# Small Cell Research



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

Some of you have probably seen this. But it sounds remarkably like what Dee Lusby has been saying for the last decade:

"Effect of available space
in the cell on mite reproduction
For ectoparasities which reproduce in
enclosed cavities the amount of space can
be an important constraint on their ability to
reproduce successfully...
One consequence of space partitioning
in Varroa sp. is that the first (male) egg
is laid near the cell cap. This increases the
survival probability of themalemite since it
is the only place in the cell not affected by
the bees molt (Fig. 2). However, the male
mite must now pass the constriction caused
by the bees appendages to reach the feeding
site which is established by the mother
mite on the bees abdomen (Fig. 2). Since
only one male is produced per batch of
eggs, its death will result in all the female
offspring being unmated and so unable to
produce offspring (Akimov andYastrebtsov,
1984; Donzé et al., 1996; Martin et al.,
1997; Harris and Harbo, 1999)."

Reproduction of Varroa destructor
in South African honey bees: does cell space influence
Varroa male survivorship?
Stephen J. MARTIN, Per KRYGER

http://www.edpsciences.org/articles/apido/pdf/2002/01/Martin.pdf?access=ok


----------



## drobbins (Jun 1, 2005)

Hi Michael,

yea, I've seen that
on page 7 of the pdf (looks like page 57 of the actual study) figure 2 shows the bee filling the cell so completely the mites are crowded out.
Sounds pretty darn reasonable to me.
Sounds like larger cell foundation didn't produce bigger bee's, it just produced bigger cell's so there was room for all kinda cooties in there  
Also kinda suggests to me that whole sheets of SC foundation might be a good idea (rat's, I like cheap)
if you let the bee's build what they want, and they build a variety of cell sizes, and lay in different size cell's at different times in the year (as Dennis suggests) maybe you only get this advantage at certain times of the year.

question: in your bee's that are well established on SC, if you give them a sheet of SC foundation, do they build it all 4.9 mm or do they rework parts of it to a larger size? 

this certainly sounds like another mechanism besides the shorter pre/post capping times to explain how SC could put the mites at a disadvantage 

Dave


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>question: in your bee's that are well established on SC, if you give them a sheet of SC foundation, do they build it all 4.9 mm or do they rework parts of it to a larger size? 

I don't use much foundation. I'd have to go find some recent frames of foundation and see what they built. I'll let you know. My guess is they will still make some variety but not as much. But what they build without it varies a bit from 4.7mm to 5.1mm with most around 4.9mm. Actually there is occasionally some that's as small as 4.4mm and as large as 5.4mm (worker brood of course since drone is much larger) but that's not the norm. Maybe the variation in size serves a purpose. Maybe we should "celebrate diversity".


----------



## db_land (Aug 29, 2003)

"Although reproduction of Varroa sp. is
affected by the space between the developing
bee and cell wall, reducing cell sizes as
a mite control method will probably fail to
be effective since the bees are likely to respond
by rearing correspondingly smaller
bees which explains the close correlation
between cell and bee size (Fig. 1)."

I admit I havn't read everything Dee, et al have written about small-cell for varroa control. But, I thought the theory was that the shortened pre/post capping times cause the varroa reproductive problems and hence varroa control. The above quotation from this same document implies that small-cell may help control varroa during the regression (big bees in little cells), but provide no control after regression (little bees in little cells). Comments?


----------



## drobbins (Jun 1, 2005)

unfortunately, on the next page, the last paragraph of section 4.3 (sorry, can't figure out how to cut/paste out of a pdf) suggest this reasoning will fail as the bee's will just raise smaller bee's leaving room for the mites.
of course at this point they seem to switch from observation to speculation.
the whole "bee size" thing seems to be not well undestood either
Dennis seems to suggest the size of the bee's varies thru the year
perhaps due to nutrition
perhaps weather
who knows?
maybe the variation in cell size is so they have the appropriate size cells at different times of year to raise different size bee's
whatever, it seems to me, that given the fact that the crux of the problem is the v-mites raising their young in the brood cells, it seems like a really bad idea to induce the bee's to build some un-natural size comb unless you have some REALLY good theory for how this would be good
I've never seen a theory why larger cells would be good

Oh yea: plus I'm a cheapskate and don't want to pay for foundation









Dave


----------



## George Fergusson (May 19, 2005)

Tight space in the cells is one reason why multiple mites invading a cell to reproduce fail to produce the expected number of offspring. The speculation is this is due to competition for the feeding site AND space constraints.

The shorter time to emergence of bees in smaller cells is in and of itself enough to impact the mite's ability to reproduce. Add to this the difficulty the mites have in moving around in a smaller cell and things begin to make sense.

As for the space-effect vanishing when the bees start making smaller bees in smaller cells... Even if over time you end up with smaller bees growing in smaller cells a) the mites aren't getting any smaller... and b) while there may be proportionately the same percentage of open space in the cell, there's still LESS space, and this is going to cramp the mite's style, even after regression is complete. Does this make sense?

George-


----------



## drobbins (Jun 1, 2005)

db_land

Hi, I really enjoyed stopping by and meeting you the other night

back to the mite questions
if you look at the figure 1 they refer to
it really doesn't say anything about how the size of the bee changes as the bee's are regressed from LC to SC
it refers to the size of different strains of bee's and the relationship between the size cell they build and the size of the bee
the point is that this psuedo-clone they're looking at falls outside of the scatter of data for other strains, producing a larger bee relative to the size of the cell they are raised in 
it's not clear to me that the data represented in this suggest's that if I regress my bee's to SC I will get a corresponingly smaller bee that in turn leaves ample space in the cell for the v-mite to do it's dirty work 

it seems to me that this doesn't really provide "proof" one way or the other, it just suggest a possible mechanism to explain the apparent success many folks seem to report with SC

Dave


----------



## Murphy (Jun 7, 2005)

I have noticed with my bees that are on starter strips that they build cell aize according to there needs. Some of it is real big and others small, but what I have noticed is that I have less mite issues so whether it is bee size or cell size I do not really know. But, it seems to work. 
I also think the wax they build while not been treated is not polluted with chemicals which build up weakening the bees. You have to wonder about the chemicals that end up been rendered from old comb into new foundation and its effect on the bees. 
Just thinking out loud


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>>"...reducing cell sizes as
a mite control method will probably fail to
be effective since the bees are likely to respond
by rearing correspondingly smaller
bees..."
>The above quotation from this same document implies that small-cell may help control varroa during the regression (big bees in little cells), but provide no control after regression (little bees in little cells). Comments? 

That statement was not based on any facts they collected in the research. It was merely their speculation. Dee's continued success more than a decade later would seem to contradict that speculation.


----------



## Man O' War (Jul 11, 2005)

Do I understand correctly that the inside dia.
of a cell *decreases* with the developement
of each generation? If so, how would this affect
the subject at hand?


----------



## Man O' War (Jul 11, 2005)

Murphy brings up a good point.

"You have to wonder about the chemicals that end up been rendered from old comb into new foundation and its effect on the bees."

For those of us using "store bought" foundation,
we could be contaminating our hives right from the start!

[ November 18, 2005, 01:08 PM: Message edited by: Man O' War ]


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Do I understand correctly that the inside dia.
of a cell decreases with the developement
of each generation?

Up to a point, yes.

> If so, how would this affect the subject at hand?

The cell will decrease (very slightly) in size from the cocoon of the previous generation of bee in the cell up until the bees decide they are too small and they chew out the excess cocoons. With large cell foundation this will not happen until there are an awful lot of cocoons.

My guess is (and it is, of course, speculation on my part) that a lot of the old abandoned hives we find still surviving without intervention have been "regressed" by this method. That would be consistent with my small cell experience.

I don't know how the cocoons (other than the affects that come with changing the size) affect the varroa.

Some worry about the accumulation of AFB spores and, according to that theory, the more layers of cocoons the more of a problem that would be.


----------



## Man O' War (Jul 11, 2005)

"Some worry about the accumulation of AFB
spores and, according to that theory,
the more layers of cocoons the more of
a problem that would be."

Is this where the suggested,
*replacement of combs after five seasons*,
comes from?


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Is this where the suggested,
replacement of combs after five seasons,
comes from?

Yes. The theory is, more layers of cocoons leave more places for spores to hide.


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi Guys,

An interesting mite study was conducted in Europe, some time ago. The videotaped mite behavior by using clear, plastic cups for broodrearing rather than a beeswax comb. On critical point occurs when the mite must push aside the hind legs of the bee pupa to get to the feeding area on the abdomen. 

It was speculated by some of the first small cell advocates that the smaller cell size could restrict the mite in this way. And that maybe the 'commotion' created by that activity would allow the nurse bees to detect(hear) infected pupa. 

Regards
Dennis


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

Just for the sake of debate, has anyone out there tried small cell and then abandoned it?


----------



## glass_isis (Nov 26, 2005)

re: Lusby's success

Bear in mind when you listen to their "success story" that they keep bees in Arizona. This state is completely africanized, as well as sub-tropical in climate. Low levels of mites could be attributed to either of these factors. Further, african bees make and prefer small cells -- just the size that Lusbys provide. 

Remember the rules of cause and effect. I can say that the sun comes up each morning because I wish it, but that is not the reason. I can say the sun goes round the world, but that is not so. I can say small cells reduce mite reproduction, but have I considered all the other variables (african bees, mild climate, etc). 

If they raise their own queens then it's a pretty sure bet the queens mate with african drones.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Bear in mind when you listen to their "success story" that they keep bees in Arizona.

There are a lot of us doing natural or small cell beekeeping who are NOT in AZ and NOT raising AHB. I'm certianly not in AZ and I won't tolerate mean bees. And it's succeeding quite well here. I have serious doubts that Lusby's are raising AHB. Dee works her bees bare handed with either a jacket and veil or just a veil. Her bees aren't the nicest I've seen, but neither are they the meanest bees I've seen. They've been doing this for 10 years now. No one was claiming it was AHB then. That's just the most recent explaination for why they are succeeding, since blaming it on luck ran out a while back.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Further, african bees make and prefer small cells -- just the size that Lusbys provide. 

Here's the cell size a package of commercial Carniolans provided for themselves in my Kenya Top Bar Hive:

http://www.bushfarms.com/images/47mmCombMeasurement.jpg
http://www.bushfarms.com/images/47mmComb.JPG


----------



## Bob Harrison (Mar 15, 2005)

Michael,
Great pictures!
I see you found some small cells on the comb. I did today also! 

Looks to me like *most* of the brood rearing comb in your pictures are of larger size (about 5.1 mm from a guess). 

I have been going through deadouts today culling comb. I find plenty of all cell size comb in my brood comb. 

Cell size is not an exact science. One can keep culling comb of the larger size if a small size is what they want. Culling smaller size if a larger cell size is wanted. Bees quickly adapt.

Elbert Jaycox was interested in cell size and included his experiment conclusions in his book "Beekeeping in the Midwest". Jaycox found bees would increase or decrease cell size by up to 17% of what was considered normal. One amazing thing to me is that the bees never seem to tear down and rebuild cells which have became smaller due to years of brood rearing. I wonder why? 

I personally have better ways to spend my time than the measure of cell size. Today has been a culling of combs and I have taken taking the time to measure. I must admit since i went to 5.1mm. cell size (which I consider the correct cell size) I rarely see the 5.3mm & larger cell used by the bees AND cell size in the brood nest is more a uniform size.

My comments are only sharing of todays observations and have nothing to do with small cell and varroa control.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

Bob,

5.1 mm would be withen the natural sizes found for your zone.

http://www.beesource.com/pov/lusby/therm_map.htm

It's intresting that ranges of cell sizes I am see here in PA are from 4.9mm to 5.1mm (this in the broodnest area in ferals found not too near to domestic colonies) then sizes may vary up to 5.2 and even 5.3 outside this area. But a shade above 5.0 seems to be the size the bees want to seat in at here.

My coments also have nothing to do with small cell and varroa control, just what I am seeing here in the ferals. As it seems there is a range of natural cell sizes and not locked in at any particular size.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Looks to me like *most* of the brood rearing comb in your pictures are of larger size (about 5.1 mm from a guess). 

It was a first regression of a large cell package, so I'm guessing there was plenty of 5.1mm also. But there was also some as small as 4.7mm on most of the brood combs.

>I have been going through deadouts today culling comb. I find plenty of all cell size comb in my brood comb. 

An interesting phenomonon that I see even more of since I went to foundationless. A lot of different sizes.

>Cell size is not an exact science.

That is one of the principle difficulties of saying that bees build cells of Xmm for brood cells, when, in reality, they build a range of sizes.

>One can keep culling comb of the larger size if a small size is what they want. Culling smaller size if a larger cell size is wanted. Bees quickly adapt.

And the mites have to put up with or take advantage. But if you let them build their own or you give them something OTHER than oversized foundation, you'll get a lot more smaller cells.

I really don't see any 5.4mm in natural worker comb. Most runs around 4.9mm (once they are regressed) and it jumps from maybe an occasional patch of 5.2mm up to the drone cells which, at the bottom, are about 6.0mm and often run as high as 6.6mm and occasionally run higher. There is a distinct gap and, other than maybe a transition cell here or there, 5.4mm falls in that gap.


----------



## girl Mark (Oct 25, 2005)

Rob Harrison wrote:



> One amazing thing to me is that the bees never seem to tear down and rebuild cells which have became smaller due to years of brood rearing. I wonder why?


Do they or do they not, in the wild?

I just found this thread because I was googling for 'Jaycox' to find some research of his I"d just heard about. He'd allededly done a study where he proved that old brood comb was unhealthy (and it was from a chemical beekeeping perspective, so the 'unhealthy' could've been pesticides as much as viruses etc).

Anyway, I was looking for this study because one one of these lists/forums someone was asking where the recommendation to replace old broodnest combs every x years came from. I'd been told that Jaycox recommended something specific like every 2 or 3 years.

I was just talking to top bar hive beekeeper Les Crowder about this issue, asking him what feral bees do to get rid of old broodcomb. He told me that in colonies he's removed from studwalls, he's noticed that they actually move the brood nest around over the years by moving to a different end of the hive/colony/combs, and letting the wax moths eat the old brood nest, then returning to that part of the hive afterwards to clean up the damaged wax. He said he'd often noticed that they'll move right back after that, and build their brood nest right atop an area where there's sign of wax moth damage to the wall studs or other structures. 

Les is from the top bar school of thought that says that our regular harvesting of combs and lack of re-use is healthier for the bees, which I think BWrangler concluded also.

Mark

[ December 18, 2005, 12:23 AM: Message edited by: girl Mark ]


----------



## girl Mark (Oct 25, 2005)

Man O'War wrote:


> Some worry about the accumulation of AFB
> spores and, according to that theory,
> the more layers of cocoons the more of
> a problem that would be."
> ...


Here's the reference I found to old comb and problems:
http://www.edpsciences.org/articles/apido/pdf/2004/04/M4012.pdf 
(says that Varroa mites preferentially invade bees in old comb even though the old comb is smaller


http://apis.ifas.ufl.edu/apis86/apapr86.htm 


> More evidence now corroborates the notion that old combs can lead to bee management problems. As reported by Dr. Jaycox in his March issue of "The Newsletter on Beekeeping," a new study soon to be published by J.P. Koenig, G.M. Boush and E.H. Erickson in Journal of Apicultural Research compared various kind of comb. Levels of disease ranged from negligible to over 6 percent, with the lowest level on new comb or super comb, the highest associated with old brood comb.
> 
> In past issues of this newsletter (July 1984 and October 1985), I reported that old brood comb may harbor not only chalkbrood fungus, but also nosema spores and supports wax moth populations far better than comb recently drawn from foundation. Aggressively renovating the bee nest by systematically removing old comb appears to be a management technique with promise. Again, this should not be done all at once, but slowly and regularly over a period of time. Dr. Jaycox also recommends the beekeeper experiment by doing a proportion of his/her colonies and then comparing chalkbrood infestation with those that were not renovated. Remember, however, that rooting out old comb is only one variable in the chalkbrood enigma. Others, such as the genetic resistance of the bees and prevailing environmental conditions which favor fungal development must also be taken into consideration


and this: http://apis.ifas.ufl.edu/apis84/apjul84.htm#2

[ December 18, 2005, 12:27 AM: Message edited by: girl Mark ]


----------



## Bill Ruble (Jan 2, 2006)

Ok, I have a question for you small cell advocates. I am going to go to all small cell myself. What I am wanting to do is let them build there own comb so there are no cantaminates in the comb. But. and here is the question, If I let them build there own the frist time around (I am getting mostly package bees) then they will have to regress themselves. On the other hand, if I buy small cell foundation, then they will not have to be regressed later on. Is that the correct understanding? if so, what do you think I should do?
Bill


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>If I let them build there own the frist time around (I am getting mostly package bees) then they will have to regress themselves. On the other hand, if I buy small cell foundation, then they will not have to be regressed later on. Is that the correct understanding?

No. They will do the same thing either way. In my experience they will most likley build about 5.1mm cells with or without small cell foundation. Either way you'll need to do another regression.

I would do the natural cell, myself, but I feel it's more natural, cleaner and cheaper.







My preference is the comb guides on the top bar, but I have also done starter strips and even empty frames between two drawn combs. Or any comb with an imprint of a nice straight comb still on the top bar works fine.


----------



## Bill Ruble (Jan 2, 2006)

I want frames and not just top bars for this year. I just can't spread too thin this first year. What do you mean when you say comb guides? what is the difference between that and starter stips? and sence I have those larger cell foundations, if I use them for starter strips, will that be ok? It will save me buying any more and I could use some of them up.  But I want to start right the first time.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>What do you mean when you say comb guides? what is the difference between that and starter stips? 

Starter strip:
http://www.bushfarms.com/images/PrimaryCombOnBlankStarterStrip.JPG

This one is a plain one, but it doesn't matter if it's embossed either.

My triangular comb guide:
http://www.bushfarms.com/images/FoundationlessFrame2.JPG

This can be cut on the bottom of the top bar or added on.

Charles Martin Simon's triangular comb guide:
http://charlesmartinsimon.com/pictures.htm
http://charlesmartinsimon.com/frameinstructions.htm

Langsrtoth's triangular comb guide:
http://www.bushfarms.com/images/LangstrothFrame.jpg
http://www.bushfarms.com/images/BeveledTopBarFrame.JPG
http://www.bushfarms.com/images/BeveledTopBar.JPG

You can also cut a strip of wood about 1/8" off the edge of a one by and glue it in the groove or use popscicle sticks.

You can also just leave the imprint of the last comb on the top bar and not bother to replace the starter strip or foundation.

You can also just put an empty frame between two drawn combs which act as a guide.

>and sence I have those larger cell foundations, if I use them for starter strips, will that be ok?

I think it will work fine. Try then and measure what the bees build. My guess is it will be around 5.1mm the first shot, no matter what the size on the strips is.

Here's how you measure cell size. Lay the ruler down and measure across ten cells:
http://www.bushfarms.com/images/47mmCombMeasurement.jpg

>It will save me buying any more and I could use some of them up. But I want to start right the first time. 

I only cut the starter strips about 3/4" wide. By the time you put this in the groove only about 3/8" is showing. If you look at natural combs the top cells are always a bit big and funky:

http://www.bushfarms.com/images/TTBHComb.JPG

This one is upside down so look at the bottom (which is the top when it's in the hive) row of cells.


----------



## Bill Ruble (Jan 2, 2006)

Ok, here is what I am doing now. I build 12 new medium supers because I am going to go to that size because of weight. I also build 4 medium depth 3 frame nucs today. I then put in some foundation from the big cell foundation I had bought. but what I did was cut the foundation strips where the wires go up and down and then put the pieces onto the frame. By doing that, I had to turn the foundation the other way to make it fit. i have only done one starter strip because I was not sure if by turning the foundation it would matter. will wait to see what you say about that. I don't emagin it will matter but thought I'd ask anyway.

BTW My bees are out big t ime today. I fed them a little.
Bill


----------



## Bob Russell (Sep 9, 2003)

To all
Just a few shots over the last few days following the incorporation of the cell gauge developed by a member on the orgainic beekeepers list.

http://tinyurl.com/69wtc 

Some may be aware that a small cell trial was conducted in New Zealand and the results published in the November 2002 New Zealand Beekeeper titled "Varroa destructor not thwarted by smaller sized cells,study finds" By Michelle Taylor HortResearch.My own private research with varroa resistant bees now in year 6 takes one on several tangents when viewing the whole picture.Into year two with my feral bee project and now starting my small cell project.As an office holder at branch level of our National Beekeepers Association I will need sound practicle proof it works to present to our association,hopfully as a presentaion at a National conference as I did with FGMO and now approved in New Zealand.Our commercial beekeepers and stake holders (producers of foundation)have a lot of capital invested in frames and foundation mills.One foundation manufacturer invested in a drone comb mill and no doubt would do likewise for small cell (if it is required)if it can be proved effective as a stand alone varroa control.This work needs to be accelerated as NZ is into year 6 with varroa and chemical resistance could show up at anytime now.Private beekeepers are also providing funds into research projects here and our NZ Hort Research team are working on a number of projects in the control of varroa.

[ January 12, 2006, 03:37 PM: Message edited by: Bob Russell ]


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>By doing that, I had to turn the foundation the other way to make it fit. i have only done one starter strip because I was not sure if by turning the foundation it would matter. will wait to see what you say about that. I don't emagin it will matter but thought I'd ask anyway.

Ian Rumsey seems to think it will have less varroa that way:

http://www.bee-l.com/biobeefiles/ian/comb.htm
http://www.beedata.com/data3/natural-comb.htm
http://www.beedata.com/htcomb/index.htm
http://www.bee-l.com/biobeefiles/ian/varroa_cell.htm

A discussion on here:
http://www.beesource.com/ubb/Forum16/HTML/000023.html

>Some may be aware that a small cell trial was conducted in New Zealand and the results published in the November 2002 New Zealand Beekeeper titled "Varroa destructor not thwarted by smaller sized cells,study finds" By Michelle Taylor HortResearch.

Yes. It would have been nice if she had read anything about the protocol of how to regress bees and done a study that lasted a significant period of time on a significant number of bees.

>This work needs to be accelerated as NZ is into year 6 with varroa and chemical resistance could show up at anytime now.

Try wax dipping PermaComb. You can skip the whole regression thing. Then you can do splits off of those hives. It accelerated my work significantly.


----------



## Bill Ruble (Jan 2, 2006)

You know something MB, you sure make me do a lot of thinking and studing. the more I learn the more I know I don't know. Where does it stop. It don't, I do know that!!

Thanks so much for your input. I appreciate it.
Bill


----------



## Bill Ruble (Jan 2, 2006)

I had left for a minute, but had to come back and make another statment. I can see so many ideas to try out and I am excited about all the possibilities. However, I can't do them all and don't want to reinvent the wheel. This is why I ask so many questions. If I can get to where some ideas are not answered then i have got a place to start!!!!!

Michael, do your bees build horiszontal comb or vertical or both or have you looked? I thought it might be interesting to see what the small cell orintation was like.
bill


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

> can see so many ideas to try out and I am excited about all the possibilities. However, I can't do them all and don't want to reinvent the wheel. 

I started with natural built comb on starter strips so I could see what the bees would build. When I was convinced they would build smaller cells, I did the wax coated PermaComb to speed things up. Now I'm using a mixture of about half and half PermaComb and foundationless.

>Michael, do your bees build horiszontal comb or vertical or both or have you looked?

Here's a primary comb (first one they built) on an unembossed starter strip and it's vertical (note the "Y" in the bottom of the cell is going sideways)

http://www.bushfarms.com/images/PrimaryCombOnBlankStarterStrip.JPG
http://www.bushfarms.com/images/PrimaryCombOnBlankStarterStrip.JPG

Here's a foundationless frame from somehwere other than the center and it's kind of a wavy horizontal

http://www.bushfarms.com/images/FoundationlessDrawn.JPG

>I thought it might be interesting to see what the small cell orintation was like.

So would I.

Michael Housel's observations were that there is a primary (vertical) comb and the rest of the combs are horizontal in a particular orientation.

http://www.bushfarms.com/images/FoundationlessDrawn.JPG

My observation is that there is a primary (vertical) comb and the rest is unpredictable.


----------



## Bill Ruble (Jan 2, 2006)

Well, I noticed the wavy was full of honey. I wonder if the brood would tend to be one orintation would be much different than the storage area.

Bill


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

It doesn't seem to matter.


----------



## Bill Ruble (Jan 2, 2006)

I just now noticed something. i checked my boughten foundation and it is vertical not horizontal. Is that the way it always is? I thought it was the other way around. Mine has the pointed end up not the flate side.
bill


----------



## Bob Russell (Sep 9, 2003)

Michael Bush
Thanks for responding to my posting.

>Yes. It would have been nice if she had read anything about the protocol of how to regress bees and done a study that lasted a significant period of time on a significant number of bees.

My posting was not to critisize the work done by Michelle Taylor and the Hort Research team here in New Zealand.I sighted their work first hand.I am revisiting small cell following observations from both my resistant and ferral bee projects with the aim of presenting my findings to our 3500 beekeepers and intend to donate a fully working hive to Hort Research. 

>Try wax dipping PermaComb. You can skip the whole regression thing. Then you can do splits off of those hives. It accelerated my work significantly.

At this point I do not know if we have any full depth permacomb in New Zealand to wax dip.However I have access to 4.9 plastic comb (from a private import a couple of years ago) but have many frames well underway from plain wax starter strips drawing 5.0 - 5.3 at present in the feral trapped swarms to select from ready for next season.

By all means direct me to documented protocols and addresses on small cell you are refering to.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>I just now noticed something. i checked my boughten foundation and it is vertical not horizontal. Is that the way it always is? I thought it was the other way around. Mine has the pointed end up not the flate side.

If the pointed end is up then it's horizontal. We are talking about rows of cells. Look for a "row" of cells. Do they run vertical or horizontal? Standard foundation is all horizontal. Another way to look at it is this. Is the "Y" in the bottom of the cells right side up or upside down? Then it's horizontal. Is the "Y" in the bottom of the cells sideways? Then it's vertical.

>At this point I do not know if we have any full depth permacomb in New Zealand to wax dip.

There is no full depth PermaComb. It is all mediums.

>However I have access to 4.9 plastic comb (from a private import a couple of years ago) but have many frames well underway from plain wax starter strips drawing 5.0 - 5.3 at present in the feral trapped swarms to select from ready for next season.

A good start.

>By all means direct me to documented protocols and addresses on small cell you are refering to.

Dee's writings are under the POV section. They may not be laid out as a typical "protocol" but the requirements are all listed there. Mostly that you have to end up with 4.9mm in the broodnest before you'll succeed.

http://www.beesource.com/pov/lusby/index.htm

She would say it takes a minimum of two regressions on 4.9mm foundation to get natural sized bees that will make natural sized cells. She would say you shouldn't expect control of Varroa until you get to that point. To simply put some large bees on small cell foundation with no turnover of comb and expect to find significant enough control of Varroa to keep the bees alive without treatment is NOT an expected outcome. The expected outcome would be that they will need at least two regressions before that state is reached and the real test is when the core of the broodnest is all 4.9mm drawn cells, not just 4.9mm foundation. This is takes least two or three years for this to happen gradually swapping out comb or two full shakedowns in one year to do it as quickly as possible. And still it may take another year to finish regression It takes time for them to draw the comb, time for the bees to emerge from that comb and time for those bees to draw more comb and time for those bees to emerge. The only shortcut I know is if you have fully drawn small cell comb to start with. Which is what I get with the wax dipped PermaComb. It's 4.95mm, slightly bigger than I want but small enough to make a big difference.

But if one wishes to do an experiment on small cell one should talk to the pioneer of it on the principles methods. Success and failure are all in the details.

I used the plastic 4.9mm foundation and I like it on regressed bees. I didn't have any luck with it on unregressed bees. They did everything to avoid drawing it.


----------



## tony350i (Jul 29, 2005)

i din't realise it would take my bees two or three years to get on 4.9 or smaller cells in the brood box,

if i could get some 4.9 PermaComb i take it would help then,and is it the same size as a b/national brood frame

ive had a look and can't find any PermaComb for love or money over hear in the uk.


Tony


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

> din't realise it would take my bees two or three years to get on 4.9 or smaller cells in the brood box,

The bees aren't in a hurry. It just takes time for them to draw comb and rear another generation of smaller bees.

I woulnd't worry about it. Just let it happen by feeding combs into the brood nest (which I would do for swarm control anyway) and they will get there. Measuring from time to time is helpful so you can keep the smallest cells in the center of the brood nest and work the larger ones out.

>if i could get some 4.9 PermaComb i take it would help then,and is it the same size as a b/national brood frame

PermaComb is 5.1mm. If you heat it and dip it in wax and shake off the excess it's about 4.95mm (allowing for cell wall differences compared to regular comb). In other words measuring 4.9mm cells are including the cell wall which is .1mm thick when the bees build it. The plastic ones are thicker. So the I.D. of a 4.9mm cell is 4.8mm. The I.D. of a PermaComb is 5.0mm. The I.D. of a wax dipped PermaComb is 4.85mm.

They only come in Langstroth length (19" top bar) and medium depth (for a 6 5/8" box). And they are not wax dipped.

>ive had a look and can't find any PermaComb for love or money over hear in the uk.

Maybe John Seets could find a dealer, but they still won't fit a National hive.


----------



## tony350i (Jul 29, 2005)

have you got a pic of the comb,

and if it is a case off comb being bigger then my brood box, can't i just cut it down to fit.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

In theory, I guess you can cut it to length, but there's not really a "top bar" just ears on the ends with cells going all the way to all the edges. If you cut it to length the ears would be a bit weak I think. But you could probably cut both ears off, cut the comb for length and put a top bar on it. That would give you some support. You could glue it on and also put some wood screws in.

Then there is depth. PermaComb is 152.4mm tall. I assume yours are British Standard deeps and are 215mm? I guess you'd buy a little height by adding a top bar on, but not that much.

http://www.bee-l.com/bulletinboard/seets/permacomb.htm


----------



## Bob Russell (Sep 9, 2003)

Firstly I need to study Dees writings,the whole 22 sections.Secondly in order to get acceptance and convince commercial beekeepers in New Zealand that would justify expenditure in retooling it will have to be proved that it is effective as a varroa control in our country.Thirdly what ever size cell required we need to be able to produce/procure the finished product here in Langstroth sizing for both 3/4 and full depth and be cost effective.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

My point is that in order to do the research you can put them on wax dipped PermaComb and you have that done in one generation. Six weeks later you have no large cell bees that will be building any comb and if you like you can put these regressed bees on wax foundation and now you have wax, bee drawn comb with small cell bees.

The point is that you need small cell bees and small cell comb in order to do a valid test of small cell for Varroa control and the quickest way to get them is the wax dipped PermaComb. If you're patient, it's not a lot of work, it just takes time, to get them regressed by letting the bees build smaller combs as they go.


So far most of the research has been something like this one (which was in New Zealand):

http://www.bee-l.com/biobeefiles/pav/scstudy.htm

To quote the study:

"However the research also identified a contributing factor was the shorter
capped cell stage of the Africanised bee, reducing the length of time the
mites had to reproduce. Therefore it could not be assumed that a reduction
in cell-size would have the same impact on varroa in New Zealand, especially
since the research was conducted with a species of bee (Apis cerana) and a
species of mite (Varroa jacobsoni), both different from species in New
Zealand."

But I've measured shorter times on EHB also, so by my observations, their assumption that they won't get shorter capping times is wrong.

"The inability of the New Zealand bees to draw out small cells evenly was
expected. This is because they are predominantly kept on 5.4 foundation.
In order to draw the cells out to the same width, a gradual step-down
process from 5.4 to 4.7 would have been required, taking maybe a couple of
seasons."

Exactly. This is a lot of the crux of the matter. If doing the experiment correctly takes a couple of seasons, shouldn't you do that? Instead they put sections of comb in a patchwork and then before they emergence opened them and counted mites. If the only control that small cell adds is shorter emergence times (and there is much speculation that there are other factors involved) then there would be the same number of mites preemergence. The question is are there less mated and viable females at emergence, which will not be at the same time in the small cell. And, of course, are there other factors as well? Some of which may be related to the smaller bees?

You can't do a 21-day or a 48-day experiment with small cell and expect to accomplish anything.

Dee Lusby has done an 18-year experiment, which has been quite successful.


----------



## Bob Russell (Sep 9, 2003)

Michael
>My point is that in order to do the research you can put them on wax dipped PermaComb and you have that done in one generation.

I accept what you are saying and will import permacomb over the winter ready for use as you suggest for next spring in the project.We are fast approaching Autumn in New Zealand.Have you ever published any results you have had when done as you suggest.It would be unfair for me to use a varroa resistant queen in the small cell project.Could use an overwintered queen that has tested 50% in newly capped brood over this next few weeks before mite invasion starts.


----------



## tony350i (Jul 29, 2005)

Thanks for getting back so soon,

I thought of doing away with the lugs on the PermaComb and cut and glue and screw it so it fits nicely in side off an empty brood fame that I use in my British Standard brood box,
It does sound like a bit off mucking about, but I think it will be worth it in the long run and I might have small cell bees by the end of the year,

Tony


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>It does sound like a bit off mucking about, but I think it will be worth it in the long run and I might have small cell bees by the end of the year,

That could work.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>I accept what you are saying and will import permacomb over the winter ready for use as you suggest for next spring in the project.

I heat it to 200 F (just below 100 C) and dip it in 212 F wax (100 C) and shake off the excess. Messy but effective.

>Have you ever published any results you have had when done as you suggest.

I've really only done two things. I've put it in my observation hive and timed capping and post capping times and found a day shorter capping time and a day shorter post capping time. that's 19 days from egg to emergence. Actually that's the same as Huber observed back in the late 1700s.









And I've regressed the bees, pretty much in one shot and stopped treating and let them make their own comb after the regression on foundationless frames.

>It would be unfair for me to use a varroa resistant queen in the small cell project.

For the experiment, probably. But as long as it's all from the same stock, or even the same queen, does it really matter?

Personally I'd like to find the time to do more accurate and more extensive timing (down to the hours) of capping and post capping times, as well as varroa population changes. But I don't really have enough varroa anymore to plot much of any changes.


----------



## Louise (Aug 18, 2003)

Well I just had both my hives die and I've ordered new packages for the spring. I've been thinking about small cell and now that I'm starting from scratch it seems like a good time to do it. I was just getting ready to order Brushy Mountains sc foundation when I read this post. Here are my questions:

1. Really - I should start them on Permacomb and then move them to all wax foundation?

2. Who sells small cell permacomb?

3. As a small time hobbiest with no real stash of wax, is there any other way to get dipped permacomb?

Thanks,
Louise


----------



## Darrel Wright (Jun 30, 2004)

"I've put it in my observation hive and timed capping and post capping times and found a day shorter capping time and a day shorter post capping time. that's 19 days from egg to emergence."

I did the same thing as Michael and got the same results. In mine, I had tapered comb and I just measured capping and emergence with about a dozen marked cells in a 'large cell' area and in a 'small cell' area. The bees in the smaller cells emerged, as I remember, between 20-40 hrs before the larger ones on the same comb in the same hive.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

Thanks for doing it and for sharing the results.

It's easy enough to do if you have an observation hive. I wish more people would do it.







I get tired of people questioning such an easily repeatable result.

Find a section of comb that's 4.9mm. Put it in an observation hive and watch the queen lay in the cells. Mark them with a letter or number on the glass and write down the time. Check back every morning and evening until they are capped and then emerge.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>1. Really - I should start them on Permacomb and then move them to all wax foundation?

If you want to end up on all wax, then I'd start them on small cell foundation or foundationless frames. If you want to end up on PermaComb I'd wax dip the PermaComb and put them on it. You're done.

>2. Who sells small cell permacomb?

No one. But you can heat it and dip it in wax and shake off the excess. Standard PermaComb is the equivelant of 5.1mm (measure the inside diameter on the flat sides and add .1mm for a natural cell wall to convert) Wax coated is about 4.95mm.

>3. As a small time hobbiest with no real stash of wax, is there any other way to get dipped permacomb?

Unless someone comes up with a production system to do it, no. I've contemplated trying to set one up, but unless there's a market for it at a high enough price, it's not worth investing a couple of thousand dollars to come up with an automated mass system. You can buy beeswax from many sources. You can dip it yourself. Or you can just use wax foundation. I understand Dadant now has 5.1mm and 4.9mm and wired and medium foundation. The 5.1mm would make a nice first regression and the 4.9mm would make a nice 2nd one.


----------



## drobbins (Jun 1, 2005)

the 5.1 my stuff sounds nice
I started switching my 1 hive to SC last summer
my first move was to give them a frame of SC foundation
the results were poor
look how they messed it all up in the center

http://www.drobbins.net/bee's/Dsc00776.jpg 

next I gave them a frame with a starter strip and they drew all drone comb
when I gave them more frames with starter strips they did well, it was about 5.1mm but it looked good 
my understanding of it is that the initial frame of SC foundtion was just to big a jump for them
I consider it a waste of a sheet of foundation
my understanding of them drawing the first frame with starter strip all drone is that foundation kinda suppresses there need to draw drone comb and when you first give em the chance to draw what they want they do a little catching up
I expect to be able to feed in frames of starter strips this spring and get down to 4.9mm
then I may put some whole sheets of SC in the broodnest

that's my plan nd I'm sticking to it unless I change my mind









Dave

[ January 19, 2006, 03:49 PM: Message edited by: drobbins ]


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>the results were poor
look how they messed it all up in the center

It doesn't have to be pretty.


----------



## drobbins (Jun 1, 2005)

I just couldn't see the point in giving them expensive foundation they weren't going to draw out 4.9mm
They did a fine job on the starter strips
I'm gonna give em some more 4.9mm foundation this spring and hopefully they'll draw it more evenly

question: if you give bees that have been drawing SC natural comb for a while a sheet of SC foundation, do they draw it out as a solid sheet of SC?
I understand that they do what the feel like, but just a general observation.

From my point of view, it would be nice to have a solid sheet of 4.9mm in the brood nest, but perhaps from the bees point of view they'd rather build what they want.
I'm trying to decide if I want to use foundation at all

Dave


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>question: if you give bees that have been drawing SC natural comb for a while a sheet of SC foundation, do they draw it out as a solid sheet of SC?

Usually.

>I'm trying to decide if I want to use foundation at all

I still keep experimenting with three things:

Foundationless.
4.9mm foundation (with 1" gap at the bottom)
Wax Dipped PermaComb.

It allows me to use what's convenient for the situation. If I want drawn comb or very nice straight even comb, there's the PermaComb. If I want the bees to draw something to expand the brood nest and stimulate wax making, I can put an empty frame in the brood nest. When I want nice perfect comb, I can use some 4.9mm foundation.

Admittedly, the foundation is what I do the least of.







But I may do more, if I find the time, this year.

It's not a decision you have to make. Why can't you do both foundationless and 4.9mm foundation?


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi Guys,

Now, I'm going to toss another wrench into the works :>)

Having the right size cells in the right place is very important to colony health. But so is having clean comb.

Just how long can comb be retained and still be healthy, even in an untreated hive? At some point in time, the old comb should be salvaged and replaced by newly drawn comb.

This factor should be an important part of comb management.

Hummm....my small cell comb, drawn out in 2000, is going on 6 years old and should have been replaced at least once by now! That thought makes my tbhs look even better.

Regards
Dennis
Thinking all that cutting, rendering, repairing, rewiring/crimping, embedding and SPENDING could get old real fast!

[ January 20, 2006, 09:13 PM: Message edited by: B Wrangler ]


----------



## Louise (Aug 18, 2003)

>Hummm....my small cell comb, drawn out in 2000, is going on 6 years old and should have been replaced at least once by now! That thought makes my tbhs look even better.

I don't get it. Why don't you need to replace the foundation with Top Bar Hives? Isn't the wax just as old once they've drawn it out?


----------



## jim b (Oct 3, 2004)

>I don't get it. Why don't you need to replace the foundation with Top Bar Hives? Isn't the wax just as old once they've drawn it out?

I think the idea is to cycle empty bars into the center of the brood nest and harvest bars of honey from the outside(s). "Accordian" manipulation, as i recall it being refered to, as an alternate to Walt Wright's "Checkerboarding". More like "opening up the broodnest" that Michael Bush refers to. Helps deter swarming and improves honey production?

I would also like at this time to regress, if i'm outta line or way off base i'm fair game- have at it.

I haven't read everything in this thread, but back on 13Jan i was reading about horizontal vs. vertical positioning of the comb(cells) and the resulting amount of space that is left for the mites to manouvre(sp) inside the cells.
It brought up a situation i have going on at this time. The following is embarrassing for me.
Back in August i did a cut out from a nesting box that contained combs that fit just about perfectly in my deep frames---Sideways. I'm just lazy enough that that's the way i tied them in---Sideways.
That colony was a good stong colony up until about the first of this month. It is now down to about two frames of bees and is full of mites. I have others nearby that have mites too, but they so far seem to be managing allright-8 to 10 frames worth. They were swarms on foundationless frames.
I had wondered all along if i had done a big no-no when i tied the cutout into the frames---Sideways. 
I'll not do that again. 
Just needed to confess and this looked like a good opportunity to throw it out there, albeit, morn a week late, sorry.-j


----------

