also, I'd like to add, I've never been accused of "unquestioning acceptance" of anything before that I can remember in the 50 years of my life.


----------



## Dick Allen (Sep 4, 2004)

>at least five of us (Huber, Dennis, Fusion_power, Baudox and myself) confirming the same observations on comb spacing

Hey!!! I observed it, too!


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

That sums it up pretty well...

Nope, no one has apparently bothered to document
the claimed shorter capping times.

Yep, references of only historical interest
are trotted out to selectively support "points"
that remain very much in doubt due to a lack of
even minimal scientific rigor.

Is it any wonder that "small cell" remains
classified in most people's minds in the
same category with UFOs, astral projection,
mental telepathy, ESP, clairvoyance, spirit photography,
full-trance mediums, elekinetic movement, black
and/or white magic, pyramidology, the theory of
Atlantis, the Loch Ness Monster, spooks, spectres,
wraiths, geists and ghosts?

Too bad.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

Five beekeepers in this conversation. Four have tried natural or small cell and ALL of them have observed closer spacing (which, by the way is mostly what this conversation is about) as do two now dead "historical" references (both of whom would be surprised not to be considered scientists) and one beekeeper, who has not measured it, compares it to UFO's and ghosts.

Yep. That sums it up pretty well.


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> closer spacing (which, by the way is mostly what 
> this conversation is about)

I could have sworn... yes, I just scrolled up
and re-read, the first part of the posting was
about Hubert (or Huber, if you prefer) as some
sort of "confirmation" of small-cell in some
way or another.

Oh, I'm so sorry, I forgot that asking pointed
questions tends to make everyone look up at the
ceiling and whistle, and then try to change the
subject.









I had no comment about the closer spacing at all.
I am confident that the technology of the late
1700s was equal to that measurement task, and
I am confident that any random person could
take the same measurements with sufficient
accuracy to draw valid conclusions with today's
tools.

> Five beekeepers in this conversation...

I was not aware that Science was a democratic
institution, where a random poll of readers of
the "biological beekeeping" message board
decided issues of fact.









While we are at it, isn't ALL beekeeping
"biological" by definition? I mean, I've
shown a few people my design for the
Robo-Bee 5000, but I don't even know of
anyone else even thinking about a mechanical
artificial intelligence driven autonomous
bee, let alone working on one.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>> closer spacing (which, by the way is mostly what 
>> this conversation is about)

>I could have sworn... yes, I just scrolled up
and re-read, the first part of the posting was
about Hubert (or Huber, if you prefer) as some
sort of "confirmation" of small-cell in some
way or another.

I have heard him called Huber, Francis Huber, and 
François Huber but never Hubert. Where did you get that?

The confirmation was of what is NATURAL width of comb and the emergence time on natural (as in no foundation) comb. Since no research has been done in recent times on ermergence times on NATURAL cell size I felt it was interesting that his observations agree with many of the small cell and natural sized cell people, yes. But you seem to think this conversation is about measuring cell size, which I did not talk about, nor did Huber.

>Oh, I'm so sorry, I forgot that asking pointed
questions tends to make everyone look up at the
ceiling and whistle, and then try to change the
subject. 

You're the one trying to talk about cell size. What pointed question did you ask that I did not answer? Perhaps you think I'm avoiding your bell curve question? I believe I answered it, but I will elaborate if you couldn't get it the first time. There is no bell curve on emergence when:

1) the temperature is a practically perfect constant 70 degrees F.

2) the cell size is practially a perfect constant 4.95mm

3) the observations are made sometimes eight hours apart.

Every time I've done this I come up with an even 19 days. Certainly not more because it's the same time of day observation 19 days after seeing the queen lay that same egg, so it's possible that it's 8 hours SHORT of 19 days, but it's not longer than 19 days.

While I'm sure variaitions in natural cell size and variations in outdoor temperatures will cause more variation, Huber claims, and the eveidence would seem to support that Huber repeated all of his experiments many times.

>I had no comment about the closer spacing at all.
I am confident that the technology of the late
1700s was equal to that measurement task, and
I am confident that any random person could
take the same measurements with sufficient
accuracy to draw valid conclusions with today's
tools.

But that was the only measurement under discussion that would require a ruler and your reasons for questioning Hubers measurements are because 1) he is blind and 2) the measuring instrements of the 18th century were not accurate enough. The only other measurement under discussion was days and that hardly requires a ruler.

>> Five beekeepers in this conversation...

>I was not aware that Science was a democratic
institution, where a random poll of readers of
the "biological beekeeping" message board
decided issues of fact. 

This is a forum. I believe the definition of a forum is, according to Webster:

"A public meeting place for open discussion"

I guess I was under the mistaken impression we were in a forum and we were free to share our observations. But if four of us have observed these things and a couple of old dead scientists have observed the same things, I don't see why you compare the idea to UFO's etc.

>While we are at it, isn't ALL beekeeping
"biological" by definition? I mean, I've
shown a few people my design for the
Robo-Bee 5000, but I don't even know of
anyone else even thinking about a mechanical
artificial intelligence driven autonomous
bee, let alone working on one. 

I did not pick the name for this forum. I think all beekeeping is biological by definition. And gasoline is an organic chemical by definition. Obvously we all use words in different ways to communicate things in different contexts. You wouldn't think you'd study Benzene in "Organic" chemistry judging by it's use to describe chemical free farming, but of course we did.


----------



## wayacoyote (Nov 3, 2003)

>I was not aware that Science was a democratic
institution......

I would have to say that I that I love this statement, Literally. Now to convince the major scientific journals, readers' magazines, general public, and media at-large of this.









Sorry for the intrusion of off-topic on what is a good thread. but I really did like the comment. I wish I could take credit for it.

Waya


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> I have heard him called Huber, Francis Huber, and
> François Huber but never Hubert. Where did you get that?

Not from you - spellings were very informal back
then, and it is unclear which spelling he 
preferred, if he preferred one over the other.

> There is no bell curve on emergence...

If you don't have a bell curve, you don't have
enough data. Period.

>> I would have to say that I that I love this 
>> statement, Literally.

Danke. Feel free to quote away at whim.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>> I have heard him called Huber, Francis Huber, and
>> François Huber but never Hubert. Where did you get that?

>Not from you - spellings were very informal back
then, and it is unclear which spelling he
preferred, if he preferred one over the other.

And again, I ask the question, where did you get that? I'm not doubting you but I would love to see a reference that calls him Hubert. Perhaps I've seen it and forgetten it, but it doesn't sound familiar.

>> There is no bell curve on emergence...

>If you don't have a bell curve, you don't have
enough data. Period.

That quote is quite out of context. I did not claim there is no bell curve on emergence. In fact on that subject I said:

>I agree that not all bees emerge in precisely the same amount of time...

The rest of the quote you truncated is:

> There is no bell curve on emergence *when*(emphasis added):

>1) the temperature is a practically perfect constant 70 degrees F.

>2) the cell size is practially a perfect constant 4.95mm

>3) the observations are made sometimes eight hours apart.

When you eliminate the principle factors that cause a spread in emergence times you don't have much of a curve left. Then when you only check every eight hours you can't pinpoint exactly when emergence occured, only that it occured BEFORE the time you found them emerged or emerging and after the last time you checked. 

But all of them that I measured were no LONGER than 19 days. And no shorter than eight hours short of 19 days. Which leaves a possible spread of eight hours. That puts it between 486 and 448 hours. But all of them fell in that frame so I still don't have a curve, only the margin of error. It is possible some were earlier. I threw out a couple that were gone on day 18 because I simply thought it was possible they were chewed out and removed by the house bees. I would love to take several days off of work and watch constantly to pinpoint exactly how many hours to capping and emergence for a large number of cells, but I'm afraid I can't afford to. As nice as it would be to have a more specific set of numbers the fact that it is always early is sufficient for me.

I was not attempting at the time of these observations to write a scientific paper on the subject. As a matter of fact I wasn't even trying to prove anything. The first time it was just because I had just put the queen in the observation hive and wanted to measure emergence times for my own experience and enlightenment. I was expecting the textbook results. The first time I marked the cells the day they were capped and noted the time and then noted the days and time I saw them emerging 11 days later. I was surprised that this was a day earlier than I expected. This was repeated starting from seeing the queen lay the egg and they were capped early on day 8 and emerged on day 19. I was surprised. I had not heard any of the small cell camp mention this at the time and it seemed pretty significant to me where Varroa are concerned. I have mentioned it since and others have started to take note of it, but I was simply attempting to verify what I expected to be as the books say with capping between day 8 and 9 and emergence on day 21.


----------



## indypartridge (Nov 18, 2004)

Most new comets are discovered by amateur astronomers, not by professionals a major observatories. Why? There are thousands upon thousands of amateur astronomers scanning the skies, while the pros at the big observatories are very narrowly focused on some specific area of research.

Anyone see the parallels here? I'm a complete newbee, but I'm not going to dismiss the observations of some long-time beekeepers just because they may not be "suitable for publication." Science may not be democratic, but the fact that Mr. Bush's results have been repeated by other beekeepers and appear to be consistent with historical observations warrants, at a minimum, further investigation.

For me, I'm excited about starting beekeeping, and one of the things I'm looking forward to is trying different things. I don't want a cookbook hobby where I just follow a checklist to get a particular result. I'll probably do that at first, to get my feet wet, and then... I want to play, I want to experiment, I want try many of the neat things I read about on these boards.

While I've seen some cool pictures taken by the Hubble telescope, what I'll never forget are the awesome summer nights watching the comet Hale-Bopp. The bee labs will produce some useful research, but I'll bet on the amateur beekeepers for finding things that make this hobby fun.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>your unquestioning acceptance of his "measurements"...

I had no expectation of what I found for comb spacing. When I built my first TBH back in 1975 or so, I spaced them 1 3/8" and the bees seemed willing to follow that for the most part. When I build another one several years ago I space the bars 1 1/2" thinking the bees would just follow the starter strips and space the combs 1 1/2" and they would be simpler to make. I was wrong. The bees spaced the combs 1 1/4" and ignored my starter strips. So I went to 1 1/4" bars. This worked until they got to the edge of the brood nest where they again ignored the starter strips and spaced them at LEAST 1 1/2" and sometimes more. So the spacing I arrived at was certainly not because of "unquestioning acceptance" of anything. It was entirely driven by the beees. Again, it was interesting to find Huber coming up with the same measuremnts. I did not come to those conclusions because anyone told me to. I expected the bees to be perfectly happy to space the combs 1 1/2" and naturally do them 1 3/8". But none of those things happened.

The other thing I did not expect was that the bees drew smaller cells when the combs were closer together. At 1 3/8" spacing most of the brood comb from unregressed bees was 5.1mm. At 1 1/4" spacing unregressed large cell bees drew some of the brood 4.7mm. Regressed bees at 1 1/4" spacing built a lot of the brood comb 4.6mm. At 1 3/8" I seldom see it that small, especially from unregressed bees and especially in those amounts.

None of these observations were what I expected.


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi Guys,

For me, biologic beekeeping is fundamentally different than non-biologic beekeeping. The focus for biologic beekeeping is working WITH the bee rather than getting the bee to work with US.

A prime example of this difference can be found in a recent article by Sue Cobey in Bee Culture. This article describes the realities of double grafting which has been highly touted in the past. Beekeepers who double graft focus on only one aspect bee biology. They think they can do it better than the bees themselves do it and interfer with the natural process. They get larger queen cells but inferior queens.

A more biologic approach would be to understand the bee behaviors and then provide the best possible environment for those processes to occur. The results are always superior.

When I look at all the advancements in beekeeping since the Lang hive, almost all of them are concerned with the beekeeper and not the bee. As a consequence, most beekeepers are very well versed in bee management which is primarily focused on the beekeepers behavior :>)

Yet, they can be woefully deficient in understanding bee behavior itself. And that is particulary evident when any beekeeper thinks that the natural broodnest structure is irrelevant to bee behavior and health. It's a far stretch to think that the guts of the modern hive are even a close approximation to a natural broodnest for anyone who takes the time to examine one.

Maybe it can be summed up this way. A biologic beekeeper uses bee biology to justify his management and equipment choices. A non-biologic beekeeper uses his equipment to justify his understanding of bee behavior.

Regards
Dennis
Wondering how consistent comb observations, by numerous beekeepers, over a hundred years, can be discarded in the name of science and progress. Thinking maybe beekeeping science needs to get back to its roots.


----------



## Darrel Wright (Jun 30, 2004)

I'd like to pin Fisher down. Jim, is it your view that 19 day emergence in 4.9mm cells is on par with UFO's and ghosts? That is to say, do you think it's ridiculous superstition? Or are you just saying that since you haven't seen a study that you respect on the matter, that you don't neccessarily tend to believe it or disbelieve it?

Reading most of your posts, I begin to think your aim here is just to try and goad others to support their claims by getting them worked up. That's all I can figure. Tell me again why you don't check it yourself and show these yahoos how it's supposed to be done? Don't say you don't have time--I read that thread on candle-feezing.


----------



## Darrel Wright (Jun 30, 2004)

Opps, sorry, it's not Fisher but Fischer. Have to be more careful--it sure must have been easier back in the 1800's before spelling was invented.


----------



## Dick Allen (Sep 4, 2004)

>...your aim here is just to try and goad others...
and I thought I was the ONLY one who believed that.


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> I'd like to pin Fisher down.

There is no need to "pin me down", as I have
gone to great lengths to be clear in my
statements. Like Horton The Elephant, "I said
what I said, and I meant what I meant."

> is it your view that 19 day emergence in 4.9mm 
> cells is on par with UFO's and ghosts?

My view of the phenomena itself is irrelevant.

My view of the work done so far to back up the
claims that such "shorter capping times" have any
impact on varroa infestation rates is that it
has been little better than the "research" done
on UFO's, et al.

> I begin to think your aim here is just to try 
> and goad others to support their claims by 
> getting them worked up.

No, my goal is to convince people that they are
capable of doing "publication-quality work", or
at least making it easier for a card-carrying
researcher to do the work by supplying some
existing "turn-key" small cell hives on loan.

If some people get all worked up, it is only
because they get defensive whenever someone dares
suggest that either sufficient proof does not yet
exist, and/or is required in a specific format
with which they have never attempted to comply.

> Tell me again why you don't check it yourself 
> and show these yahoos how it's supposed to be 
> done?

Like every other legitimate researcher on the
planet, I have no small-cell bees.

I also have no interest in investing the time to
"downsize" bees on pure speculation, mostly
because any results that would result from such
an approach would be dismissed by the small-cell
community as "due to my incorrect methods" in
the mechanics of the downsizing itself.

> Don't say you don't have time--I read that 
> thread on candle-feezing.

I don't have the time. Educational efforts
(like the candle thread... or was it a "wick"?)
are part of the reason I don't have time.

Another reason is that it is spring, and I have
hives to work. Beekeeping is like shaving - if
you don't do it every day, you become a bum.









I honestly think that the only answer to getting
some results that are acceptable to all sides of
the "debate" is for a small-cell beekeeper to
loan hives to a researcher and/or participate in
the project, so that the hives to be studied can
be confirmed to meet the small-cell advocates'
definition of a "small-cell hive".

But no one seems to want to embrace this approach,
as it would force the issue, and result in data
that could not be rejected by the small-cell
community, if it turned out to be a less-than
glowing evaluation.

To summarize, no one wants to "put up", and we
certainly can't expect them to shut up.


----------



## ikeepbees (Mar 8, 2003)

Had to comment on this, but decided to put it in the tailgater section as it has nothing to do with Huber.


----------



## Dick Allen (Sep 4, 2004)

>My view of the phenomena itself is irrelevant.

It may or may not be irrelevant but you could still answer the question.  

>Like every other legitimate researcher on the planet

Maybe you could give us a list of all the papers on beekeeping you've published.


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

>> My view of the phenomena itself is irrelevant.

> It may or may not be irrelevant but you could
> still answer the question.

OK, my (personal) view is that it needs looking at,
as the mechanism for limiting varroa reproduction
should be "easy to see", and "easy to verify".
Something simple like a dozen ob hives, each with
a small one-comb colony, like the ones Wyatt
Mangum runs, and some introduced varroa would be
sufficient, as capping times and varroa reproduction
rates are well-known for the usual case.

> Maybe you could give us a list of all the papers
> on beekeeping you've published.

Well, I put up the Bee Culture stuff here:
http://bee-quick.com/reprints
and I'll get around the rest when time becomes
available.


----------



## power napper (Apr 2, 2005)

A lot of good reading everyone--I just wonder if the blind guy saw a UFO.


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

>>Maybe it can be summed up this way. A biologic beekeeper uses bee biology to justify his management and equipment choices. A non-biologic beekeeper uses his equipment to justify his understanding of bee behavior.

Well put, Dennis. Would that this were more widely understood.

And Michael, your patience and clarity is admirable. 

Some others: this forum is a most valuable resource. Could we keep the discussions friendly and focus more on sharing information and less on scoring points?


----------



## Fusion_power (Jan 14, 2005)

Empirical observation is sufficient to prove that something occurs. It is not sufficent to prove why it occurs.

In this case, it is easily proven that bees on small cell survive mite infestation better than bees on large cell. Just observe bees on small cell for several years without miticide treatments.

In part, I think Jim is burping about the statement that the survival is because of shorter development time. I could equally state that its due to genetics and that the bees on small cell have traits that control the mites. This again is easily proven empirically by moving small cell bees back onto large cell comb and observing their demise from mite related problems.


In a similar case, Brother Adam described tracheal mite tolerance as a mechanism that works even though we don't know exactly how it works. Regardless of understanding how it works, we can make use of it because it is empirically provable that tracheal mite tolerant bees survive and susceptible bees die.

I suspect that small cell comb will be a similar case. We don't have to understand why it works to make use of it. All that is necessary is to prove empirically that it DOES WORK.

How would you answer this Jim?

Fusion


----------



## Darrel Wright (Jun 30, 2004)

I think the discussion tends to drift towards the complex and particular needlessly, while we have a much more basic and simple statement that is so easily provable as to be grade-school stuff.

"In this case, it is easily proven that bees on small cell survive mite infestation better than bees on large cell. Just observe bees on small cell for several years without miticide treatments."

That is not easy to prove at all, as it takes years and an investment of time and bees. Why don't we start with baby-steps. Does the bee in a smaller cell (not the supposed genetic or regressed "small-cell bee," but ANY bee) emerge quicker than bees in large cells. This doesn't require special hives or "small cell bees" or anything else, just about a month of observation on natural comb (which anyone can see has a wide range of sizes.) If they do, then we go on from there, with a lot of mathematical wind at our backs. If they do, then it would be surprising in the extreme if this DIDN'T have an impact on varroa populations.


----------



## Barry Digman (May 21, 2003)

> Some others: this forum is a most valuable resource. Could we keep the discussions friendly and focus more on sharing information and less on scoring points?


I agree that things should be friendly, but I think it may be a relative term depending upon the circumstances and the participants.

Watching a couple of old plow horses headed back to the barn together as fast as their fat butts will move is one thing. Nothing particularly inspiring about that. Standing on the rail at Churchhill Downs when the best thoroughbreds in the world thunder past is a bit different. Sometimes it's worth it to give them their heads and stand back.


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> We don't have to understand why it works to make 
> use of it. All that is necessary is to prove 
> empirically that it DOES WORK.

OK, we are making progress. At least we agree
that some sort of proof would be an improvement
over where we are now.

But the way that one most often proves that
something "works" is by setting up conditions that
clearly contrast the mechanism at work against
identical conditions where the mechanism is
clearly NOT at work.

This reminds me of a friend who had a very old
Volvo P130. She would turn the key, it would
catch and then die. She would say a short
prayer, turn the key, and the car would start.

While she did not offer this as some sort of
proof of the power of prayer in enhancing the
performance of internal combustion engines,
I had the opportunity to start her car one
day, and went through the same process, but
without bothering God over such a trivial
matter. I also was able to start the car,
and I later fixed the sticky carb linkage
that was the source of the problem.

So you want the right answer to the right
question rather than the right answer to
the wrong question. 

Then we can say we've advanced the state of the
art a bit, but not until.


----------



## Darrel Wright (Jun 30, 2004)

And again we drift off...

Jim-- do regular bees in smaller cells emerge sooner or not? Focus like a laser beam. Channel spirits. Signal the UFO's. Do what you like. But humor me and answer that simple question. That is the right question for right now. What is the right answer?


----------



## Darrel Wright (Jun 30, 2004)

>> I begin to think your aim here is just to try
>> and goad others to support their claims by
>> getting them worked up.

>No, my goal is to convince people that they are
>capable of doing "publication-quality work"

> I begin to think your aim here is just to try
> and goad others to support their claims by
> getting them worked up.

No, my goal is to convince people that they are
capable of doing "publication-quality work"

Main Entry: 1goad
Pronunciation: 'gOd
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English gode, from Old English gAd spear, goad; akin to Langobardic gaida spear, and perhaps to Sanskrit hinoti he urges on
1 a : something that pricks like a goad : THORN b : something that urges or stimulates into action : SPUR
2 : a pointed rod used to urge on an animal
synonym see MOTIVE

You sir, are by your own admission a goad.


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi Jim and Everyone,

>OK, we are making progress. At least we agree
>that some sort of proof would be an improvement
>over where we are now.

Hummm.... I've done it for me, but not for 'we'.:>)) But then my responsibility only lies with me and not we.

I've counted natural mite fall from my small cell hives and posted the results. I've taken the same small cell bees, that have prospered without mite treatments, and put them back on clean, large cell comb, in the same beeyard with the remaining small cell colonies. They developed mite problems and required treatment at the end of the first season, while the small cell colonies, in the same yard needed none. I put those large cell bees back on small cell comb and they haven't required any treatment since! That's more than proof enough for me.

Now you know that I don't subscribe to much of the small cell theory about small cell bees and beekeeping. I wouldn't suggest that anyone actually regress their bees, but I would suggest that everyone get a small cell core in the broodnest. I know that bees, on small cell comb, are mite tolerant.

And I know that it isn't bee specific as all the varieties I've tried have performined with in the same range. That includes Strachan NWC and Russian, Weaver Buckfast and All American and Harbo, Miska Italian and Carniolan, Koehnen Italian, Lusbee, Bolling Caucasion, USDA Russian, Glenn Russian and Carniolan, Glenn-Spivak Italian and my own mutts. Sorry if I forgotten anyone, I think I might have.

It's interesting to note that most small cell beekeepers don't even bother discussing the mite situation once they get some bees on small cell. The information is out there. Instead, their discussions focus on bee selection, breeding, etc. Mites quickly become a non-issue. 

After four years on small cell, I filled a dumpster with mite related stuff, including all those files, reports, chems, etc. It's amazing how much time, and mental energy I've spent on the mite issue. And it's amazing how much time and energy are available for other beekeeping things, once the mites become a non-issue. I don't even glance at mite articles, etc. in the bee mags. That makes some of them really thin.

There are many things in my life that I utilize and learn to operate, with very little real understanding and proof of their workings. Yet, I know they do. Things like light, gravity, life, my body, internal combustion, the ways of a woman, small cell,etc.:>))) I'm just a beekeeper.

Half of the fun is finding out what works and the other half is finding out why. The whats are usually found through serendipity and the whys through lots of hard work.

Some Comments
Dennis
Thinking I like a good discussion, as I now, have more time. :>)))


----------



## ikeepbees (Mar 8, 2003)

Well said Dennis.


----------



## Darrel Wright (Jun 30, 2004)

O.K. I've done the experiment and I have nine results of each of larger and smaller cells. Of nine marked worker cells on the portion of natural comb with the smallest size (I haven't measured what sizes we are talking about, just the smallest and largest on a particular comb) the average emergence was 457 hours-with the lowest at 442 hours (observed laying and emergence on that one), very much at the lower end of Michael's observation. Nine marked cells on the largest part higher up on the comb averaged 486 hours with the shortest at 472 hours. I saw the actual laying on 11 of the 18 final cells, and the emergence on 4 of the 18. Bees seem to follow the "watched pot never boils" rule, as I sat there through four movies (a good 6 hours) and only saw those 4. 

Good enough results for me to actually set this up a little more precisely and try to document it. It begins to look pretty clear that cell size probably does affect emergence, at least with the climatic conditions I had going on at this time. I'm building a special semi-observation hive for the next test.

Am I wasting my time? Is it already accepted that cell size affects emergence? No one seems to answer when I ask this.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Am I wasting my time?

Not in my view.

>Is it already accepted that cell size affects emergence?

By me. But I've observed it. Apparently not by everyone.


----------



## ikeepbees (Mar 8, 2003)

Darrel,

I don't think you're wasting your time - at the very minimum you will have proven to yourself whether or not cell size affects the time it takes for an egg to turn into an adult bee.

I have already accepted this to be so because a few people that I trust have done what you are doing and shared the results with us. I do plan, however, to someday build an observation hive and observe this phenomenon myself because I think I would enjoy it!


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

And any timeline of Varroa reproduction will show you that there will be less Varroa in 457 hours than in 486 hours. That's 29 hours difference on the average on your test and we don't even know the size of the cells, just that they were smaller and larger. That amount of time is enough to make a significant difference in the number of Varroa.

Did you measure the time from the egg laid to capping?

Keep us posted on cell size etc.


----------



## Darrel Wright (Jun 30, 2004)

I did mean to measure the capping time but I wasn't diligent enough and I missed almost all of it--although I can say that the last three cells to be capped were all in the larger section.


----------



## Flewster (Nov 3, 2003)

Maybe I am just stupid because I am just an amature and not a big researcher but I found this artical and it is a REAL SCIENTIFIC paper written in a real SCIENTIFIC format that proves that smaller cell size equals LESS varroa..........

http://www.funpecrp.com.br/gmr/year2003/vol1-2/gmr0057_full_text.htm

So if MR Fischer and MR Bush would kindly comment on this I would appreciate it.....

Now mind you this was a SCIENTIFIC study that meets MR Fischer's critera for a SCIENTIFIC paper done by SCIENTISTS.......


----------



## Flewster (Nov 3, 2003)

not only does it state that it had better varroa resistance it also had better DISEASE resistance as well........that fits with the LUSBY's and what MR Bush has said all along............with all this SCIENTIFIC and not so scientific research at my disposal I think that there is enough PROOF to conclude in my mind that SMALL CELL is the way to help control varroa......but then again I am just a layman......


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> Now mind you this was a SCIENTIFIC study that 
> meets MR Fischer's critera for a SCIENTIFIC paper 
> done by SCIENTISTS.......

Gerald DeJong is a cool guy, and I would not
bother to question his work, as he is generally
"conservative" in his conclusions.

The problem is that he was looking at AHB.

AHB have slightly different maturation times
than the usual Apis mellifera to begin with,
one of the reasons for their "success" when
they move into an area.

While the work is valid, it would be a "stretch"
to apply the conclusions to non-AHB bees.

Let me repeat - I am not saying that the
phenomena does not exist with small-cell bees,
I am only saying that timing all the stages from
egg-laying to emergence, and then linking this
to lower varroa reproduction is still listed under
the "speculative" heading, as no one has gathered
good data. The task is merely tedious, not
difficult.

Dee Lusby has made so many different claims about
the impact of small cell that she has harmed her
own credibility in regard to the one claim that
might be true. That's a darned shame.

One thing I can confirm is that the Wooster Ohio
bee museum has several old foundation mills in
their collection, and these mills in fact did
make smaller celled-foundation than is now
common. I took my micrometer and measured them.
The hardware is still there for all and sundry
to examine at their leisure. So, it is true that
at least some old foundation was smaller than
it is now, for what that is worth. (Clearly,
these devices "wear", but not the basic diameter
of the cell, as you have steel compressing warm
wax, not a very serious "wear and abrasion" 
condition.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>AHB have slightly different maturation times
than the usual Apis mellifera to begin with,
one of the reasons for their "success" when
they move into an area.

AHB on natural sized cells have different maturation times than EHB on enlarged cells, yes. But that is irrelevant to the discussion of the emergence times of small cell European honey bees compared to small cell AHB. I'm betting they will be identical.

>While the work is valid, it would be a "stretch"
to apply the conclusions to non-AHB bees.

Not much of a stretch if you bother to measure times to emergence for EHB on natural sized cells.

Basically this study was simply taking small cell AHB and putting them on large cell and measuring how many Varroa infested the cells. The only thing chaging was cell size and the thing being measured was Varroa infestation of the cell before it was capped. Cell size was the only variable. Do you really think the Varroa cared if they were AHB when the moved into the cell? The point of the study is that less varroa infest the smaller cells as opposed to the larger cells. And that's only a small part of this. The other part is the number (from the ones that DID infest the cells) of offspring they produced.

>Clearly,
these devices "wear", but not the basic diameter
of the cell, as you have steel compressing warm
wax, not a very serious "wear and abrasion" 
condition.

And even if there was a lot of wear and abrasion the measurement across 10 cells is not going to change at all, only the thickness of the cell wall or the depth of the bottom of the cell.

I have plenty of old books, ABC XYZ of Beeculture etc. that have cell size measurements for foundation in them. But the existence of the actual mills does corroborate those.


----------



## Flewster (Nov 3, 2003)

>The problem is that he was looking at AHB.

>AHB have slightly different maturation times
>than the usual Apis mellifera to begin with,
>one of the reasons for their "success" when
>they move into an area.

Why do they have different maturation times? Is it because they build small cells (4.6-4.9mm) for their brood? 

IF your saying that then you yourself just said that smaller cells equal less time to maturation which equals less varroa reproduction........so break that down..........small cell bees equal less varroa reproduction.........which can equal no treatments for varroa since they are at a stable relationship with the bees...........

OH THANK YOU MR FISCHER FOR ANSWERING THAT QUESTION ON THE SMALL CELL DEBATE YOURSELF.......BECAUSE COMING FROM SUCH A NOTABLE PERSON AS YOURSELF NOW MAKES IT TRUE......WOOOOOHOOOOOO


----------



## Flewster (Nov 3, 2003)

Just a quick point of this study is this short exerp from it....

"As varroa is more prevalent in the larger European-sized brood cells than in the naturally built Africanized worker brood cells, the use of unnaturally large comb cell size should be re-examined in the light of its effect on parasite levels. Varroas preference for larger comb cells could be a contributing factor to the 60% higher infestation rates of adult bees that was found in apiary colonies, which contain both Italian- and Africanized-sized comb, compared to feral Africanized colonies, with only natural-sized Africanized comb, examined in the same region in Brazil (Gonçalves et al., 1982)."


----------



## Darrel Wright (Jun 30, 2004)

Jim seems to be carefully ignoring the question of whether or not european bees emerge in shorter times in small cells. It doesn't matter how directly you ask him, he won't answer anything beyond "it needs to be looked at." I thought so too, so I did. I think his careful avoidance is an attempt to get others to do the same as I did...that is, to goad them.


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> Jim seems to be carefully ignoring the question...

No, just ignoring the thread itself. Sorry about that.









> to goad them

Certainly not.
I don't play such games, as some people are
motivated to do such work, and some never will be
no matter what outside influences are imposed.

If you read what has been posted, I think you can
see that what is needed has not (yet) been done.

What is needed is to track individual eggs from
the exact time each is laid until the time that
each individual bee emerges, and noting the time
of things like capping. (Clearly, this work
screams for a digital camera with a timer taking
photos at regular intervals.)

Without this level of detail, you don't really
know anything, do you?

So, as to the question, they don't know, and
I don't know. The rest is an issue of belief,
one that I cannot address due to the usual lack
of objective metrics and stable criteria.


----------



## ikeepbees (Mar 8, 2003)

Darrel,

A loose translation of the above:

"While ignoring this thread, I read in the thread that there are beekeepers that believe what they see with their own eyes, even though they have not cleared said observations through me. These people are intellectually inferior to me."


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

An interpretation of the above translation:

"I am perfectly willing to insult others whom
I have never met, and put words in their mouth
that are hurtful, all to advance an opinion
about something that would simpler and easier
to test. I contribute insults rather than 
something of value, as I have nothing of value 
to offer, yet I hold disdain for the simple 
statement "we don't know yet", and anyone who
disagrees with me.

A summary of the translation:

"I am unable to engage in adult conversation,
so I will toss around insults, as that is easier."

To summarize the summary of the translation:

"I am a mouse, studying to be a rat."


----------



## ikeepbees (Mar 8, 2003)

Wow, Jim,

Not sure why my understanding of what you said was insulting to you. Obviously I misunderstood your meaning. I'm pretty sure I didn't do anything as uncivil as implying that you may be a mouse, or indicate that you may be unable to engage in adult conversation. 

That would have been very impolite, especially since I "have never met" you. 

Maybe you could improve my understanding of your comments.

I am not sure that you "disagree with me", so you will have to guess again as to the reason for my horrid behavior.

As to "tossing around insults", well throw in a good dose of condescension, reread your posts over the last couple of years, and take a look in the mirror.

Hello, pot! I'm the kettle!


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> Not sure why my understanding of what you said 
> was insulting to you.

Yeah, right.









> Maybe you could improve my understanding of 
> your comments.

Its easy - in regard to capping times and
emergence times, I don't know, and neither
do you, or anyone else. We don't have good
data yet. I'm sorry if my refusal to drink
the Kool-Aid on this issue conflicts with your
need to believe in something or other.

It is unfortunate that you made your presumptuous
and unsolicited attempt to "translate" a very
clear and simple response to a question asked by
someone else, but don't try to now pretend that
you had some intent other than being insulting.

> ...condescension...

Many folks reading these posts are new to the
craft, so we all need to remember that we need
to explain what we are talking about just a
little more. If you view doing that as being
"condescending", that's a personal problem. 
I can't help you with that.

Gotta put the Palm away now, as it takes two
hands to pull supers, and I'm going to be busy
doing that until dark today.


----------



## ikeepbees (Mar 8, 2003)

> We don't have good
> data yet.


Who is we, and how do you know this?



> I'm sorry if my refusal to drink
> the Kool-Aid on this issue conflicts with your
> need to believe in something or other.


Does calling a belief in something "drinking Kool-Aid" count as explaining "just a little more", or is it just plain condescending? And I have no need to believe in small cell theory or even in "something or other", so your refusal to "drink the Kool-Aid" conflicts with nothing at all.

And no pretending at all Jim - my only intent was to let you know how your posts come across. That is exactly what I wrote, nothing more, nothing less. I am not the only person who has pointed out how your posts come across. If finding out how your posts sound to me is insulting to you, "that's a personal problem. I can't help you with that."

And in all seriousness, best of luck with your harvesting.


----------



## indypartridge (Nov 18, 2004)

As a newbee I've followed this thread with interest. This past Sat. (Jun 25) we had our summer meeting (IN State Beekeepers Assn) and our guest speaker was Dr. Jamie Ellis from Univ.GA. Dr. Ellis' main (morning) topic was SHB, but spoke in the afternoon on the topic of IPM.

With respect to this thread, I specifically asked Dr. Ellis an open-ended question about small cell and his thoughts concerning its effectiveness with Varroa.

Summarizing his response, he thought small cell was definitely the way to go because of the shorter brood cycle times which disrupt varroa reproduction. In agreement with Mr. Fischer, he noted that there hasn't been serious, hard-core scientific studies to confirm this, but he felt that the amount of anecdotal and informal studies clearly pointed to shorter emergence times. He noted that even if the reduced times are only about 6 hours, it would be enough to mess up the Varroa cycles. He added that this is being studied and it is only a matter of time before there are published results.


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi Guys,

I haven't been back to this topic for awhile. And it's quite surprising how the topic has changed! I went back and reviewed the old posts to see what happened. And sadly enough, I see where I have contributed to this mess.

Sometimes, I feel just like a little kid, back in school, on the playground. And sometimes I even act like one!

Sorry Guys
Dennis


----------



## clintonbemrose (Oct 23, 2001)

"I am perfectly willing to insult others whom
I have never met, and put words in their mouth
that are hurtful, all to advance an opinion
about something that would simpler and easier
to test. I contribute insults rather than
something of value, as I have nothing of value
to offer, yet I hold disdain for the simple
statement "we don't know yet", and anyone who
disagrees with me.

A summary of the translation:

"I am unable to engage in adult conversation,
so I will toss around insults, as that is easier."

To summarize the summary of the translation:

"I am a mouse, studying to be a rat."
The above sais I do believe that if you do not have any thing constructive to say and not to tear some one down Go be a rat somewhere else. This board is to help others that need or want the help not to rant and rave to try and prove that you are better than all here. I will not argue with Jim Fisher but I can recomend SUSPENSION from this board if the "RAT" continues to degrade this board. The reasons many good people leave the board is because of the "RAT" comments. We do not need people such as this'
MY thoughts on the subject.
Clint


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> The above sais I do believe that if you do not 
> have any thing constructive to say not to 
> tear some one down Go be a rat somewhere else.

Exactly.

> I can recomend SUSPENSION

I would not support that. Education is the
solution. People can't be educated if they
are shunned, expelled, or whatever. There
is not reason to silence anyone except a
"spammer".


----------



## clintonbemrose (Oct 23, 2001)

That still does not give you the right to be so absusive to others. I belive YOU to be a SPAMMER doing this. I do agree on the education part but who gave you the right to be so "RAT" like?
Education is good but NOT the way your trying to do it. 
Clint


----------



## BULLSEYE BILL (Oct 2, 2002)

Hey, Jim! Clint was talking about suspending YOU!

If you wern't "the Bee-Quick guy who gets published in the bee mags now and again" you'd been gone long ago. I've seen people tossed for less antagonizing than you do.


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> Hey, Jim! Clint was talking about suspending YOU!

I can't imagine why.
Feel free to propose it to the powers that be,
but there are no grounds for even suggesting it.

Please re-read indypartridge's comments posted
June 27th - she quotes someone who does NOT
bother to participate in this list, and thereby
avoids the slings and arrows, yet says exactly
what I've said. Funny how no one gets all hot
and bothered when Jamie Ellis says exactly what
I've been saying.

> I've seen people tossed for less antagonizing 
> than you do.

The only reason why something may seem
"antagonizing", is that it is a rhetorical
argument that defies refutation.









Its is a sad, but fairly recent (post 1994)
development on the internet that so large
of a percentage of the people using the networks
can't seem to comprehend the difference between
disagreeing and being disagreeable.

Post AOL/Compuserve, and the opening of the
net to the general public, people stared to
band together into small tribes of like-minded
individuals, shunning those who might offer
alternative viewpoints.

Those of us who made a living patching up
the leaky pipes of "the net" for a quarter
century were not happy at all with this. In
horror, we realized that we had created networks
and software that facilitated alienation,
sometimes hatred between people.

So much for the whole "global village" thing.  

> If you wern't... you'd been gone long ago.

Sorry, but that's a very personal attack, both
on the integrity of the folks who moderate, and
to a lesser extent, upon me.

You first appear to accuse whoever moderates
the various groups of some sort of favoritism
that certainly does not exist, and you second
presume to both create a policy that simply
does not exist, and accuse me of violating it.

The solution is simple - if you can't tolerate
rebuttal, don't dish out flat statements as if
they were engraved in stone, moreso when they
might encourage new beekeepers to adopt practices
that could endanger their bees, and cause yet
another person to give up the craft.

In short, yeah I'm a pragmatic hard-nose, but I
don't hold the slightest animosity towards anyone.
If you get angry, that's only because you can't
see me grinning as I type.

I'd LOVE to see someone prove that any random
bee, when downsized to "small cell", naturally
frustrates varroa reproduction. Whoever does
it will become famous, perhaps rich from all
the speaking engagements. I merely asked for
volunteers.

So, who wants to be famous, perhaps rich?
Anyone?

Remember, I said I'd help tweak it up, and
help to get it published in a real
peer-reviewed journal where it will be blessed
as Science with a capital "S". (I'd prefer
to get in the "Journal of Economic Entomology",
as that is where it would "fit" best.)


----------



## BULLSEYE BILL (Oct 2, 2002)

>Sorry, but that's a very personal attack, both
on the integrity of the folks who moderate, and
to a lesser extent, upon me.

Perhaps I should appoligize, I certainly did not mean it to be a personal attack, just a personal observation that I am sure is seen by many others here.

>You first appear to accuse whoever moderates
the various groups of some sort of favoritism
that certainly does not exist, and you second
presume to both create a policy that simply
does not exist, and accuse me of violating it.

Perhaps we should re-read the rules of conduct?

"You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use the BeeSource Bulletin Board to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law. You agree to be civil. You agree not to post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or by BeeSource.com."


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> You agree, through your use of this service...

Don't be shy now, if you are going to CONTINUE
to make accusations, at least be specific.









Perhaps you'd rather use the "private message"
thingy, as such things are best taken offline
so as to not to bore others. Better yet,
e-mail me at any of:

jfischer at supercollider dot com
bee-quick at bee-quick dot com
james dot fischer at gmail dot com


----------



## drobbins (Jun 1, 2005)

Hey Jim,

what's this supercollider business?
I thought they killed that 10 years ago.
Did you take it over or something??

Dave


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> what's this supercollider business?
> Did you take it over or something??

No, I inherited it by consensus.

Fair warning!
*Boring story with 0% bee content below!*

When the superconducting supercollider was first
proposed, very few scientists were in favor of it.
It would provide limited value (proving things
that were already generally agreed to HAVE to be
true), at a cost that rivaled the defense budget.
Lots MORE good science could be done by spending
the tiny amounts of money spent on science
elsewhere. (Cheaper to let CERN build theirs,
and go over there and use the toy if we wanted
to, which was exactly what ended up happening.)

There were lots and lots of letters, studies,
and impassioned pleas written. I wrote one
myself. At the time I was at AT&T Bell Labs,
so we put up a gopher server (this was long
before html and "the web") as a central
repository for information both "for" and
"against". A library of sorts. This allowed
everyone to "publish" their own views without
flooding the journals with "letters", and
turning the journals into something akin to
a Yahoo Group, Bee-L, or alt.politics.talk
on UseNet.

So, think of "BeeSource", except everyone
wearing a white lab coat. There was not
much back-and-forth discussion, but there
was lots of very good analysis.

We called the machine "supercollider", for
obvious reasons. When GW Bush took office,
and started people digging a deep circular
ditch in his home state, AT&T legal asked
me to get it out of the research.att.com
domain and put the machine in its own domain, 
as they did not want to risk having AT&T
being excluded from bidding on bits of the 
project, or viewed as "disloyal" to the 
stated goals of the administration.

Hence, "supercollider.com"

When I left the Labs to become a beekeeper
and live in the nether regions, AT&T asked
me to "please take THAT domain with you",
so I created "The Information Supercollider",
which (at the time) was the most powerful
supercomputer owned by a private individual,
a loosely-coupled array of DEC PDP-11/70s,
AT&T 3B20s, and Pyramid array processors
connected with fiber channel.
(Yeah, I'm a pack rat about processing power)

The concept was simple - take some data, and
accelerate it to nearly the speed of light,
and bang it against other data, so that only
truth survives the collision.









What paid the bills was work for radio
astronomers, take gigs and gigs of 1s and 0s,
and make pretty pictures. Sort of a Photomat
for pictures of the "deepest portions of the sky".

Nowadays, anyone can rack and stack PCs or Macs,
load up some Beowulf Cluster software, and
be limited only by their floor space and
electric bill. Many colleges have impressive
arrays, even some high schools have more gflops
than they know what to do with.

But its been my e-mail address for soooo long,
I'll keep the domain, even if I end up scrapping
the current array (Sun Sparc servers, bought 
for pennies on the dollar after the dot com crash).

Aren't you SO glad you asked?


----------



## Dick Allen (Sep 4, 2004)

>Boring story with 0% bee content below!

Well, that part was right. I'm not sure I actually believe much of the rest of it, however......


----------



## drobbins (Jun 1, 2005)

Jim,

actually it is kinda an interesting story
at the time they were argueing about putting it in GW's backyard or mine. There was talk of putting in here in NC.

As for honkin big machines, I put together a Beowulf cluster back then with ~30 pentium PC's.
(back when 100MHz was screamin)
We thought it was awesome. Used it to design camshafts for NASCAR racecars for GM. Lot's of gigaflops/$  
We were college students
No white coats
holey jeans, ratty tee-shirts and long hair  

Dave


----------



## Star G (Mar 8, 2005)

> Hey, Jim! Clint was talking about suspending YOU!

>>I can't imagine why.
>>Feel free to propose it to the powers that be,
but there are no grounds for even suggesting it.

And, there, folks, you have it in a nutshell. You can't help someone who won't acknowledge that they have a problem.

Too bad this thread deteriorated so from its original subject.

Mr. Bush, if you haven't totally abandoned this thread, I would like to say I have enjoyed reading of your experiments and observations. And also those of the posters who have addressed the issue.

Mr. Bemrose, I have to say I agree entirely with your assessment. I think anyone reading in this forum for a week or so would quickly recognize that.

Meanwhile, I wonder if there isn't some space where those of us who want to read about and share with others our studying of the honeybees might be able to do so without the static interference of individuals with obvious unaddressed personal issues which only detract from the discussion at hand. Too many of the adult discussions in this forum are being constantly interrupted by a child screaming for attention and, if it isn't given, dropping a load of his **** in the middle of the room where the discussion is being held.


----------



## guatebee (Nov 15, 2004)

This is an open invitation to join back to the original topic.
Personally, I do beleive that shorter emergence of the adult bees can have a detrimental effect on mites. Once yhe bee emerges, there is no longer any "protection or food for the maturing mites". I would like to compare it to uncapping the brood cells one or 1.5 days earlier: I bet the bees would be unable to hatch !!

There is one point which I have not seen on this thread: mites love drone brood more than worker brood. Do small cell bees also make drone cells smaller? Are small cell drones also hatching sooner?


----------



## Phoenix (May 26, 2004)

> Do small cell bees also make drone cells smaller? Are small cell drones also hatching sooner?


I have not seen many drones the size of the Hindenburgh lately, but generally speaking, from my experience with retrogressed bees they still make drones the same size as they did on foundation of 5.4mm. But the size of my drones do vary a great deal. I'm still trying to figure out what size it is that triggers the queen to lay a drone in a particular cell. Queens vary a great deal in size and I'm trying to study two hives of different size queens to evaluate whether or not the size of the queen determines how far she can fit her abdomen in a cell and whether or not this is a deciding factor on her choice to deposit a fertilized egg or not.

Neither queen has a problem laying brood in cells as small as 4.4 to 4.6mm, but I can't tell yet what the size is of the smallest drone cell.

Yes the drone cells of smaller sizes are hatching sooner, but again, the size of these cells vary a great deal, and the larger cells do take longer for the drone to hatch out.


----------



## jalal (Sep 2, 2004)

i think it has to do with their life cycle and brood's devolopment dates

of course i'm tired today and i could be crapping out my mouth


----------



## BULLSEYE BILL (Oct 2, 2002)

I will see some drones laid in my PermaComb (5.1mm) I can't tell you if they actully hatch. The majority of the drones are normal size and are hatched from cells drawn inbetween the frames.


----------



## jalal (Sep 2, 2004)

but generally the cell size dictates the length of time it takes the bee from cocoon to emerge

still crapping out my face here


----------



## BULLSEYE BILL (Oct 2, 2002)

Sorry I can't tell you the length of time it takes for hatching, but I can tell you that the 5.1 cell size hives have less mites than the hives with standard foundation just by reading my trays in the fall.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Do small cell bees also make drone cells smaller? Are small cell drones also hatching sooner? 

From my observation SOME of the drone brood in small cell is LARGER and some is SMALLER. I have no idea why, but there seems to be more variety of sizes. But to be honest most of my bees aren't really small cell, but rather natural cell, so the worker cells vary in size also.

I have not tried to measure capping and emergence times on different sized drone cells, but I would expect they would be simlar to the differences in worker brood e.g. that the smaller ones would emerge earlier and the larger ones later.


----------



## Scot Mc Pherson (Oct 12, 2001)

Jim,
Bees build in 3/4/5 proportions. Members of different sub-castes tend to work together, so bees of smallest size tend to work on projects with other bees of the same sizes. If these bees build drone cells, they will be 4/3rds the size of their worker cells.

If you want to test this you can use a sift to filter out the different sizes of bees and hive them. See what happens. This has already been done by several people, and maybe they published maybe they didn't, but I have done a little of this checking for fun and its about right on. If you can keep the bees from drifting back, you get combs of different sizes depending on what you have in each hive, and its a consistent 3/4/5 proportion.

I don't want to hear any gruff until you try it yourself. No one here has the wind at their back and no one is required to publish and no one is required to satisfy your particular needs. If you want verification they go ahead and verify it for yourself. Maybe its enough for each of us that "we see xyz, and so do 5 other people I know" if good enough. You mgith want to make that more like 10 people, or 100 because there are tons of people here and on other lists that will tell you to shove it simply because you require excellence in data structures and editting which really has nothing to do with beekeeping nor does it interest most beekeepers to keep tables of events. It bores the heck out of me just thinking about it.

I know this, my hives are all natural cell. I lost a total of 3 hives in 3 years now, and none were due to varoa as either direct result or subcumming to 2ndary diseases that resulted from varroa. They were all absconds because of wax or beetle.

All of my hives buildup so strong I can't afford the lumber to split them up as often as I would like.

As far as comb width is concerned. I use 32mm topbars. The combs cheat here and there, but its repairable from a long term standpoint. They cheat larger than 32mm because they build honey at the top of the comb, when they are done building honey and start building brood below, the combs are most visibly narrower. If I install combs at the earliest opportunity in spring, they build the combs perfectly without cheating larger. The cheat gets bigger as the season goes on and they are storing more honey in the tops of the topbar combs.

You don't need documentation to see it yoruself, just do it. Stop whining and just do it. Forget not having time, you have time enough to complain and keep this thread and others going to months, so you must have time for something if you get off of here, off of your butt and out in the beeyard and build some hives and try things out yourself. I don't care what you document, just try it and get a feel for it. Learning how to feel your bees will help you a lot more than reading numbers. I know my bees, I know what to expect from each hive, not because I documented it but because I know my bees and I can feel them as I approach. I know when they are going to be heavy with honey or nastier than ordinary simply because I feel and pay attention to it, not because I documented it.


----------



## Scot Mc Pherson (Oct 12, 2001)

of course 32mm in brood nest, not honey pot.


----------



## MichaelW (Jun 1, 2005)

Just read through the tread, I didn't know what I was missing! I think the "crossfire" style brought out some very good information and brought a good variety of individuals to the debate, despite some unnecessary harsh words. I think the freedom to be harsh and not kicked off in the end sometimes contributes to debate more than it hinders it.

From what I have read from the many contributers of this subject, a new beekeeper, or beek looking to expand would be foolish to not give small cell or natural cell a try. In the case of natural cell all you've got to loose is your chance to contribute your money to makers of foundation. For large scale beekeepers I can understand a reluctance to invest time into changeing over and would possibly require more "proof". Of course if you want something done you've got to do it yourself. I see the small cell propnents doing this to a degree acceptable to themselves and enough for me to try. Plus there is the AHB study. By not looking seriously at it and changeing over if your observations suggest it, you risk being behind the times, still bateling mites, when the studies finally get published. Again, I enjoyed the debate, a good devils advocate can bring infomation out.

just my two cents

p.s. We got the super collider in Oak Ridge. nya, nya!


----------



## ikeepbees (Mar 8, 2003)

Scott,

I enjoyed your post.

Could you tell us how many hives you had during the three years in which you lost three hives?

I'd also like to know if you did anything besides use natural cell comb in your hives. Drugs, mite treatments, etc?

And are these TBH's or Langstroth hives?

Thanks.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

BTW I got the rest of Huber's book posted. It's here:

http://www.bushfarms.com/huber.htm


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

----------- From previous post by me with corrective statements for Naturebee.

"The worm of workers passes three days in the egg, five in the vermicular state, and then the bees close up its cell with a wax covering. The worm-now begins spinning its cocoon, in which operation thirty-fix hours are consumed. In three days, it changes to a nymph, and passes six days in this form. It is only on the twentieth day of its existence, counting from the moment the egg is laid, that it attains the fly sate." 

François Huber, 4 September 1791. From the 1806 edition of "New Observations on the Natural History of Bees" page 151 

These are probably not Huber's errors but the translators, but still need to be corrected lest you be led astray by outdated erroneous information. Corrective statements: 

The "worm" state is not the correct term. It should be larva. 

The "vermicular" state should also be corrected to "larva"

"Nymph" is also not the correct term, it should be pupa.

"Fly" is also not the correct term, it should be adult.

Hope no one got confused.


----------



## Axtmann (Dec 29, 2002)

François Huber (July2, 1750  December 22, 1831) was a Swiss naturalist. 
He was born at Geneva, of a family which had already made its mark in the literary and scientific world.

François Huber was only fifteen years old when he began to suffer from a disease which gradually resulted in total blindness; but, with the aid of his wife, Marie Aimée Lullin, and of his servant, François Burnens, he was able to carry out investigations that laid the foundations of a scientific knowledge of the life history of the honey bee.

Michael I think the translator dint made mistakes. During this time they didt know there was larva or pupa. In my book from this time they always talking about worms. It was also unkown that are drones in the hive. Scientists talked about bees, a king and there are bumblebees also in each hive without sting. [Memoires de l Academie Royale des Scienes, Paris annee 1712] 
There was a big development during the 1700th. Till 1753 they are talking about bee, king and bumblebee and 20 year later they know there are bees, a queen and drones.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Michael I think the translator dint made mistakes. During this time they didt know there was larva or pupa.

Huber did, his name were just translated thus. He specified exactly how many days in what state and did much research on how they spin the cocoon etc.

>In my book from this time they always talking about worms. It was also unkown that are drones in the hive.

Drones and how the queen was mated or eggs got fertilized were one of his main research topics and he was the first to get it right on all counts. That drones were from unfertilized eggs, that a queen only mates during brief period. The the drone loses his member in the process. That mating takes place outside the hive in flight. That an unmated queen would lay only drones.

>Scientists talked about bees, a king and there are bumblebees also in each hive without sting. [Memoires de l Academie Royale des Scienes, Paris annee 1712] 

But not Huber. It was a queen from the begining to the end of the book and his observations were all based on careful, repeated experiments.

>There was a big development during the 1700th. Till 1753 they are talking about bee, king and bumblebee and 20 year later they know there are bees, a queen and drones. 

They were already to bees, queens and drones when Huber started, but they didn't not know how the eggs were fertilized, how the queen mated, that unmated queens laid only drones, etc. etc. etc.

Try reading Huber and you'll only find a few places where his speculation (which he identifies as such) is a bit off or he states something he observed many times as "always" when we now know it's "usually". Other than that I don't think you'll find errors. It is the first book on the Natural History of Bee based on facts.


----------



## JBJ (Jan 27, 2005)

Wow, just burned a chunk of time reading this entire thread. It seems to me that this discussion is the whole nature vs. nurture debate all over again. The truth is the environment (cell size, temperature etc.) interplays with the genetic component. Cell size could be considered primarily a genetic component in a wild hive left to its own devises; not necessarily so in managed hives. Some bees are hard wired to make certain ranges of cell sizes under given conditions and they will have certain ranges of egg to adult cycle periods depending on genetics and local conditions. I would wager that it is possible to breed lines of resistant bees that prefer one size range where another line tends to use a larger range. A look at several species of Apis, including dorsata, cerana, and the various mellifera, reveals a range of cell sizes and susceptibility to a variety Varroa species. Sympatric populations of dorsata and cerana reveal that there are many possibilities for mite resistance. The two species have wildly different cell sizes and no problems with Varroa. Varroa has been found in dorsata colony debris, but not in cells suggesting that it cannot reproduce in the large cells of these large bees. Mite resistance/tolerance is bound to have many components besides cell size. It could be possible to produce a line of mellifera that has a large cell size and a short emergence cycle or some other resistance/tolerance mechanism. Just some thoughts to add to the discussion.
JBJ


----------



## merops_apiaster (Jul 16, 2005)

JBJ, perhaps that bee could be tha Apis Mellifera capensis (Southafrica), has a 3 days shorter emergency cicle. But, is that bee free of varroa?


----------

