# Small cell testing



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi Guys,

How many on the list believe that if Dr. Delaplane does an honest test of small cell against large cell with controls and the results show small cell did just what those who have tried said, that Bob Harrison and Jim Fiscer would believe it?

Mine would be the first no vote and .......

Nah! if my beekeeping were subject to the whims of the public opinion, I would probably have to kill those stinging, venomous pests and eat corn syrup!

But I'm thankful that it's not. Because no matter how Bob or Jim or Keith or Dee or the BWrangler or anyone else votes, the votes cast by my bees outnumber them all ;>)

What do your bees say?

Regards
Dennis

[ October 11, 2006, 07:02 PM: Message edited by: D. Murrell ]


----------



## drobbins (Jun 1, 2005)

Bob

with all due respect, I must say that the question that pop's into my mind is
"If Dr DelaPlane did a study to validate the results Bob Harrison claims in his bee yards, and the results indicate Bob has been drinking to much 'kool-aid', would you decide that everything you've seen in your yards was wrong??"
of course not
who cares to have researchers validate results we see in our own bees?
we want them to show us something new
you're the one who said
>In truth I trust the testing I do MYSELF the most!
do you expect something else from others??
obviously if Dr DelaPlane found SC to be smoke and mirrors it would cause people to stand back and scratch their head, but give up??
what would you do??

Dave

[edit] sorry, I spelled kool-aid wrong








it's 60's thing

[ October 11, 2006, 07:14 PM: Message edited by: drobbins ]


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi Guys,

Just another thought. Remember when Gilligan made himself a set of wings and was flying around the island. The Skipper saw him flying and asked what he was doing? Gilligan said, flying. And the Skipper said you can't fly! Gilligan said, I can't? The Skipper said, no! And Gilligan promptly fell from the sky.

So, if such a test doesn't work out in favor of small cell. Please don't tell me or my bees might die! :>)))))))

Regards
Dennis
Come on! Even the science types watched Gilligan Island. The Professor was their role model, right?

[ October 11, 2006, 07:16 PM: Message edited by: D. Murrell ]


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--How many on the list believe that if Dr. Delaplane does an honest test of small cell against large cell,,,,--(Rob)

Would be good to have an expert small cell person on hand. This because it would take Keith several years of learning curve with regressing and stabilization, causing the small cell group to suffer.


----------



## drobbins (Jun 1, 2005)

>Please don't tell me or my bees might die! :>)))))))

no Dennis, they're gonna tell you your bee's have been dead for several years, you just failed to notice it









Dave


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi Guys,

I am interested in the observations and results of any small cell experience, Keith D's included.

And even Bob H's. Come on Bob, we've been talking about this since 1999! You could have tested it for yourself at least three different times by now!

For those of us who have put it to the test, most have all the evidence they need that it works. 

What would really be interesting, would be to get a detailed scoop on why it works. Now, that would get the attention of even the most jaded small cell type beekeeper. Most of us have our own ideas why much to the amusement of some, and great consternation of others ;>). But none of the why's have really been tested.

Regards
Dennis

[ October 11, 2006, 09:03 PM: Message edited by: D. Murrell ]


----------



## Bob Harrison (Mar 15, 2005)

The only testing which was ever done by researchers was done in Belgium by H. Ramon and O. Van Laere.

You can find the research on pages 521-529 of the book Asian Apiculture. 

I would be happy to try and answer questions about the study as I have got a copy of the book.


The study was very well done by the entomology department. 

In fact none of the test colonies were allowed to raise drone comb.

The test compared only varroa in worker brood in small cell & large cell.

I don't believe even Delaplane would go to the trouble of removing drone brood from the testing.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Bob -

I guess you walked right into that one. Remember, it's not those of us who are already using SC that need the approval/blessing/say so/acceptance of a researcher to put our minds at ease, it would be primarily for you and Jim. I'd get after Keith and find out why he hasn't told you about this test.

> The test compared only varroa in worker brood in small cell & large cell.

If that's all that was tested for, I'm sorry, another narrow study in my book. When will someone test whole colony performance against another? The mites get all the attention, it just isn't fair!! Mites, mites, mites, mites, mites! I'm interested in bees, bees, bees, bees, bees.

- Barry


----------



## wade (Apr 1, 2006)

What an idiotic poll.


----------



## MichaelW (Jun 1, 2005)

> The only testing which was ever done by researchers was done in Belgium by H. Ramon and O. Van Laere.
> 
> You can find the research on pages 521-529 of the book Asian Apiculture.


Mr. Harrison,
I enjoy and learn from your posts and articles, but I'm going to have to call you on this one!








I have the article you are refering to setting in front of me. We where just recently discussing it in another thread. Mr. Drobbins is the only person involved in the discussion that contacted me to actually READ the heatedly discussed article. The offer still stands if anyone is interesed. Here are two significant points about that article. 

1.The study looked at cell sizes of
800 cells/dm2 (normal cell size) = 5.375mm
640 cells/dm2 (enlarged cell size) = 5.96mm
Note, "small cells" where not a part of this test.

2. Due to a delay in the "arresting period" in the enlarged cells, the period larvae where infested by varroa was 2 hrs shorter in the enlarged cells than the normal cells. This likely made the recorded, significant reduction in varroa populations.

Point #2 tells me that reduceing the peroid varroa can invade brood cells by at least 2 hours will reduce varroa populations. If cell sizes around 4.9mm reduce capping times (as is proposed) to a greater amount than any possible lenghthening effect in the "arresting peroid", small cell will have a benificial effect, based on this study.

I have looked long and hard with the most powerful databases my university offers and have found zero published research articles that looks specifically at european colonies with varroa and small cell in the range of 4.9mm and compares that with 5.4mm range. The one that comes (pitifully) the closest didn't get their 4.9mm drawn out properly. If anyone does have an article thats relevant, I would really like to see it. A reference citation should be enough for me to find it.

A relevant study is just a matter of time, because it would be so very easy. Likely its been done but not published for one reason or another. I take beekeeper observations seriously, but there is nothing like a well done reserach experiment to obtain accurate data to help determine why something does or does not work. 

Barry,
I'm not convicned that an experiment that only looks at small cell worker brood and varroa compared to large cell worker brood and varroa should not give some MEASURABLE benefit. If no measurable benifit is recorded in the small brood cells, then it would be appropriate to move on to look at the bigger "whole hive" picture. Even this basic look has not been published as far as I'm aware. Clearly there is enough interest to get any possible experiment that failed to show a "measureable benifit" published. If such a specific test shows a measureable benifit, but not enough for colony survival, then you have a component in an IPM strategy.

[ October 12, 2006, 10:21 AM: Message edited by: MichaelW ]


----------



## Bob Harrison (Mar 15, 2005)

Michael,
Like I said the ONLY study to even look at cell size is the study I posted. Whats the problem?

Where in my post do I say what the cell sizes tested were? 

When Keith Delaplane was doing research for his " Mites of the Honey Bee" book Keith could only find one study done on cell size . The above study.

There are no others ever done by researchers.

Then comes the Norway study which is interesting but flawed *by research standards*.

So now we have got two. (kinda)

The next point I want all you 49'ers to listen carefully to. 4.9 mm is the wrong cell size for my area of Missouri! Ask Dee Lusby! Look at our posts on BEE-L.

The correct cell size for my area is 5.1mm. Cell size changes for different locations (according to Dee)

You small cell theory people come up with some kind of concrete proof about your theory and then maybe the *beekeeping community* will give you the credit you think you deserve. 

Every person which wants to use small cell theory is welcome to in my book. Go for it! Might be something to it!

You people only get flack when you hold up an unproven hypothesis as fact. 

Small cell really is an unproven hypothesis is it not? Come on be honest.

Just because a few beekeepers say it so does not make it so in the eyes of most beekeepers. 

I stood by and quietly laughed when the internet was full of beekeepers saying tracheal mites could be cured by placing "Smith Brothers menthol cough drops" in hives.


----------



## Bob Harrison (Mar 15, 2005)

Dennis,
Yes we did have a big discussion on BEE-L in 1999 about small cell. 

I think if you go back and look you will see I was never a big small cell critic but did not see enough proof of small cell being the cure all to expend the amount of funds and labor needed to invest in new comb and regress the operation.

I could have tested but decided to do large scale Russian bee testing instead.

When Dee pointed out that the correct cell size for my area was 5.1mm and I was using 5.2 mm. pierco plastic I decided One mm was not enough difference (in my opinion) to return to wax wired foundation ( plastic 4.9mm was not available).

I like plastic foundation. 

In commercial beekeeping you have to use certain methods as those methods fit best into your operation. 

example:
I like tel tops and inner covers better than migratory but migratory tops work far better with less slippage than tel tops.

Example:
Tom Seeley is correct that bees communicate through comb and pass heat but I see as a minor issue compared to the easy cleanup of deadouts with plastic and rigidity of comb.

Example:
Dee says never to feed fructose but honey. Honey is now about a buck twenty five a pound in bulk and syrup is less than twenty cents a pound. My feed costs are my biggest single expense. I could not survive an increase in feed cost by six times!

All research says bees do as well on fructose as honey but things can change fast with new research.

I only feed bees when the bees can not find feed for theirselves! Why would I? Feed cost money.

I can't (or won't spend the money) afford to feed my bees extracted honey.

Dennis, Dee, Joe & I do agree on far more points than we disagree on.

One BIg point is clean uncantaminated brood comb!


----------



## Alienor (Mar 16, 2005)

D. Murrell wrote:
>For those of us who have put it to the test, most have all the evidence they need that it works. 

And it works also in Europe....everywhere.
I'm resp. my bees are working with SC now in my 5.season and we are comfortable with it.
I don't want to proselytize (?) somebody but here in Germany it is interesting that persons call SC nonsense who never tried to run their hives by themselves this way or regressed not regular.

Personally I don't need any study because my bees are telling me that I'm right.
Otherwise I would be a beekeeper without bees every spring.....


----------



## MichaelW (Jun 1, 2005)

Mr. Harrison says


> The test compared only varroa in worker brood in small cell & large cell.


In the context of this discussion shure sounds like to me your talking about cell sizes smaller than the standard 5.4mm. More acurately you could say

"The test compared only varroa in worker brood in normal cell and enlarged cell." 

Scientifically, the study talks about a very different scenario than what small cell beekeepers are proposing. 

If you consider the study plus "small cell" beekeeper observations, 5.4mm could actually be the worst possible size foundation to use.


----------



## Alienor (Mar 16, 2005)

Mr. Harrison wrote:
>The next point I want all you 49'ers to listen carefully to. 4.9 mm is the wrong cell size for my area of Missouri! Ask Dee Lusby! Look at our posts on BEE-L.
The correct cell size for my area is 5.1mm. Cell size changes for different locations (according to Dee)

In my northern/middle part of Europe 5.1 should also be natural size.
But since I lowered the comb distance down to 32mm my bees are producing 4,8-9mm worker nature comb.
Before reducing the comb distance they built 5.0-1mm in nature comb although they were born on correct 4.9 comb.

So comb distance ALSO plays a role and shouldn't be negotiated.


----------



## Bob Harrison (Mar 15, 2005)

I actually put more stock in what Alienor said above than both the cell tests.

I also do not take away for a minute what Dee & Ed Lusby have accomplished. I have got a close friend which spent three days going through the Lusby bees and reported what he saw to me.

I do have survivor bees which are thriving on large cell untreated for over five years. Wow and without benefit of small cell comb. Who would have thought possible. Just like the Lusby bees varroa can be found but never a sign of PMS virus problems.

As an experiment I shook some of those colonies onto contaminated wax and they started having varroa problems and virus problems towards August in Missouri.

Clean wax is at least part of the solution. 

As an experiment we shook packages onto comb from hives which had crashed from varroa and the colonies started crashing with PMS even before the varroa loads reached treshold. Delaplane was very interested in what I had to say due to its profound message for commercial beekeeping.

One of his talks was about varroa threshold. I did speak privately so as to not take the wind out of his sails. 

He is a good listener.

He tried to poo poo my statement until I told Keith a 1000 plus boxes of comb were used in the experiment.

Large scale experiments are only run in commercial beekeeping circles.

Ask yourself:
Why would *not* virus spores still be all over the comb?

Why would not virus problems raise their ugly head faster on PMS comb than clean comb with only normal virus spores.

I am only a beekeeper with an interest in finding solutions to our beekeeping problems. Do the researchers on the list (under alias) want to comment on what we saw? 

Would small cell regressed bees start failing on contaminated comb? Survivor bees did in my test.


----------



## Alienor (Mar 16, 2005)

Mr. Harrison wrote:
>I am only a beekeeper with an interest in finding solutions to our beekeeping problems.

Me too. 
What do you call "contaminated comb" exactly?
pesticide, herbicide, or comb with pollen from trans-gen plants?


----------



## Bob Harrison (Mar 15, 2005)

Alienor,
The obvious is brood comb which contains chemical contamination from the use of chemicals to controal varroa such as fluvaliante, amatraz & coumaphos.

The second is from enviromental sources. I have a close friend which is an expert on comb contamination both beekeeper induced & enviromental.

His talks which have been given many places in the U.S. are eye opening.

Next and the type I refer above is becoming more common in commercial beekeeping outfits. Many commercial outfits lose most their bees to varroa about once every 3-4 years. The beekeeper I refered to has been trying to simply put package bees on brood comb which (although the bees are gone )still shows the signs of "PMS" ( parasitic mite syndrum). 

PMS is easy to recognise once you see it. Larva are dead in all stages and PMS kind of looks like foulbrood in capped brood.

I met an old timer a few years ago which was down to his last 30 hives after burning the rest of his outfit thinking pms was american foulbrood.

If he had not called me and I had not went and looked i imagine he would have burned all his equipment.

His last treatment for varroa was apistan in 1993. He told me he was not seeing mite problems but could not seem to get rid of his foulbrood problem. His hives were loaded with varroa but alive and showing varroa tolerance. They were from the first Yugo import by Rinderer. Very inbred as he had been raising queens from the same genetics to replace the deadouts.

His was an honest mistake as he lives in an isolated part of Missouri and had NEVER seen or heard of PMS until he called me.

I bought his honey crop for a few years before he asked the younger beekeeper (me) about his problem. 

He gave me a couple queens for getting him on the right path. He is 82 years young and has kept bees all his life. 

Commercial beekeepers in the U.S. have not embraced changing out brood comb like in Europe. Next year will be 20 years some commercial beekeepers are using the same comb which has had one of the big three chemicals applied every year!

[edi] there should be enough chemical in the comb to treat varroa for the next fifty years!

Whats the situation like in your area? PMS? Chemical missuse?

[ October 12, 2006, 06:26 PM: Message edited by: Barry ]


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

> You people only get flack when you hold up an unproven hypothesis as fact. 

Us people only get flack when you claim we say something we don't. What's held up as fact? That we have healthy bees without chems and drugs? That is a fact. That I use SC? That is a fact. That Beesource is part of the WWF? That is an unproven hypothesis!

> Small cell really is an unproven hypothesis is it not? Come on be honest.

Yep. That was easy. Now back to my SC beekeeping.

- Barry


----------



## Alienor (Mar 16, 2005)

Rob, 
in my area the guys are wondering why the hives could tolerate a load of 10-15000 mites in 1980ies and today perish at <5000 mites per hive.
And we have lots of AFB-problems although in every single case every hive in a circle of 5 miles will be checked and the affected yard with all hives will be sanified with the danish AFB process or burned.

A part of the people here tend to accuse plant spraying and bating the seeds with Imidacloprid for our problems, others say it's up to the virusses. You may have few mites but a lot of viruses and your bees will perish also as if you have lots of mites without viruses.
Nobody knows but situation is getting worse every year.
Personally I'm not affected since working with SC and small comb space. I'm also renewing about 35-50% of my brood comb every spring and I'm living in a "horse" area with lots of pastures instead of high level farming.

PMS as described is not official known here....


----------



## Keith Benson (Feb 17, 2003)

"Us people only get flack when you claim we say something we don't."

Please, the SCers/49ers have been making claims not only as to whnether SC confers a survival advantage vs standard comb but have also made claims about differing forages being used, altering the local flora, genetic changes being induced by retrogression etc. There are also a number of claims, claimed as fact, that describe the various mechanisms by which SC "works".

There is a small number of small cellers saying, "hey, I dunno - but my bees are doing well", but the major proponants make all sorts of interesitng and unfounded claims.

Keith


----------



## Alienor (Mar 16, 2005)

@Keith:
I also know a beekeeper with LC and very few problems and not treating since a couple of years.
He had given up beekeeping some years ago but than found a swarm on his porch. 
He took it in a hive but swore not to treat it against varroa.
And the swarm survived and now that guy has about 25 untreated hives on LC.
But he is the only one I know of.
And I know about 40 guys in Germany with SC and well doing bees.
So LC hives without any problems seem to be very rare.


----------



## Bob Harrison (Mar 15, 2005)

Alienor,
I knew your were going to say you did a large amount of comb replacement. All small cell beekeepers do! All top bar people use wax from their own bees.

Clean wax less problems.

I started seeing almost two decades ago speaking with beekeepers in Europe that those which had a regular wax replacement plan had less beekeeping problems in ALL areas.

The reason (in my opinion) beekeepers you speak of are seeing bees not able to take the varroa load they used to is caused by the reasons I gave.

Wax contamination & virus spores left from the last varroa infestation.

Tell your firends to use some clean comb and shake some bees on to the comb next spring and run side by side with hives with the wax they have never recycled.

A picture is worth a thousand words.


----------



## Sundance (Sep 9, 2004)

It always surprizes me the extent that
others will take to discredit SC or other
new ideas. Demanding scientific results,
and if tests are done that show any level
of efficacy.... they are flawed. That goes
the other way as well.

If you think SC is bunk...... then don't 
use it!! It is that simple. Or do a test
yourself.


----------



## BULLSEYE BILL (Oct 2, 2002)

> It is that simple. Or do a test
yourself.

But is it really simple? Enquiring minds want to know why it works. Perhaps for you and I knowing it does is enough, but there is that curiosity in the back of my mind that wonders, why?

I give Bob credit for his logic and observations about clean wax. It very well may be a PART of the reason why SC works. I know there have to be even more aspects of the equation that have yet to be explored.

I am wondering what effect old PC that has never been treated will affect the hive in years to come. Perhaps it will be a non-issue, we just don't know, yet.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

>>There is a small number of small cellers saying, "hey, I dunno - but my bees are doing well", but the major proponants make all sorts of interesitng and unfounded claims.<<

As you see it, which camp do I fall into?


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--Point #2 tells me that reduceing the peroid varroa can invade brood cells by at least 2 hours will reduce varroa populations. If cell sizes around 4.9mm reduce capping times (as is proposed) to a greater amount than any possible lenghthening effect in the "arresting peroid", small cell will have a benificial effect, based on this study.--(Michael W)

Michael,
If I can recall the study I will look it up. I remember that it stated that the time varroa mite spent on adult bees increased in smaller cell colonies from the typical 7 days because of the difficulty in finding a suitable cell to invade. This would cause increase risk to the mite to grooming etc. and would serve to reduce varroa populations. 

Heres a similar citation.

Does time spent on adult bees affect reproductive success of Varroa mites? 
By: Boot, Calis, Beetsmaj


--I have looked long and hard with the most powerful databases my university offers and have found zero published research articles that looks specifically at european colonies with varroa and small cell in the range of 4.9mm and compares that with 5.4mm range.--(Michael W) 


Ive been waiting about 2 years for this study to be published, is due out about now.
Pirk was to send me a copy after publication, so not sure if it is published just yet, but it might prove interesting.

The effects of environmental and Genetic Factors Determining the Cell Size of Honeybee Comb
Pirk, C, Hepburn, HR Hepburn, C and Tautz, J

[ October 13, 2006, 05:40 PM: Message edited by: Pcolar ]


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>You small cell theory people come up with some kind of concrete proof about your theory and then maybe the *beekeeping community* will give you the credit you think you deserve.

Here is a simple, short term study that only takes three frames of Honey Super Cell or wax coated PermaComb, an observation hive and the taking a few notes over the space of three weeks. Small investment, short time period. Put a package in an observation hive on small cell comb (the super cell or the wax coated PermaComb). No regression requrired. Mark the glass with 1,2,3...a,b,c... etc. where the queen lays and make noted the numbers and the times. Check back every eight hours or so. When you see them get capped make a note of the date and time. When you see them emerge make a note of the date and time.

This will not require counting mites, equalizing mite loads, isolating yard, regressing bees, or trying to take into account the effects of genetics, and clean comb and all the other things that certainly do play a part in Varroa mite survival. This just measures the pre capping and post capping times. We know that a shorter length of either has an effect on the Varroa mites reproducing.

>When Dee pointed out that the correct cell size for my area was 5.1mm and I was using 5.2 mm. pierco plastic I decided One mm was not enough difference (in my opinion) to return to wax wired foundation ( plastic 4.9mm was not available).

So you ARE a small cell beekeeper...

But in my area, further North of you) I see a variety of cell size from 4.6mm to 5.1mm in the core of the brood nest. Hard to say it's just one size or the other size. 4.9mm seems more in the middle of all that than 5.2mm.


----------



## Keith Benson (Feb 17, 2003)

Barry, generally the former.

Keith

[ October 15, 2006, 07:10 AM: Message edited by: kgbenson ]


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi Rob,

>Tell your firends to use some clean comb and shake some bees on to the comb next spring and run side by side with hives with the wax they have never recycled.

A picture is worth a thousand words.


I've done it. And more. I took small cell bees, that survived without treatment and put them on clean large cell comb. Then I took those same bees off of the large cell comb and put them back onto small cell comb and some of them into a tbh.

For more info, check:

http://bwrangler.litarium.com/un-regressed-bees/

Regards
Dennis


----------



## pahvantpiper (Apr 25, 2006)

I always enjoy the debates on SC, very enlightening. I look forward to starting my own test so I will have something to contribute. But I have a question concerning contaminated comb.

What makes comb unfit for use? Is it harsh chemical contamination, or spores from PMS and foulbrood and other diseases, or is old comb in and of itself bad even if no chemical treatments were ever used?

-Rob Bliss


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>What makes comb unfit for use? Is it harsh chemical contamination, or spores from PMS and foulbrood and other diseases, or is old comb in and of itself bad even if no chemical treatments were ever used?

IMO it's the chemicals. The whole wax supply is now contaminated, so even your foundation is contaminated BEFORE the bees draw it.


----------



## Alienor (Mar 16, 2005)

Altogether, I suppose.
Here in Europe we're used to take a shower and change our underwear daily. Look at the skin of the homeless people who can't do this regular.
They get dirty, and ekzema and worse...
Bees have really dirty feet, look at former pale white honey comb that stuck some weeks in the hive....
Since european beekeeper (not all) realized that "the cost of one pound wax is 8 or 10 pounds of honey" is a myth and healthy bees are gaining honey income while building fresh comb like frenzy , renewing brood comb every 2nd or 3rd year is nearly common.
Old comb contains lot of pupa skins (?) and the "kaka" of the larvae. So to raise young bees in the faeces of the ancients , also if isolated between propolis, is not appropriate.
That is the same reason why we prefer comb in honey supers to be virgin and not been used for brood before.
It darkens the honey and gives it a mustier smell. (this way I can change a white canola honey to a dark wild honey  )
Maybe we're a bit hypersensitive but our bees are definitely happier on fresh comb. 

[ October 15, 2006, 03:24 PM: Message edited by: Alienor ]


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

I have two assumptions. Both may be wrong.









First, since bees will chew out cocoons when the size gets too small and since on small cell this occurs much sooner, small cell comb will be much cleaner.

Second, since bees have been doing fine without our help for many thousands of years, why do I need to decide how they should keep their house? If they think it's bad, they will tear it down and rebuild it.


----------



## Bob Harrison (Mar 15, 2005)

Hi Dennis,
I read your website again. Excellent information.

My point was if SC regressed bees are shook on chemical contaminated comb they do as poorly as LC.

Every SC person I have spoke with used clean comb which never had apistan or checkmite used. Clean comb is what top bar beekeepers use.

Your sc/Lc research is interesting but confusing as you get results all over the scale. Which is what I got in my ssmall SC experiment and also two master beekeepers which ran experiments. 

I would like to see you do a SC experiment done with recycled wax which has been used in a hive which has had years of Apistan & checkmite. 

You and I have been friends for a very long time and we agree on more beekeeping issues than we disagree on. 

I trust your observations. You did not agree totally with Dee and other SC people in "99" and I am sure you would report the results honestly.

It would make me believe our testing of the below was correct as we only ran the test once.

Simple as Joe would say:
Take some wax from your local beekeepers contaminated wax hive and melt down and work into SC foundation.

The test was done in Kansas and varroa problems happened in the first fall and the hives crashed from varroa in the second fall. PMS signs in the second fall but not the first.

I spoke with the beekeeper today and he laughed at the one varroa a week count you said you got with SC at your website.

Please do not kill the messinger! 

He said he had plenty of varroa in his small cell hives but they seemed to handle the load without PMS but when the comb was contaminated the problems started.

Allen Dick also reported plenty of varroa load in the Lusby hives on his visit. Documentation of the varroa is in his Beekeepers diary from the period at his web site.

I suggested the test the Kansas beekeeper ran and he now believes in my contaminated wax hypothesis as the root of *TODAYS* varroa control issues.

I wish he would come forward but he is not interested in internet beekeeping discussions. He bought his foundation press from Raymond Cooper of Iola, Kansas. I provided the wax he used. The test was run in 2003 and 2004 and then the hives involved all crashed from varroa. He said the hives were regressed and i never checked. 

Apistan worked like no other chemical for varroa the beekeeping world had ever seen when first released. So did checkmite. 

Then at the Jacksonville ABF meeting Jeff Pettis (current head of the Beltsville Bee lab) told us at the Apiary Inspectors of America meeting the bad news about a chemical concoction which happens to comb on which both products have been used.

Jeff showed slides taken of one time apistan use, one time checkmite use and comb on which both were used.

Taken with the bee labs mass spec machine.

Similar spikes for fluvalinate and choumaphos but a big spike for comb which had both used.

When I left the meeting I started changing ALL my brood comb to clean wax. Took four years but finnished last spring.

Bees look great!

Others ignored the research and are still using both products. One of those commercial beekeepers has lost most of his hives three out of the last four years to varroa which seem not controlled by any of the products he has tried to use. He treated with apiguard in early August this year and has already picked up around 300 deadouts with PMS. 

He still keeps calling and I keep saying to change brood comb wax. He loves the old dark comb from years of beekeeping. All the old timers do! 

Except for me!


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi Rob,

>My point was if SC regressed bees are shook on chemical contaminated comb they do as poorly as LC...

I haven't done any testing in that direction, although there is a Montana commercial beekeeper who initially worked with Erickson on small cell. His conclusion was that clean wax had the most benefit. He went back to large cell comb and still treats, but rotates out the brood combs to keep from accumulating too much pesticide in them. There was a write up in one of the bee mags, in the last few years. As I recall his last name was King.

Now you're going to get me in trouble with the small cell folks :>) But all my bees, whether regressed or not, behave the same way when they're on the same kind of cell size, whether large or small. Much has been made about the importance of regression. I just don't see it in the comb building or behavior. 

I've only done tests with clean wax. But I expect the reverse would be true. Take bees and put them on contaminated wax and they should have the same problems regardless of whether they came from large or small cell hives. Put them all on the same size contaminated comb and there shouldn't be any difference what so ever.

I think much of the regression process actually selects bees that are virus tolerant rather than regressing them back to a natural size. That selection can occur regardless of the cell size and probably does for those who don't treat their large cell hives.

> I spoke with the beekeeper today and he laughed at the one varroa a week count you said you got with SC at your website... do not kill the messinger! 

The counts were posted on Bee-L at the time. I was surprise there wasn't much of a stir over them. But that's what I got from hives in my small cell yard(all small cell hives and tbhs). And there are over 400 treated commercial hives within a two mile radius of this yard. Those commercial hives have collapse twice from mites since I started the testing. Some yards with 40 to 50 hives were down to a couple of colonies.

I suspect that if a beekeeper were testing a couple of small cell hives set inside a large cell yard, the resulting mite drop would be alot higher. The counts were so low, in my small cell hives, that I removed the screened bottom boards and trays. And I stopped counting mites a couple of years ago.

I haven't seen a mite on any of my small cell or tbh bees in years, although I know there are some there. Last season, I saw a few mites in one of my hives and observed some crawlers. And I thought that one of my small cell hives had finally been overcome by mites. But a close examination showed that I had set a box of large cell comb on a split and hadn't noticed. I thought I had culled all the large cell stuff out and given it away. But a box escaped the process and I missed it.

As I see it, clean wax is paramount for bee health. And small cell comb allows any bee to tolerate mites which keeps the wax clean, as no treatments are needed. Most of the other behaviors reported as due to cell size are actually due to clean wax.

Keeping bees on small cell is a great solution to these problems, but it's not a easy solution. There are some other possiblilities. But the wax must be kept clean. That's why I tested oxalic and found it to be the most benign mite treatment for the bees. A beekeeper could get clean on large cell comb, like you have, and stay clean using oxalic. Then migrate to small cell size if, when and how he wants.

Now, I'm really in trouble with the organic small cell camp! :>)

If a beekeeper would go that route, he'd and his bees would have almost all the advantages of small cell beekeeping without a lot of the hassle/loss. If a beekeeper simply got his bees to this point, he'd be way ahead of those on the pesticide treadmill. But as you know, it's not an easy or inexpensive process to get to this point.

I was graciously invited to speak in North Carolina. Several beekeepers were interesting in the details of my testing. But when summarized it just involves getting a clean broodnest and keeping it clean. Small cell in one way, natural comb another, and oxalic yet another way. It's not a secret magic bullet, it's not very glamorous, or exciting. But it's very effective.

I could tell you horror stories of what beekeepers have put in their hives to try and keep them alive. And many couldn't keep them alive no matter what they treated with or how often. You'll meet them in the auto part stores and at the truck stops if you migrate to the almonds. They no longer keep bees. And I could tell you even more about the effects of those things on their bees. I've seen hives so contaminated that bees in those hives couldn't even rear their own supercedure queens.

On another note, I think beekeeper should be planning comb rotation into their management regardless of the type of comb. And part of that would be using frames that would make it easy. I sure don't want to mess with any more wired frames. Tbhs have a distinct advantage for a beekeeper with a few hives.

Regards
Dennis


----------



## Bob Harrison (Mar 15, 2005)

Hi Dennis,
Thanks for the reply! In another time you and I might have been beekeeping researchers instead of commercial beekeepers.

You retired and me on a commercial level but unable to run the operation without hired help. I hate to give up the long hauls but getting harder and harder to stay on top of things. 

I look closely at what is being presented in research and question most points.

The observations you made in your small cell were different than many others which does cause problems.

A similar problem:

I did four years of research on survivor bees. I came to a conclusion which made a close friend and the survivor group revoke my membership but still I believe to be true.

When you use the James Bond "live and let die method " of selecting for bees which tolerate varroa you let the less varroa tolerant die off and raise queens from whats left you get a bee which keeps a small cluster and shuts down brood rearing everytime the weather changes. 

Fine for a hobby beekeeper not the beekeeping profit motivated. Not for the beekeeper doing pollination like myself.

The second year of my varroa survivor research I began to see a pattern. By the end of the third year I was convinced and by the end of the fourth year ( and end of the testing) I came to the conclusion.

When I tried to present my comclusion I was met with anger. Can't be ! Not what we are seeing! and many other comments.

"It is what it is"

If I had decided in "99" to do a large scale test of SC I expect I ccould have made many observations. Most likely many of the same Dennis made and possibly some Dennis didn't.


----------



## MichaelW (Jun 1, 2005)

Joe says,


> I remember that it stated that the time varroa mite spent on adult bees increased in smaller cell colonies from the typical 7 days because of the difficulty in finding a suitable cell to invade. This would cause increase risk to the mite to grooming etc. and would serve to reduce varroa populations.


I don't know, I think you may be confusing different studies. It dosen't mention grooming, but I'll admit I'm not completely clear on the "arresting period" I need to look it up.

Here's what they where trying to do.



> Experiments were carried out to investigate whether it is possible to reduce the period during which the varroa mite is entering the brood cells. Some preliminary experiments suggested that the temporary immobilization of female varroa mites at the bottom of the open brood cells of older bee larvae (arresting), called "varroa trapd" (Ifantidis 1988), starts a few hours later for artificially enlarged worker brood cells.......In the conclustion.....The mechanism which is responsible for this phenomenon can possibly be explained by the fact that the critical pressure of the cell wall on the larva for the arresting of the mites is reached earlier in normal cells than in enlarged cells.


-(Conner, Asian Apiculture) 

I guess the study really does add to the (small) body of work on cell size. I think it is quite an extreme stretch though to suggest it disproves small cell size theory as I've been told the "Mites of the Honey Bee" published by Dadant suggests. Instead I see how it would instead support it, given Mr. Michael Bush's observations on capping times.

Joe,
Thanks for the additional citations.


----------



## Bob Harrison (Mar 15, 2005)

The Lusby's bees were selected by the "James Bond " method were they not. 

The Russian bee in primorsky was selected by the method and is a perfect example of my conclusion. 

Fine for many but not suitable for most commercial beekeepers in the pure imported form.

Dependable prolific is needed in most commercial operations AND bees which will always raise enough winter bees to form a cluster of the size needed to winter.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--Allen Dick also reported plenty of varroa load in the Lusby hives on his visit. Documentation of the varroa is in his Beekeepers diary from the period at his web site.--(Bob)

Oh jeeze Bob!!!!  
Are we rewriting Allen Dicks words now?????????

Allen spent two days in the Lusby's colonies and found 20 varroa!!!!

Give me two minutes in your hives.









Heres what Allen said since Bob seems to have a laps of memory.

We spent two full days looking through Lusbys' yards, and in that time we saw lots of good-looking bees and brood, one small swarm which left for parts unknown while we watched, no significant brood disease, and very few Varroa mites.

Although, by careful searching, we did find a few Varroa, not one of the 20 or so Varroa we found in that whole time was phoretic (on an adult bee). Moreover, not one mite in any cell we examined appeared to be reproductive and every mite we saw had already been located by the bees and made obvious to us by the fact that the bees had uncapped the cell.

In some hives, the bees had uncapped a few cells here and there on patches of capped brood. The only mites we found were in uncapped cells, and those cells appeared to be at some stage of being cleaned out by the bees. In those few uncapped cells, we would almost invariably find a single foundress mite all by herself on the pupa, usually at the colored-eye stage.

Here's the article:
http://www.beesource.com/pov/dick/bcjun02.htm

[ October 16, 2006, 08:14 PM: Message edited by: Pcolar ]


----------



## bee whisper (Apr 21, 2006)

MR. Delaplane!
What do you work for a large wax fondation company? Do The Freaking Study Already!


----------



## Bob Harrison (Mar 15, 2005)

Allen wrote a kind article for bee culture.

I would have done the same! We all thought SC might have merit at the time. 

Compared to time of year (winter) and the size of the colonies enough varroa was found. We were actually led to believe no varroa would be found.

The varroa load very similar to a Russian hive at the same time of year.

Swarms at most yards, robbing and hives about out of feed ( read the article Joe presented) does not win the Blue ribbon in my book for beekeeping but that's the way Grandpa did it.

I don't have issue with the way the Lusby's keep bees but certainly not the way most commercial beekeepers keep bees.

Harvest honey one frame at a time?

Profits motivate me in commercial beekeeping but curosity I suppose keeps me spending time listening to your SC message.

I need to go pack my bags now to take bees to texas to winter, then into California and then back to Missouri. My hives are so strong they would not last a week on the two frames of stored honey in the Lusby Hives.

I have no desire to go back to keeping bees the way Grandpa did 

or

heating the house with wood and lighting with coal oil lamps.

"Been there and done that"


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--Allen Dick also reported plenty of varroa load in the Lusby hives on his visit. Documentation of the varroa is in his Beekeepers diary from the period at his web site.-(Bob)

-Allen wrote a kind article for bee culture.--(Bob)

Please provide this link from the page in Allens Diary that "reported plenty of varroa" so we can see for ourselves.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Joe, I found it!


"We saw lots of perfect patterns and found very few varroa."

http://www.honeybeeworld.com/diary/2002/diary011002.htm


----------



## Keith Benson (Feb 17, 2003)

"MR. Delaplane!
What do you work for a large wax fondation company? Do The Freaking Study Already!"

William - fund the freaking study already.

Keith


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

Alienor said:

_"Since european beekeeper (not all) realized that 
"the cost of one pound wax is 8 or 10 pounds of 
honey" is a myth and healthy bees are gaining honey
income while building fresh comb like frenzy,
renewing brood comb every 2nd or 3rd year is nearly
common."_

While I certainly agree that renewal of brood
comb is an absolute requirement, I'm interested
in what Europeans think the "cost" of comb is
in terms of equivalent honey that might be
otherwise produced. Calling the 8 - 10 pound
figure "a myth" tends to imply that a much lower
figure is thought to be true.

Can you offer some detail?


----------



## Alienor (Mar 16, 2005)

Not right now, I have to find that study again after 15 or more yars. But I will go and do a search for it.


----------



## Keith Benson (Feb 17, 2003)

How many kcal are found in a gram of beeswax? Or - anyone have access to a calorimeter?

Keith

[ October 17, 2006, 08:35 AM: Message edited by: kgbenson ]


----------



## Alienor (Mar 16, 2005)

Beeswax as a simple hydroCarbon should have about 10,000kcal/kg.
All kinds of sugar are around 5,000kcal/kg.
Plus the heat while building comb plus plain living of the worker bees the ratio is about 1:3, max. 1:4 so far I remember.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

"MR. Delaplane!
What do you work for a large wax fondation company? Do The Freaking Study Already!"

What makes you think that "Dr." Delaplane isn't already "doing the freaking study"?

[ October 17, 2006, 06:59 PM: Message edited by: beemandan ]


----------



## Scot Mc Pherson (Oct 12, 2001)

Bob,
Earlier you posted that you get 1.20 for honey and spend .20 for hfcs. How much money do you think you are spending to make the extra trips and perform all the extra work involved in pulling the last honey, feeding the hfcs, pulling the hfcs before the spring honey rolls in (pray tell...you DO pull it don't you?).

Fuel, Labor (even if it's you, the labor ain't free even if it IS just you), wear and tear on vehicle and on equipment.

By the time you do the math, even if you are making a savings, you are probably doing a WHOLE LOT of extra work to make a tiny sliver more. However I don't believe you are saving anything at all.

Much less work involved in just leaving the honey on without all the extra trips and work involved. I can't afford to make all those extra trips...

And why in the world would you even suggest that we "feed bees extracted honey". That's about the silliest thing I ever heard. You might do it in an emergency, but as a strategy?....come on...The point is to NOT TAKE TOO MUCH...it will still be there in the spring and you can extract it then...


----------



## Bob Harrison (Mar 15, 2005)

Scot,
Feeding honey only makes sense when off a fall flow and is bakery grade (like smartweed of dark sunflower).

Never after extracted.

Feeding this fall was combined with feeding pollen patties (real pollen) so I was in the yards anyway. Some years I have to pull full frames of pollen from hives. This year was the opposite. When no pollen is coming in the bees WILL NOT raise bees. 

We buy a tanker load of fructose at a time. I pump from a big storage tank into a 275 gallon tote on my truck and then pump into the in hive feeder (similar to filling your import at the filling station).

I do not have to remove the top to feed.

I have only fed three gallons to most this fall 
to replace a fall flow which we did not get. I thinned the syrup to nectar like to get the bees to raise winter bees. Which they did.

I am ready for this weeks cold weather. Are you?

Sitting on permanant locations with top bar hives is like sitting on the sidelines at a football game in my opinion.

Maybe you could rope to trees like in Africa and pull up to keep the skunks from bothering the hives.

I realize I do not belong in a hobby beekeeper forum. I make money at beekeeping. I have seen many a wannabee commercial beekeeper fall by the wayside with silly ideas. I consider large scale beekeeping with top bars silly.

I am thinking of further downsize of my outfit 
over the next two years and then retire for the second time. Not because I did not make money but because after over forty years I am a bit bored. 

keeping bees for a living is a big job. Takes careful planning. Is a gamble.

I did commercial fishing and similar to commercial beekeeping honey production. All things perfect and no fish in the nets/traps. The next trip and you need help pulling in the traps/nets.

Not many people around with a commercial fishing family background. 

To survive in any business the business has to be sustainable. You need cash flow.

You are just starting out in Iowa. Iowa is not the honey production state it once was. I bought out Huff & Gabert ( Iowa beekeepers) because they could not make it.

Direct sales might make up for the handicap of top bar commercial beekeeping but it might be cheaper to buy your honey for resale.

Good luck just the same!

The internet is slow as far as beekeeping discussion goes. Try me on face to face and you will be getting your notebook out and taking notes.

I won't be around forever to share information.


----------



## Bob Harrison (Mar 15, 2005)

Scot,
Why would I suggest feeding extracted honey. I would not!

Read the entire post again.

Some in the organic movement do! Do you think Dee would feed fructose to a starving hive

Leaving honey for bees to winter on is not cost effective either. Too expensive! 

Unless you are a hobby beekeeper and not profit motivated.

We need a list for commercial beekeepers and then you could join and learn. Why reinvent the wheel Scot?


----------



## Scot Mc Pherson (Oct 12, 2001)

Bob,
You did suggest that we do it. We don't, perhaps if there was an emergency I might consider it, but doubt it. Yes Dee has done so in emergencies, but not as a strategy. It makes no sense to extract honey intending to give back to the bees. That would be like driving a tanker semi full of gasoline just so I can refuel my own tanker and not delivering it anywhere....No sense whatsoever...

Neither Dee nor I would feed syrup to a starving hive. I did feed cane syrup when I installed so many packages last spring. The only time I advocate syrup feeding is when you are a new beekeeper and don't have resources when installing new bees. I have been keeping bees since 1985, however when I moved here and built 500 beehives, and installed the bees I didn't have the resources to feed them anything except syrup, and this is fine by my reckoning and also Dee's as far as I know and as far as she has shared in the past. However, if a colony couldn't gather enough nectar/honey on their own, I certainly am not going to spend resources keeping them alive.

I subscribe to CC Miller's philosophy that a smart beekeeper does not support weak colonies, but absorbs their resources into the stronger that will actually use those resources more smartly. I can split them back out again in the spring. I will save the money in feeding, and the bees split out in the spring will buildup faster than weak bees having been swaddled like a baby through winter.

Leaving honey on the hives doesn't seem cost effective until you do the cash flow analysis and realize the inpututput ratio isn't very helpful. If you are going to make an input, you want to input into something that will pay you back sooner and with greater stability. By saving the time and money from not feeding the bees, I have time now to spend on other things that are gonig to make more money than the savings I get from pulling honey to replace with syrup. Not to mention the fouling of honey crop when you don't pull the syrup in the spring, because it costs too much...

Further from a commercial point of view, I enable myself to have more assets which means leverage and resources to draw upon in times of trouble. If I have 200 colonies and I break even every year, and I feed. Then I would be in greater trouble than if I had 500 colonies and could manage them because I let the weak go away, and maintain the strongest stocks only, then in time of trouble, I could sell say 200 colonies to pay the bills and feed my family, while you can't sell your colonies because then you'd be out of business.

Bob I appreciate you experiences, and I know you have started and will retired from owning two businesses. However, I know how cash flow and business works, I have a degree in business adminstration and finance. You are forgetting three important items when you talk about feeding. Labor (it isn't free even if its you), and distribution of resources (one of which is labor, again even if its just you). Although cash flow is important, increasing your cash flow at the high inpututput expense ratio is a waste of resources. Better to have more 20% more colonies than 20% higher cash flow for less colonies. The net result is the same, but you have increased assets for protection during hard times, and more resources to draw from when evaluating your best stocks. It is cost effective to leave the honey on over winter and pulling it later when i consider how much work was avoided and is work that can be redirected to other more profitable aspects of the job.

As far as Top Bar Hives, have you made this judgement based on experience, or because you talked to people? There are several successful Top Bar Hive operations which have been operating profitably for years.

Belittling my operation to improve your credibility does not....

Do you call Dee a sideliner because she doesn't truck bees here and there? Because I don't do migratory pollination I am not a commercial beekeeper? I see...


----------



## Scot Mc Pherson (Oct 12, 2001)

What if the wheel has been so modified that it's no longer a wheel but a complex mechanism or process that doesn't do what it is supposed to do anymore, stops working altogether if a step is forgetten (or stops working even when everything is done right) and costs too much to maintain.

Am I reinventing the wheel? No, I just stripped it back down to a wheel again...KISS...


----------



## Bob Harrison (Mar 15, 2005)

Scot,
I understand a civil response. Rare on beesource.

I have tried top bar on a small scale but see no place for top bar in my way of doing beekeeping.

It takes about thirty seconds for me to pump a gallon of feed through a one inch hose.
Like I said I am at the yard anyway.


I keep very accurate books and always know my bottom line. The reason why when a grower tells me what the last beekeeper charged for pollination it makes little difference or when a packer tells me what he is paying for honey.

I price my retail honey the same way. 

sustainability is the only way you can survive long term. Sustainability is the key to long term survival in todays bee business.

I smile when I am able to have the lowest price on the store shelf but still use the sustainability rates regardless. Sure I might sell less when I am the highest price on the shelf but I know I am moving forward and not going in the hole by trying to compete.

Four large commercial beekeepers have closed their doors the last decade in my area of Missouri. I found out today another is going out and still owes a friend for over a 100 barrels of honey. 

Rough business.


when the beekeeper which won the lottery was asked what he was going to do with the money he replied:

" I am going to keep on being a commercial beekeeper until the money is gone!"

Good luck in the bee business Scot!


----------



## Scot Mc Pherson (Oct 12, 2001)

>>I have tried top bar on a small scale but see no place for top bar in my way of doing beekeeping.

That's a little better than calling it silly. One of the things we worry about as beekeepers is AHB, and the nature of the TBH helps keep down the defensiveness of honey bees in general. I don't think I could keep bees the way I do with Langstroths. I couldn't work as fast and still have happy bees and not need smoke and not need more than a veil instead of being armored. I kept bees in shorts and t-shirt in florida, and got a veil only when I had more work than I could accomplish with the slow and steady. However, I still only upgraded to a veil and work as fast in my hives as you do in yours. I don't think I could work as fast in a Lang keeping bees the way I like to keep them.


Have you ever wondered if all these beekeepers are going out of business because of the way they are doing business or the way they are keeping bees? Perhaps their business models and beekeeping methods aren't as tight as you collectively think they are. Some are going out of business due to loosing too many bees too often, some just can't get the bottom line into the black and slowly peter out. Am I saying it is so, no I am not. I am guessing however that most of them keep bees and run their businesses in a same or similar fashion.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--I subscribe to CC Miller's philosophy that a smart beekeeper does not support weak colonies, but absorbs their resources into the stronger that will actually use those resources more smartly--(Scot)

Scot, could you please provide me with CC Millers quote regarding this philosophy?

I wish to save it for my collection.

Best Wishes,


----------



## Scot Mc Pherson (Oct 12, 2001)

40 Years Among the Bees ~ CC Miller
~Page 111
Shall I take frames of brood from strong colonies to give to the weaklings? Not I. For the damage to the strong colonies will more than overbalance the benefit to the weaklings. If any taking from one colony to give anohter is done in the spring, it will be to take from the weak to give to those not so weak. If one colony has four frames of brood and another two, taking from the stronger a frame for the weaker would leave both so weak they would not build up very repidly, whereas taking one from the two-frame colony and giving it to the four frame colony would make the latter build up so much faster that it could pay back with interest the borrowed frame.


----------



## Bob Harrison (Mar 15, 2005)

I am an avid reader of Dr. Miller and trying to buy an original autographed book of forty years among the bees.
The book is not for sale but I have got a book he wants to trade for. 
My forty years with the bees are gone and now working on fifty years.
My first beekeeping mentor was in his nineties and beekeeping was all he had ever done. I suppose if he had written a book before he passed it would have been 80 years among the bees.
Waldo McBurney ( the beekeeper I wrote about in my article for bee culture entitled " Centurian beekeeper") is still around and going on 105 I believe. Waldo still runs around a 100 hives with help. His book might be entitled 90 years among the bees.
I will be on the road next week.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

BTW 50 years among the bees is availabe on line for free or it's back in print and available from Amazon.


----------



## drobbins (Jun 1, 2005)

for those who haven't stumbled across this collection of old beeking classics

http://bees.library.cornell.edu/b/bees/browse.html 

lot's of neat stuff there including the book Michael mentions

Dave

[edit] if you go to page 111 it kinda talks about what Scot was saying in different words

maybe this link will work

http://bees.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=bees&cc=bees&idno=5017631&node=5017631%3A1&frm=frameset&view=image&seq=111

[ October 18, 2006, 07:36 PM: Message edited by: drobbins ]


----------



## Scot Mc Pherson (Oct 12, 2001)

The quote can be found starting at the bottom of page 112 in the book "50 Years Among the Bees". In my book which is "40 Years Among the bees", the quote happens to start on page 111. It is not within the confines of "A Year Among the Bees".

I have all three.

Since the reference originated in the earlier 1902 volume, this is where I quoted it from. I am actually quite upset, because in looking for the quote for Joe, it appears as if someone has damaged the book by dropping it or some such...


----------



## Scot Mc Pherson (Oct 12, 2001)

Bob,
Do you use any of the Instant Messengers that are available such as ICQ, AIM, YahooIM, MSN Messenger, or etc? If you do I wouldn't mind talking with a faster medium than e-mail and message boards. It's your idea that it would be better for us to talk face to face, well an instant messanger is a good 2nd choice for real time communication.


----------

