# SC experiment



## pahvantpiper (Apr 25, 2006)

OK, I'm doing this small cell experiment in the spring with lots of hives, still trying to get all the details ironed out. Anyway, I'll be doing mite counts on all the hives to compare the small cell bees to the control bees (yes, big pain in the you know what). Sticky boards are kind of pricey though ($2.60 each) and I'll be using hundreds of them over the course of next few years. Is there a cheaper way? I read about using transparent contact paper from Dave W. That's the best idea I've heard so far. Any other suggestions before I commit?


----------



## Dave W (Aug 3, 2002)

pahvantpiper . . .

Bless you. 

I am amazed that someone remembers something I said









The clear contact paper figures out to about $.25 per count. It easy, its mess-free, you can KEEP THEM for ever and ever







, take them to "bee school" meetings and if necessary you can "keep" them (days, weeks later) until you have time to do the count.

I like clear contact paper









Why not start your counts now?


----------



## pahvantpiper (Apr 25, 2006)

"Why not start your counts now?"

Because I don't have screened bottom boards yet on any of my 4way pallets (one of this winters many projects)

Thanx Dave.

Rob


----------



## R.L. Bee (Mar 8, 2006)

I'me very new to beekeeping so any advice I give is subject to failure, But here it is anyway,find some old packageing paper and cut it to the size needed and smear it with petroliam jelly and use as sticky paper, or buy the large sheets of costruction paper and cut it to the size needed.


----------



## Sundance (Sep 9, 2004)

I like the contact paper idea....... I have
used the white plastic cardboard they use for
signs (contact a sign maker for rejects) and
spray on generic PAM..... I just wipe it off
with a paper towel and respray.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

The nice think about Dave's clear contact paper, is you can put a date/time/hive on a sheet of paper and stick it to the contact paper and keep the mites forever. Your counts can be rechecked anytime by anyone.


----------



## Hillside (Jul 12, 2004)

"keep the mites forever"

Another beekeeping concept that my wife is going to love. She puts up with a lot. Although, this could be the mite that breaks the camel's back.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--OK, I'm doing this small cell experiment in the spring with lots of hives, still trying to get all the details ironed out.

I dont get evolved in this stuff anymore, but I would like to discourage you from putting yourself thru the grief. I doubt there is an iron big enough to iron out all the details in order to satisfy the critics. IMO, it would be impossible to cover all the details because one can always think of a detail that was missed to refute the study. No mater how detailed a study you do, the test will be disqualified by the pundits for some reason or another.

Most common disqualifications used are, you lack in scientific background, the mite count was not properly equalized, you ended your study in 2 years when you should have gone 3 years, OR maybe you ended your study in 3 years when you should have gone 4 years, the queens may not have been from the same genetic line, not enough colonies in the control groups, colonies too close to each other, colonies too far apart from each other, the study was bias etc,,,,,,,,,. 

To top it off, pundits will turn around and quote from studies that don't stand up to their own standards. Anyhow, have fun with the study and dont take it too seriously.

[ September 09, 2006, 11:08 AM: Message edited by: Pcolar ]


----------



## pahvantpiper (Apr 25, 2006)

Pcolar,
You're probably right on every point. I'm doing it for one reason and one reason only - to learn myself wheather small cell works or doesn't work, in my situation with my limitations on a commercial scale. If it does work, I figure I can save tens of thousands of dollars, if not more, in chemicals and bees and labor (not to mention headaches) over my lifetime. If it doesn't work...well...I've lost some time and some money but it's not going to break me. 

I am teaming up with a couple other people, one of which has some experience with research on a university level, so we'll see what happens.


----------



## iddee (Jun 21, 2005)

PCOLAR, I LOVE AN OPTIMIST.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--I'm doing it for one reason and one reason only - to learn myself wheather small cell works or doesn't work,--(pahvantpiper)


Hi pahvantpiper,

That's great!
This is how I approached all advice about small cell since I started. Yea, I knew that I had to assume a certain amount of trust up front in order to make any sort of serious attempt at testing small cell, but only until I could see it with my own eyes in my bees as they progressed. But as a rule, I really never believe anything I read on the internet unless I can see it with my own eyes in my bees or feral colonies or test it somehow.

So this is good that you are looking to prove or disprove it to yourself as this is how all information should be treated. But as all beekeepers differ on opinions, I differ on many views on how easy success with small cell really is. Your probably looking at a 4 year period to succede, as long as you have a good honeybee breeding program also. 

--I am teaming up with a couple other people, one of which has some experience with research on a university level, so we'll see what happens.,--(pahvantpiper)

Great! Research guys are mite counters, and low mite counts are not necessarily related to mite resistance, but more likely related to brood levels which my be suggestive of poor queen performance. So one would have to consider brood levels in relation to mite counts also. 

Selection and possibilities within honey bees  be careful what you are selecting for.

http://www.beeculture.com/storycms/index.cfm?cat=Story&recordID=480

Another thing, I dont know why this is but once regressed in year one, mite levels seem to rise the next season during year two while they are regressed on small cell. But then, taper off that fall and mite numbers and remain low in the years after that. I think Dennis also had similar experience with this 'mite spike'.


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi Guys,

Joe's got a great point. Unless you have a real scientific bent, design the mite test so it suits your needs. Don't worry about proving it to anyone. It doesn't take near the numbers or rigorous protocol to see what works.

I had a scientific bent. A science background and one of my old job titles ended in 'ist'. In 1996 I started out counting mites and have counted hundreds of thousands. I learned more about mite behavior than I ever cared to. But I've also learned it's really not necessary to do it too extensively. Just do it intensively, on a half dozen hives, for a few years. That should be enough. Maybe more than enough :>)

Once you get a little mite experience, you won't need to monitor the mites themselves, as there are enough symptoms shown by the bees to keep you out of trouble.

I'm on small cell and natural comb. I no longer count mites at all. There's just no need. Wish I could give you my sticky boards, but I tossed them. And it was quite a relief to focus again on just the bee rather than on the mite. 

I'd save most of that $2600 for additional small cell foundation and forget most of the sticky boards. Rather, put a whole yard on small cell foundation. And run it the same way you do your other hives. Critics will complain about unique location, genetics, etc. But you will see the evidence you need for yourself without wasting lots of time, energy and money.

If you like what you see, switching gears from a testing mode to implementation is quick and painless. And it can be done at anytime without abandoning somebodies testing protocol. And you won't have to deal with lots of useless, expensive sticky boards.

Regards
Dennis
Thinking there's only one thing worse than counting mites to take the fun out of beekeeping... and that's measure size differences between 1500 large and small cell bees.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

I'm with Joe and Dennis. You'll never be able to devise a test or experiment with SC that will meet with the approval of the "ist" group. Anyway, it's their job to do that, not yours. Go into this setting things up in such a way that your questions are answered. It doesn't have to be complex at all. Set a goal to get x number of frames of well drawn out sc comb. Once you have that, then you can truly do comparisons. The hardest part of sc is getting good frames of the comb. I went through quite a bit to get mine. Now one has the advantage of different foundations to work with. I still have a lot of sheets of 4.9 wax that I milled myself. I look forward to hearing the reports. I have no doubt they will follow right in line with what I saw, Dennis saw, and the rest. My favorite part was seeing firsthand how the bees opened up capped pupa and chewed half of them out to get to the mite/s.

- Barry


----------



## pahvantpiper (Apr 25, 2006)

Thanx for the comments guys. Part of the test will be with Honey Super Cell pre-drawn 4.9mm cells. I have several hundred frames sitting in boxes just waiting to go. So, at least on those, I won't have to wait for good frames of comb. All the honey supers for these HSS hives will be made from 4.9mm wax foundation bought from Dadant. By then the bees that draw it out should be smaller and draw it out better. These honey supers will be used the following year for brood.
Rob


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

<<All the honey supers for these HSS hives will be made from 4.9mm wax foundation bought from Dadant. By then the bees that draw it out should be smaller and draw it out better.>>

Maybe. I didn't have the best success getting SC comb placed in the honey super position. I kept putting wax foundation down in the brood between full combs. I had even worse results with the plastic foundation. Never tried the HSS. Remember, by mid-summer, your SC bees will look just like LC bees, for the most part. You will really see the size difference early spring and fall, when the queen is utilizing the SC for brood rearing.

- Barry


----------



## pahvantpiper (Apr 25, 2006)

Barry,
If I install packages on HSS in april, by mid-summer (July?) won't the bees have already raised a few rounds of brood? shouldn't these new bees be fully regressed since they don't have a choice with HSS? What am I missing? I understand that LC bees put on SC foundation or left to build their own comb won't completely regress the first year, but I'm hoping HSS will force them to. Please bee patient with me as I'm new at this SC thing.

Woops, forgot my main question...why will LC bees and SC bees look the same in mid-summer if the SC bees are truely SC (having come out of 4.9mm cells)

[ September 10, 2006, 10:22 AM: Message edited by: pahvantpiper ]


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

>If I install packages on HSS in april, by mid-summer (July?) won't the bees have already raised a few rounds of brood?

Yes.

>shouldn't these new bees be fully regressed since they don't have a choice with HSS?

Perhaps. There are real questions surrounding the whole idea of regressed bees, at least for me.

>What am I missing? I understand that LC bees put on SC foundation or left to
>build their own comb won't completely regress the first year, but I'm hoping HSS will force them to.

You will end up with some bees that were raised on SC. You are assuming that the collective bees will want to draw the cells out the same size as the foundation you are giving them at this time of year, during a honey flow. Maybe, maybe not. I'm not how it was for others, but even the TBH bees show us they naturally build larger cells for honey storage. I'm just saying, keep a close eye on the comb when you do this and be ready to change directions if the bees start making a mess of it. There are a lot of variables that go into comb building.

Regards,
Barry


----------



## Dick Allen (Sep 4, 2004)

>You will really see the size difference early spring and fall, when the queen is utilizing the SC for brood rearing.

All my bees are smaller now than they were in mid summer. I have one hive I suppose I could say that's sort of on small cell. The combs were drawn by some already claimed to have been regressed bees 4 years ago, and most of those combs were drawn ok. A new package of bees was installed on those combs this past spring, but I don't see any size difference between them and the "regular" size bees.


----------



## pahvantpiper (Apr 25, 2006)

It's all starting to come into focus now. Great food for thought...Thank you very much!

-Rob


----------



## pahvantpiper (Apr 25, 2006)

By the way, why are there no scientific sudies done by some professors at a university? They could just let their student research assistant handle all the busy work. It seems to me with the large amount of anecdotal evidence, that it does help with varroa, someone would want to know "for sure." There are studies done on just about everything else under the sun.

Do you think it would be worth approaching a university and seeing if they would bee willing to validate a study if I financed it by doing the beekeeping end? All they would have to do is tell me exactly what they want and send down some peon student to collect information from me now and then.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--I have no doubt they will follow right in line with what I saw, Dennis saw, and the rest. My favorite part was seeing firsthand how the bees opened up capped pupa and chewed half of them out to get to the mite/s.--(Barry)

Although, I did see this chewing out during the regression process. I was attributing it (in theory) to either the infected small cell pupa which was smaller being sickened by mites sooner which giving off odors sooner would allow the colony to detect and remove the infected cell sooner.

OR, an enhanced ability to smell out infected cells possibly caused by the effects of a more natural sized bee on bee health and subsequent improved traits caused by the lessening of size related stress factors. As we all know stress will cause an increase in brood diseases and other problems in honeybees.

Although, both of my theories may or may not be true. I am for some reason not detecting any chewing out of cells and varroa counts are very low. So my thoughts now on the chewing out phenomenon is that it is more a reflection of a high mite count in healthy naturally sized bees rather than something one should be wanting to see. In affect, chewing out indicates trouble in the colony and should not be occurring to a large degree once regressed. So my opinion is.

[ September 10, 2006, 12:23 PM: Message edited by: Pcolar ]


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>why are there no scientific sudies done by some professors at a university?

I have tried to interest them. They have other pursuits.


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> why are there no scientific sudies done by some 
> professors at a university?

Those studies that *have* been done in the USA
to date on small-cell have been reacted to with blind 
outrage by the group that wants to _believe_. 

As it happens, these studies were lacking in a few areas,
and very well _could_ have been better-crafted in
the area of design, but those who took the time and
trouble to do the work were not at all encouraged by
the vitriol with which their work was met, and likely
decided that there were other, more productive uses
of their time.

While the credibility of an idea has nothing to do with
the viability of the idea, and visa-versa, the biggest 
single problem is the seeming deliberate lack of
credibility of the claims made by small-cell enthusiasts,
combined with the complete lack of even spiral-bound
notebooks with notes on the hives downsized, let
alone professional-grade record-keeping.

> Do you think it would be worth approaching a university 
> and seeing if they would bee willing to validate a study 
> if I financed it by doing the beekeeping end?

By all means! You need not even "finance" it, it may
be that all they need is cooperation from someone who
will openly agree at some point "_Yes, these are small-cell
bees, they will live alongside larger-cell bees, and will
survive without treatments_" or whatever claims you
feel are appropriate for small-cell bees.

But you must realize that they may hesitate to collaborate
on terms you dictate, so be willing to negotiate minor issues
like where the colonies sit, how they are monitored, and
if queens can be marked, etc. Telling researchers what they
can and cannot do outright is never a good idea, as they
have multiple ideas, all of which deserve careful attention
and a full hearing before any are rejected or critiqued.

Good luck!


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--Those studies that have been done in the USA
to date on small-cell have been reacted to with blind outrage by the group that wants to believe.--(Jim)

The only thing that outrages me is when you pundits use flimsy deceitful tactics to bolster their positions. 

Let's be fair now. You know that these studies you refer to do not meet many of the standards you yourself had held up time and time again to refute the credibility of small cell studies that showed positive results.

Where are these studies you claim exist? And how do they hold up to your standards?

I doubts there is a study done on small cell positive or negative anywhere in the world that would meet many of the fabricated scientific requirements.


----------



## Keith Benson (Feb 17, 2003)

"The only thing that outrages me is when you pundits use flimsy deceitful tactics to bolster their positions. "

LOL - I am sorry, but that was funny, you know in a kettle-pot kinda way.

Keith

[ September 10, 2006, 09:06 PM: Message edited by: kgbenson ]


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--"The only thing that outrages me is when you pundits use flimsy deceitful tactics to bolster their positions. "

--LOL - I am sorry, but that was funny, you know in a kettle-pot kinda way.

LOL, yea, in an empty kettle-pot sort of way when they insist on using studies that do not match up to standards they themselves have fabricated.

So the kettle actually contains less substance than they would like us to believe.


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

I clearly explained that I viewed much (if not all) the work
done to date on small cell to be lacking in one way or 
another, so your "challenge" was somewhat moot before
it was made.

If you wanna call me a "pundit", go ahead, but I don't
feel very comfortable with the title, as I do not deal in
punditry, but instead, dabble in facts, and try to clearly
isolate verified facts from my personal opinions when
I contribute to a discussion.

Has small-cell gotten a fair shake from researchers? Nope.
Have researchers gotten a fair shake from small-cell
beekeepers? Also, no!

Who is to blame for this? Each group feels that the other
should "show some respect", and neither group feels 
that the other has much credibility.

I'm not saying that the two groups need "meet in the
middle", or compromise, nor do I see any willingness
to do so on the part of either.

Sad, isn't it?


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

WOW! You guys really know how to throw a wet blanket on someone's enthusiasm! Pahvantpiper simply asked for some advice on a method, and you guys jump in to try to discourage even doing the experiment.

How in the world do you expect any results if you attempt to discourage research? Or should everyone just accept the claims about small cell on faith? Or, do you believe that every beekeeper needs to conduct his or her own experiments to determine whether or not small cell will work?

Pahvantpiper, part of the problem with trying to do research is that it takes thick skin. See, you've got two groups (probably more, but for this discussion, two that are really concerned): one that supports small cell and wants to hear nothing against it, and one that opposes small cell and wants to nothing good about it. If the results support the claims that the small-cell proponents make, the opponents will be upset with the research. If the results show that small-cell doesn't really do what the small-cell proponents claim, the proponents will be upset. Either way, one group will attempt to discredit the research.

The trick is getting solid procedures, and letting the data speak for itself. In this case, I don't think the study needs to satisfy the whims of all the beekeepers out there. This is a start. A lot of you guys on this thread have experience with small cell (I won't name names), and that's great, but where has it been published? Not just in a popular magazine, but reviewed and published? 

Frankly, I'm disappointed by some of you guys. [Paraphrasing here] "Well, you'll never satisfy all the critics, and no one has really done this yet and shown anything significant, so it's better not to do it."

What's the problem, really? If you really believe small cell works, you shouldn't be scared about research to see if it works. If you really believe small cell doesn't work, you shouldn't be scared about research on it, either.


----------



## pahvantpiper (Apr 25, 2006)

Thanx Jon, not to worry, I'm still enthused.


----------



## Dick Allen (Sep 4, 2004)

>Each group feels that the other should "show some respect", and neither group feels that the other has much credibility.

>Sad, isn't it?

it is indeed, why don't you go first and try to show a little more respect.


----------



## Keith Benson (Feb 17, 2003)

"Well, you'll never satisfy all the critics, and no one has really done this yet and shown anything significant, so it's better not to do it."

Indeed. I would be really nice if it did get done and put this baby to bed one way or another.

"What's the problem, really?"

Money and inclination. It will cost something, even if it is just some foundation and someones time, as always time = money. Most of the folks grousing off are unable (in most cases) or unwilling to put the resources up to do anything truly definitive. 

Of course the work also should be done by someone without an axe to grind. There are a few folks whom, if they every got up the gumption to do a study, would be suspect simply because of what they have posted all over the internet. On this forum, Bee-L and when Bee-L fails, the other forums that the folks that don't get posted to Bee-L use as backup.

"If you really believe small cell works, you shouldn't be scared about research to see if it works. If you really believe small cell doesn't work, you shouldn't be scared about research on it, either. "

Some folks have an awful lot invested in SC, time, money, resources, ego, reputation etc. Makes it hard to even have the thought "maybe this stuff doesn't work . . "

If something showed that it was effective, I see a lot of the naysayers simply buying 4.9 foundation, and quietly converting their operation.

Who should be doing/funding the work? Personally, I think it is the proponents of small cell. You claim it, you prove it. The demand that professional researchers need to take SC seriously and begin doing studies is asinine. If they were held to that then researchers would be bound to look into every idea every put forward. Tin foil hats anyone? 

But here is the rub - many of the more ardent SCers, whole bee-ers or whatever is the current appellation are fairly anti-science, anti-research etc. SC seems to be very attractive to anti-science types.

Bottom line is that there is some intriguing anecdotal evidence that SC may benefit managed honeybees. It would be nice if there was a decent body of work that adequately examines this and provides a means for making management decisions less akin to reading ones tea leaves.

Keith Oh if I hit the lottery Benson

[ September 11, 2006, 01:22 PM: Message edited by: kgbenson ]


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--WOW! You guys really know how to throw a wet blanket on someone's enthusiasm! Pahvantpiper simply asked for some advice on a method, and you guys jump in to try to discourage even doing the experiment.--(Keick)

I think its great when someone experiments for themselves! But I discourage them for doing it for the sake of others, because of the headaches involved.

--How in the world do you expect any results if you attempt to discourage research? Or should everyone just accept the claims about small cell on faith? Or, do you believe that every beekeeper needs to conduct his or her own experiments to determine whether or not small cell will work?--(Keick)

Frankly, they all should wait for the scientific proof. Maybe it might take 10 or 20 maybe 30 years, but why not wait?,,, there is a chance that youll still be living. AS far as small cell claims, I dont make them anymore, they can come and see if they want, but I dont want bothered any more. But I do still enjoy making an occasional feral honeybee claim.









-- Either way, one group will attempt to discredit the research.--(Keick)

Thats the game they like to play. Look at the small cell study done in Norway, all that was focused on was discrediting the study.

-- A lot of you guys on this thread have experience with small cell (I won't name names), and that's great, but where has it been published? Not just in a popular magazine, but reviewed and published? --(Keick)

There has been some published material. But I would say to this, why the importance of something being published? Does this somehow lend credibility? 

--What's the problem, really? If you really believe small cell works, you shouldn't be scared about research to see if it works. If you really believe small cell doesn't work, you shouldn't be scared about research on it, either. --(Keick)

I have nothing against doing studies, I just think an equal playing field is needed.
I would rather see those that want scientific proof just sit back and wait for it.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

I'm still not understanding why anyone would rather that every individual experiment for themselves, rather than relying on proper, scientific studies. What if we did that for everything? Would that really make sense? ("BillyBob jumped off a cliff and died, but I'm not sure that I would die because I might somehow be different than BillyBob. I'll try jumping off a cliff to see what happens." "My neighbors bees all died from being exposed to Sevin, but my bees might be more resistant. Maybe Sevin will even kill the mites on my bees without harming my bees. I'll try spraying my bees with Sevin to see what happens." Yes, I'm being facetious; don't really try these experiments to see how they turn out.)

"Frankly, they all should wait for the scientific proof." -Pcolar

"Scientific proof?" Scientists (at least, credible biologists) don't talk about "scientific proof," because "proof" doesn't really exist. Scientists talk, instead, about "support for" or "evidence that supports" hypotheses. "Proof" implies that every instance will occur exactly as you hypothesize, and, let's face it, that would take an infinite amount of testing. You couldn't test every occurance of some hypothesized event in one year, much less every event ever. And that's what it would take for "proof."

However, if you can test enough examples, and the results show some reliable, predictability, you can cite those examples as "evidence." That's the goal of science.

"But I would say to this, why the importance of something being published? Does this somehow lend credibility?" -Pcolar

I've asked you to list citations in the past, Joe, and this is part of the reason for it. If I want something published in a popular periodical, I write a story and submit it. No one really checks my facts -- the editors assume I've checked my facts, and I'm responsible if I haven't. Generally, the editors of publications have little or no experience with the subjects of their publications.

But publishing in a peer-reviewed journal (AKA "primary literature," AKA "refereed journal," etc.) is a whole different ball game. To publish a manuscript in one of these journals, I submit the manuscript to the editors. The editors copy the manuscript, locate three (or more) anonymous reviewers who are experts in the field and are willing to read and review the manuscript and make recommendations ("publish as is," "publish after making recommended revisions," or "do not publish"), and send the reviewers the copies of the manuscript to review before it even has a chance of being published. Assuming the manuscript makes it past the reviewers, then I have to come up with money for the journal so they can print my manuscript (the money pays what are called "page charges"). The fact that other experts in the field have read the study before publication and found it acceptable -- even if it contradicts what they had personally believed previously -- lends credibility. They determine that, if the experiment is run under similar conditions again, the results would be similar if the experiment is repeated from checking the statistical analyses; thus the results are "predictable."

If you've ever read a scientific paper, you likely understand why primary journals are not referred to as "popular periodicals." Most scientific papers are dry beyond compare. Good reading material to cure insomnia, but not very interesting to most people. So, results that are initially published in the primary literature are often re-reported in popular periodicals, in terms that are more interesting and likely to be understood by more people.

"I have nothing against doing studies, I just think an equal playing field is needed.
I would rather see those that want scientific proof just sit back and wait for it." -Pcolar

What needs to be leveled on this playing field? Is this really a competition between SC proponents and SC opponents?

And, if everyone sits back to wait for scientific evidence (notice I didn't use the term "proof"), that evidence will never appear. Sooner or later, someone has to step up and do the work.

Besides, what skin is it off your back if someone else is doing the work? Why discourage it?


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi Guys,

>But you must realize... as they have multiple ideas, all of which deserve careful attention and a full hearing before any are rejected or critiqued.

And that's a very good reason why researchers etc. should run their own tests, at their own expense.

I kept detailed and accurate records on hives in my experimental yard for 7 years. It's not hard to do. And anyone can do it. Just read a few good bee studies and you will get the idea. You don't a PhD or even a degree. Just be consistent.

I published summaries of the mite counts, observations, etc. on bee-l and elsewhere. And I included most of the original data on my early websites. The intent was to stimulate others to do additional testing and observations for themselves. And to build on what I had done as someone wouldn't have to make my mistakes.

The results: Lots of time spent qualify and argueing this or that small point. Being written off as a liar. And having additonal criteria heaped on these tests. When the additional criteria was met, other criteria was then added.

Yet, only one person, that I know of, ever decided to go and see/test for themselves. The rest it seems, find it much easier to sit and type away, from some higher seat of skepticism, and tear apart what others have done without so much as lifting a hive tool. Or even taking upon themselves to do something better. Yet, all the while, crying contribute, contribute, to those who have already contributed, while they have contributed nothing but criticism.

I was wrong. There is something worse than counting a bazillion mites and measuring bees. And it's constantly responding to those with this kind of attitude. It drains a persons energy, time and emotions.

When I realized that the measurements on my website weren't stimulating additional interest in testing and observations. They were just acting as a smokescreen among the scientifically oriented. And they tended to overwhelm and bore the typical beekeeper. I removed them, leaving just a few generalizations with observations on my latest webpages.

It's best to leave the scientific proving to those inclined. None of them are ever satisfied with anothers work. And they seem to have lots of time to spend taking each others work apart. Remember those dance language debates? :>)))

So, ask yourself before your start your test, just what do you want to prove, to whom, and why. And then, if anyone else wants to get involved, let them know your terms up front. If they don't like them, let them spend their own dime and get their own hives. 

Regards
Dennis


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi Guys,

>I'm still not understanding why anyone would rather that every individual experiment for themselves, rather than relying on proper, scientific studies. ..

I was responding to a commercial beekeeper whose was going to set aside a large number of hives for a small cell test. I've been a commercial beekeeper and know that very few have either the money, time, or energy to conduct a extensive large cell test. Especially if they are only interested in observing the practical aspects of what works.

I suspect that a guy keeps bees for a living, rather than being a researcher, because his interests are focused in a different direction. Otherwise he'd be a researcher instead of a beekeeper. So, why saddle a beekeeper with all that researcher stuff. I was a little confused about whether I was a researcher or a beekeeper when I first started small cell, but I think I've got it sorted out now :>)

>Who should be doing/funding the work? Personally, I think it is the proponents of small cell. You claim it, you prove it....

Not from my perspective! I have funded it and proved it to myself! And I've shared the experience so others can do it too. But I'm not under any kind of obligation to fund or prove anything to anyone else.

I am willing to share my experience and any additional perspectives for those that find some value in them, even if it's just for humor.:>) But I really don't care how anyone else runs their bees or why. Their bees are their responsibility, not mine.

There are a few govenment and industry organizations that are chartered to assist/promote beekeeping and honey production. And there are a couple more whose self interests are served by this focus. If they would be interested, fine. If not, fine.

>What's the problem, really? If you really believe small cell works, you shouldn't be scared about research to see if it works...

I'm not scared at all. But I don't need research to see if it works. I already know. 

If this method involved putting something foreign into the hive, that could poison the bees or contaiminate the honey, I would want all the scientific data/testing I could get my hands on to make sure it could be used safely. And that's what I did, before I used oxalic acid. PS. At that time, none of the research could be found in this country. And to date, the US still doesn't have any. So, we're still waiting............ And if a proven method like oxalic is so hard to get approval, then image what a maligned method like small cell would require.

As a side note, the track record for science declaring pesticides safe for use as directed, has been abymissmal. And that includes some of the stuff most beekeepers freely put into their hives. Checkmite anyone?

But using small cell doesn't involve that kind of stuff. It involves a change in bee behavior which anyone can observe with their own senses. And that's one aspect that makes it so neat. Watch the bees. Count some mites. Keep a few records. And see what happens. Maybe not rigorous science, but great beekeeping for sure.

And it's amazing what happens when one's beekeeping focus is taken off mites, when hives thrive/survive without the problems caused by in hive pesticide use. Then you have the time and the bees to try all kinds of things. Joe, he's out in the trees collecting and selecting wild bees. I'm fooling around with top bar hives, hands off beekeeping and my own bee selecting. Barry, he's the king of hands off beekeeping. Michael is raising queens, making honey and typing up a storm. Scott is going commercial. I suspect the Lusbys are running about 700 to 1000 hives and Dee is promoting her organic beekeeping.

There are about 75 others I not mentioned and even a few more I've lost track of. But I know of only two people who have messed with small cell and abandoned it. One of these no longer keeps bees.

Regards
Dennis


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>But I don't need research to see if it works. 

Precisely. Nothing succeeds like success.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--I'm still not understanding why anyone would rather that every individual experiment for themselves, rather than relying on proper, scientific studies.--(Kieck)

How many people waited for proper scientific studies before adding mite controls like the essential oils, and grease, sumac smoke, tobacco smoke, acids? People dont wait for these things, they have a squirt and see attitude. But with small cell they want scientific proof? If you could squirt small cell into a hive, it would be a success!

--"Scientific proof?" Scientists (at least, credible biologists) don't talk about "scientific proof," because "proof" doesn't really exist. Scientists talk, instead, about "support for" or "evidence that supports" hypotheses. "Proof" implies that every instance will occur exactly as you hypothesize, and, let's face it, that would take an infinite amount of testing. You couldn't test every occurance of some hypothesized event in one year, much less every event ever. And that's what it would take for "proof.".--(Kieck)

LOL, Yes exactly what Jim Fisher and co. wants. 

--I've asked you to list citations in the past, Joe, and this is part of the reason for it.
--(Kieck)

References and citations mean nothing on these lists, they have no credibility what so ever. It is a rare person on this list that will discuss these things with any seriousness. Any reference that one provides will be said to be  taken out of context. Anyone disagreeing with any proposal will NEVER accept any supporting citation no mater what it says. I have citations to back up my theories but this is something I keep for my own records and I basically lost my will to share these things due to the wasted energy doing such things. 

--But publishing in a peer-reviewed journal (AKA "primary literature," AKA "refereed journal," etc.) is a whole different ball game. To publish a manuscript in one of these journals, I submit the manuscript to the editors. -(Kieck)

I have a few published material on small cell in my files, but I dont do that battle anymore, its a waste of time.

--What needs to be leveled on this playing field? Is this really a competition between SC proponents and SC opponents?-(Kieck)

Well, for one, the requirement by anti small cell folks that a small cell study that is positive for small cell must go more than 3 years, but the anti small cell group holds up single season studies for their proof that is doesnt work. There is no competition, theres just a bunch of folks that think they have the authority on what constitutes a proper small cell study and change the rules as they go to benefit their position. 

--And, if everyone sits back to wait for scientific evidence (notice I didn't use the term "proof"), that evidence will never appear. Sooner or later, someone has to step up and do the work. Besides, what skin is it off your back if someone else is doing the work? Why discourage it?--(Kieck)

Well, I think it better sometimes if people learn the hard way. But I do have a moral obligation to warn people that what to try tests in order to convince or help someone else understand something they have no intention of understanding, may be heading for allot of grief.


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi Guys,

Speaking of peer review. You guys are my peers and my stuff certianly gets reviewed here.

Do you think I could get my BS degree in small cell? Maybe I could get it from Fisher University? What do you say Jim :>))))

Take care guys. Hope you bees whether large or small are well prepared for the winter.

Regards
Dennis
Thinking I might get my picture posted in the small cell hall of fame, right next to the wall of shame.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

A lack of proof of something does not prove it wrong.

When I was a child and we started to get a cold, my mom gave us Vitamin C and Zinc. She did this because she listened to others who had done it, tried it herself and saw a noticable difference. She did this despite the fact that there were no scientific studies to prove it would do any good and despite that fact that Doctors writing columns in the newspapers went so far as to say it was a waste of money and didn't do any good.

Of course I seldom got a cold and quickly got over the ones I got. NOW it HAS been proven that Vitamin C and Zinc will lessen a cold and shorten it's duration. Just think how much money my mom could have saved if she would have just listened to those scientists and doctors. Of course I would have had a lot more colds.  

A doctor back in the 1700's proposed that Tobacco was the cause of many cancers. Of course it wasn't proven until several centuries later. Does that mean it would have been wiser to smoke? Or wiser to listen to a keen observer?

The American Indians made the observation that people who smoked too much tobacco got emphysema. Of course no scientific study proved that for probably another millennium. It was just a casual observation. But did that make it a false observation?

Xenophon (Ξενοφῶν) made many observations about horses back in about 350 BC that have only been proven scientifically in the last few years. If you were waiting for the controlled studies back in 350 BC, it would have been a long wait. On the other hand you could have noticed that he was a keen observer, and that he was seldom wrong about anything you knew of and accept that the ODDS are he was correct and acted accordingly.


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> Do you think I could get my BS degree in small cell?

At risk of undermining my proposal for everyone to show
a little more respect for "the other camp", I think that 
a number of people posting on this thread have slung
around enough "BS" as it is.









> A lack of proof of something does not prove it wrong.

But neither does it allow one to use any term other than
"*unproven*" for the "something". If any other stance
is taken in regard to a lack of evidence in support of 
"something", one is attempting to deny the basis for
_rational thought itself_.

There are countless cases (Xenophon included) where someone
made an observation that was much much later proven 
correct by the appearance of better observational/measurement
techniques and equipment, but this is a meaningless example,
in that such incidents are worthy of note _because they are
somewhat rare_. If one takes such blind faith in "the old ones"
to extremes, one ends up reading everything in the newspaper
as something that was predicted by Nostradamus, or as 
something that is a sign of the so-called "rapture".

Folks like Nostradamus wrote so much that was so vague,
that anyone can read anything into what they wrote. 
Mumble enough stuff, and some of it is sure to seem
to be "about" just about anything. Also, mumble enough,
and one is sure to seem to be "correct" fairly often.

Hmmm...

Michael Bush - 22802 posts
Sundance - 4700 posts
BULLSEYE BILL - 3235 posts
BjornBee - 2876 posts
George Fergusson - 2751 posts

I see a pattern here.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

I can't quite believe what I'm reading here! Reading between the lines, you guys are saying that scientific tests are worthless because anecdotal evidence already shows some results.

So, what's wrong with giving it a try? Why try to discourage it?

I suppose I'm trying too hard to find the agenda that some of you guys have. This experiment isn't costing you anything financially (unless you're participating, which I haven't heard about), it's not taking any of your time (again, unless you're participating), so why talk against it? The first thing that pops into my mind is that, for whatever reason, you're afraid a controlled experiment will show that small cell does nothing.

"I'm not scared at all. But I don't need research to see if it works. I already know." -B Wrangler

Great! You've done the work for yourself, and you're convinced it works well! That's commendable. But why discourage others?

"Well, I think it better sometimes if people learn the hard way. But I do have a moral obligation to warn people that what to try tests in order to convince or help someone else understand something they have no intention of understanding, may be heading for allot of grief." -Pcolar

So, do you go around warning people about this across all topics, or only selectively?

OK, so just to make this clear to all of you, I work at a university. I am a research entomologist. Primarily, I study crop pests, but I work on some other projects as well. I have been gearing up to do some work on a real trial of small cell versus commercial-sized cells this year, planning to begin next year. When I read that Pahvantpiper was planning to do an experiment (on his own) that is very similar to what I had in mind, I contacted him about collaborating on the project. My idea was to increase the amount of data included in the study, run the same thing in two different parts of the country simultaneously to compare results, and include someone who shows some obvious enthusiasm for the project. He doesn't need to do the "research stuff." But his cooperation is greatly appreciated.

So, if you guys have some constructive comments about things you'd like to see included, I'd like to read them. Otherwise, I think we know how most of the people on this thread stand: some believe no experiment will ever be adequate to show what they want to see, some believe scientific experiments are wastes of time, some want to start some scientific work on this topic.


----------



## BULLSEYE BILL (Oct 2, 2002)

Some (most actually) want to see it done and the results to stand on their own.

The problem as I read it, is that even with the best foundation, to withstand the assault of the "ist's", and even Himself, is seemingly futile.

>So, what's wrong with giving it a try? Why try to discourage it?

I don't think that they are discouraging it as much as they are preparing him to the onslaught of ridicule from the nay sayers.


----------



## BULLSEYE BILL (Oct 2, 2002)

>Do you think I could get my BS degree in small cell? Maybe I could get it from Fisher University?

Do you realize how hard it is to resist?


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--So, what's wrong with giving it a try? Why try to discourage it?--(Kieck)

Im all for trying to see for ones self. But you endure allot of attacks when any results are posted on forums.

--Great! You've done the work for yourself, and you're convinced it works well! That's commendable. But why discourage others??--(Kieck)

Well, the headaches. Because all studies or observations that are brought up, get attacked in attempt to disqualify the information based on technicalities instead of based on the content. Content is almost never discussed, just a side stepping approach to disqualify all the results is ever done.

--So, do you go around warning people about this across all topics, or only selectively?--(Kieck)

I do it selectively. If they learn the hard way and loose many hives, then they may begin to realize that the chemical treadmill and large cell do not work, and maybe learn to associate this with the health of your bees and the health of those consuming your honey. Then you are more likely to follow the other essentials for success on small cell by eliminating the treatments that contaminate and effect bees and potentially do harm to bees and people. Funny thing that small cell seems to work best when all treatments are stopped.

--,, I contacted him about collaborating on the project. My idea was to increase the amount of data included in the study, run the same thing in two different parts of the country simultaneously to compare results, and include someone who shows some obvious enthusiasm for the project. He doesn't need to do the "research stuff." But his cooperation is greatly appreciated.--(Kieck)

Great, go for it!

--So, if you guys have some constructive comments about things you'd like to see included, I'd like to read them. Otherwise, I think we know how most of the people on this thread stand: --(Kieck)

Start up a thread asking for constructing comments for the topic.
Ive been thru and finished regressing several years ago and have 6 years experience with small cell, so I may have some to suggest. 

--some believe no experiment will ever be adequate to show what they want to see, some believe scientific experiments are wastes of time, some want to start some scientific work on this topic. .--(Kieck)

There have been studies on small cell, and one particularly positive study done in Norway. But these have all been attacked and run off the discussion lists.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

>you guys are saying that scientific tests are worthless because anecdotal evidence already shows some results.

I think all SC tests done by the "ists" to date show a lack of ability to give SC a proper show. I would welcome a thoroughly well structured test that covers a period of at least 3 to 4 years. This has already been done by the non "ists" with very positive results.

I just received an email from Erik Osterlund and I asked him how he and Hans-Otto are fairing with SC. "Very well, thank you." Here are two individuals who run hundreds of hives using SC. I have never known one "ist" that spoke with any interest in SC. All have nearly laughed at the idea.

If you and Pahvantpiper want to give it a try, go for it. But unless you get a top dog "ist" to give their blessings on the test, you will have done a lot of hard work, regardless of the results, and it still won't hold the muster because it wasn't peer reviewed and done the "right way."

Just look at what Adrian Wenner has gone through having found opposing results to von Frish's work!

>So, if you guys have some constructive comments about things you'd like to see included, I'd like to read them.

All I ask is that the known experience of those who have already been through the process of SC be asked to critique the test before it starts so any glaring procedure errors can be addressed, like the errors on this test:
http://www.beesource.com/bee-l/biobeefiles/pav/scstudy.htm

[ September 13, 2006, 05:31 PM: Message edited by: Barry ]


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

"But unless you get a top dog "ist" to give their blessings on the test, you will have done a lot of hard work, regardless of the results, and it still won't hold the muster because it wasn't peer reviewed and done the "right way."" -Barry

No offense, Barry, but that's not the way the "scientific community" works. If you're a scientist, and you have an idea for an experiment, you attempt it (assuming you can afford to test it), do the analysis of the work, and attempt to get it published. If you've done the work well -- in other words, other people attempting to perform the same experiment will almost certainly obtain the same results you obtained -- it's likely to get published. Maybe not in "Science" or "Nature," but published in a refereed journal. The peer review comes after the work, before the work is published. Peer review does not come before the work is done.

Yep, I see your objections to the study in the link, Barry. We won't make that same mistake. We're still getting all the details ironed out -- I'll try to post more about them after we get them pretty well settled, just to confirm that the procedures will truly qualify as "small cell," based on the experiences of those who've converted.

No comment specifically on Adrian Wenner's work. I will say that overturning a generally accepted belief is extremely difficult.

Now, do we still need a new thread just for constructive comments or suggestions, or can those simply be posted here, Joe? This thread began as a request for suggestions, not a solicitation for opinions about whether or not conducting the experiment is a good idea.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

>The peer review comes after the work, before the work is published. Peer review does not come before the work is done.

I think you may have missed my point. You do the test (work), it's submitted to review, and I believe it won't get published because those reviewing it will find fault with the test. Is not this one of the big issues Wenner has about this process? Look how long he was kept from publication! . . and he played by the rules! Maybe I'm using the wrong terminology. Sorry.

- Barry


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>But neither does it allow one to use any term other than
"unproven" for the "something".

When I'm discussion anything that is in the realm of my own experience, I think I can say what I've observed without qualifying it as "unproven".

> If any other stance
is taken in regard to a lack of evidence in support of
"something", one is attempting to deny the basis for
rational thought itself.

Sharing my own observations without constantly prefacing what I say with "unproven" denies the basis for rational thought? That's too absurd to respond to.

>I can't quite believe what I'm reading here! Reading between the lines

Hmmmmm are you reading it here or are you reading between the lines?

> you guys are saying that scientific tests are worthless because anecdotal evidence already shows some results.

I haven't heard anyone say that. Im certainly not. But some of us are a bit jaded. The tests so far have typically been things like this: Take a patchwork of different sized foundation in one frame. Put it in one hive for about two weeks until it's drawn and has capped brood. Uncap the brood and count the mites. Study is concluded. Conclude that small cell doesn't work because you dont see any real difference in the counts.

How about a real test. 23 years ago (I checked to get the year right, which would be 1983) Dee Lusby started regressing bees to deal with the tracheal mites and other issues that had come up. 23 years later with no treatments and 1,000 hives that are flourishing and everyone just wants to say they are AHB. Since 1983? Plenty of us have three to five years of small cell bees with no treatments in areas where there are no AHB that are flourishing despite having some Varroa mites. Certainly a simple 20 hives or so of each side by side with simple measurements of natural mite drops and honey produced for two or three years would be useful.

Cartoon About Studies:
http://www.webelements.com/webelements/elements/media/nearingzero/Pb.gif


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

"You do the test (work), it's submitted to review, and I believe it won't get published because those reviewing it will find fault with the test. Is not this one of the big issues Wenner has about this process? Look how long he was kept from publication! . . and he played by the rules! Maybe I'm using the wrong terminology." -Barry

Hmmmmm. . . I've reviewed several papers, some of them have contradicted what I personally had believed (without having ever tested), and, as long as the procedures were "proper," I didn't recommend rejecting them.

One of the biggest reasons papers are rejected before publication is that authors tend to collect good data, make good analyses, then stick their necks out and draw conclusions from their data that are not really supported by their data. I see that as one of the biggest problems with the whole controversy over whether bees can use information in "dances." To be fair, I'll include both sides. Von Frisch concluded that bees are somehow communicating information to recruit other workers to resources. His data showed recruitment. Wenner concluded that bees use odor to locate resources, not information from dances. His data showed that bees can locate resources by odor.

But why conclude that bees ONLY use odor, or ONLY use information from dances?

The other problem that Wenner faces is that other researchers conducting tests have gathered data that support a dance-language hypothesis, or, at least, some form of communication not based solely on odor. But enough about that. I don't mean to bring up that topic on this thread.

"Hmmmmm are you reading it here or are you reading between the lines?" -Michael Bush

Both. What I've been reading on this thread are attempts to discourage formal research on "small cell" bees. I have difficulty believing that, mainly because I thought that most of the beekeepers who have been attempting to discourage research are staunch supporters of "small cell."

So then, I start reading between the lines. If someone who is a staunch supporter of an idea -- someone who believes the idea works, and is recommending it to others -- is also trying to discourage attempts to study that idea, to confirm or reject the efficacy of the idea, I start to wonder why they would offer discouraging comments. The first thought that jumps into my mind is that those supporters are less firmly convinced than they'd like others to believe. In other words, they're afraid a formal study might show that what they believe is not effective.

I'll be honest, I don't know Lusbys. I've read some about them, but I don't know how "real" the test is or was. OK, they have 1000 hives that they've "regressed" and have not treated for mites. (By the way, how are smaller bees supposed to be better able to cope with trachaeal mites?) Obviously, Varroa weren't on the scene when they began, so their initial intent was not to counteract Varroa. But what does it mean that they have 1000 hives that are surviving without treatments? Have these hives been more likely to survive over that period of time in those locations than hives on commercial-size cells? How can you really compare?

Just for contrast, I know a beekeeper in western South Dakota who has almost 1000 hives, has had them for at least 10 years, has not treated during that time, and uses commercial-sized cells. He claims that the long winters in this part of the country break the brood cycle long enough that the mites are greatly reduced.

I'm not sure 20 hives of each are enough statistically to support or reject the hypothesis. Based on the numbers and the variability I've found and from what I've read in other studies, 20 hives is likely too few to get statistical significance.


----------



## Craig W. (Feb 26, 2006)

I have had SC foundation from the start with my bees and so far.
At the start with my bees I saw some shb and a few mites and moth larvae on the BB.
Now I only see a moth larvae ever once and a while and a small hive beetle or 2.

I have no agenda and am not trying to sell foundation, it wouldn't matter to me if it were sc or regular size, but sc seems to be working as reported by others.


----------



## Dick Allen (Sep 4, 2004)

>He claims that the long winters in this part of the country break the brood cycle long enough that the mites are greatly reduced.

I truly wish that was an accurate assessment up here in the Far North. The varroa mite remains alive and well throughout our long Alaskan winter. And that's the truth.....


----------



## pahvantpiper (Apr 25, 2006)

I read something from the book "Mites of the Honey Bee" published by Dadant. Here is a paragraph about cell size modification from page 200:
"The smaller cell size of Africanized bees, along with the fact that these bees have fewer mites than European bees within the same setting, has led to the idea that possibly a small cell would limit mite reproduction. Just the opposite seems to be true. Larger cell sizes have fewer mites. There also seems to be a strong correlation between the height of the cell and number of mites within those cells; the cells with greater distance between the larva and the rim having fewer mites." 

The reference cited for this is: Ramon, H. & O. Van Laere. 1993. Size of comb cell and reproduction of Varoa Jacobsoni. pp. 521-529. In L. J. Connor, T. E. Rinderer, H. A. Sylvester & S. Wongseri, eds. Asian Apiculture. Wicwas Press, Cheshire, Connecticut.

You guys probably are familiar with these books and this study, so what gives? Has a legitimate study already been done or is this one of those bogus studies often refered to?


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

I am familiar with this study.

They are talking about the depth of the cell, not the width of the cell as in the case with small cell.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>What I've been reading on this thread are attempts to discourage formal research on "small cell" bees. 

Could you point out where you think you've read that, because I'm not reading that. People are just trying to be realistic about the results based on past experiences.

>By the way, how are smaller bees supposed to be better able to cope with trachaeal mites?

Dee's theory involves the size of the spiracles, of course the fact that she doesn't treat would quickly result in genetically resistant bees anyway.

>Obviously, Varroa weren't on the scene when they began, so their initial intent was not to counteract Varroa.

No. It was to counteract the Tracheal mites.

>But what does it mean that they have 1000 hives that are surviving without treatments?

It means they have a thousand hives that are surviving without treatments.

>Have these hives been more likely to survive over that period of time in those locations than hives on commercial-size cells?

As I understand it, the hives on standard sized cells that are not treated in that area generally die within a couple of years, as they do most everywhere I know of.


----------



## Keith Benson (Feb 17, 2003)

">But what does it mean that they have 1000 hives that are surviving without treatments?

It means they have a thousand hives that are surviving without treatments."

Yep, nothing more, nothing less. Of course this fact has been used as the basis for all sorts of claims. Some may be true, others may not. We will never know until someone does the work. Problem is that some of the folks making the claims set them forth as facts.

Keith


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Yep, nothing more, nothing less.

Precisely what I meant. However, I haven't heard of people keeping a thousand hives alive without treatment before, so it certainly deserves a closer look.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

Hi Keith,

Just one question, 
I dont want to get involved here other than these 2 questions.









If I say my bees are not just surviving, but thriving without treatments.
And it is a true statement,,,

Why cant I set this forth as a fact? Many breeders say their queens are this or that, and these claims are set forth as fact. What makes this any different?


----------



## Keith Benson (Feb 17, 2003)

You can. 

What those queen breeders are doing is hardly honest unless they have some data to back them up. It is advertising. Do you fully trust advertising? Do you want your statements to be evaluated as on par with adverts?

Keith

[ September 17, 2006, 07:46 PM: Message edited by: kgbenson ]


----------



## Keith Benson (Feb 17, 2003)

"Precisely what I meant. However, I haven't heard of people keeping a thousand hives alive without treatment before, so it certainly deserves a closer look. "

Absolutely. 

Keith


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> I think all SC tests done by the "ists" 

By "ists", you mean people with credentials
in research, correct? Why not be nice, and
use a more respectful term for people you
seem to want to take *you* seriously?

> to date show a lack of ability to give SC a 
> proper show. 

I agree that they might have gained some
insight from asking a small-cell beekeeper
for some input (or some already regressed
hives), but would anyone go on bended knee
to someone like, for example, you, who wants
to posture that the entire group of "ists"
*lack ability*? I certainly wouldn't,
and I have been pushing for years for a 
study where the small-cell bees are certified 
as "small cell" by someone in your camp!

> I would welcome a thoroughly well structured 
> test that covers a period of at least 3 to 4
> years. This has already been done by the non 
> "ists" with very positive results.

...but without records, without controls,
without any shred of data gathering that
might allow others to replicate the work.
As a person, I assume that your word, and
the word of every other person in beekeeping
is to be trusted, but as a card-carrying "ist",
in this very thread I see some backpedaling, 
such as comments that:
</font>
Small-cell hives won't do well in yards
amidst large cell hives.</font>
Most beginning small-cell beekeepers will
lose 100% of their hives during regression.</font>
Vague mumblings about how "controls" are
not a good idea.</font>
...which might indicate that "step one" in 
small-cell is to mess around with comb, have
all one's bees die, and thereby, create a
period of varroa-free (and, sadly, bee-free)
ecosystem where varroa problems are reduced,
and mere isolation is the actual reason why
the hives survive without treatment.

> I have never known one "ist" that spoke with 
> any interest in SC. 

Do you attend the national and regional meetings, 
where these people speak? If I asked around, 
who would say that they know you or have met you?
(Recall that I know a lot of people, so feel
free to post a complete list. Failure to post
a complete list would indicate that you really
haven't talked with anyone.)

> All have nearly laughed at the idea.

I want names. If you are going to level such
accusations, they should be specific, as it is
unfair to level such criticism at an entire 
group of VERY diverse individuals, any one of
which would give a major organ to be the one
to "prove" that one thing or another was *THE*
answer to the varroa problem, if for no other
reason than to allow everyone to get back to
doing more entertaining work (varroa work is
a real drag, you see).

> But unless you get a top dog "ist" to give 
> their blessings on the test, you will have 
> done a lot of hard work, regardless of the 
> results, and it still won't hold the muster 
> because it wasn't peer reviewed and done the 
> "right way."

Well, experiment design *is* important,
and yes, it would be a very good idea to get
some input from people who know how to design
experiments, how to collect data, how to do
the statistical analysis, etc. Just as you
think that a fatal error has been that the 
"ists" have ignored the small-cell group, it 
would be a fatal error for anyone to ignore
*the entire body of scientific knowledge
that has led to the current state-of-the-art
in scientific practice*.

> Just look at what Adrian Wenner has gone 
> through having found opposing results to 
> von Frish's work!

Different situation. He offered an "alternative
explanation" without really doing more than 
nit-picking at minor issues in an extensive body
of work. He has declared some mighty shaky 
"evidence" to be "proof" of this or that, and
has made not even a significant dent in the 
opposing body of work. He also made moving-target
claims, which in professional "ist" speak is
to make "ad-hoc" explanations, which did not win
friends or influence people.

> So, if you guys have some constructive comments 
> about things you'd like to see included, I'd 
> like to read them.

OK, fine. Step one, lose the ego.
Step two, be willing to admit that "just because
it works for you" is *not* the sort of proof
that makes the grade in the real world. Shucks,
there have been many people who have declared 
to all the world that they had some method for 
keeping their hives alive in the face of varroa,
grabbed sufficient attention to have studies done
at even the Beltsville Bee Lab, only to have 
their "discovery" to be found to be "no better 
than no treatment at all". This happens all the
darn time, I could list at least a dozen off the
top of my head, and anyone who has kept bees for
any length of time could likely list more that
I had forgotten.

Mark Feldlaufer, who ran the Beltsville lab until
recently, had a very crowded slide of things that
they tested, and found to *not work at all*
under controlled conditions. Each and every one
had a very enthusiastic group of supporters 
behind it, all of them good people, who honestly
thought that they had found _the answer_.

> All I ask is that the known experience of those 
> who have already been through the process of SC 
> be asked to critique the test before it starts 
> so any glaring procedure errors can be 
> addressed...

OK, but are you willing to first remove the
chip from your shoulder, and realize that
your participation would include negotiation,
listening, compromise, and respect for the
peers and the process, including accepting 
the results as valid, even if they don't come 
out as you might like?

I see two camps, each with egos, perhaps each
fully justified in their egotism, but you seem
to be unwilling to take a deep breath and try 
to *collaborate* rather than sitting around
"BMW"ing (Biotch, Moan, And Whine) about how
the *other guys* have not come on bending
knee, begging for wisdom.

Those other guys? They are merely busy.
They don't disparage you at all.
They don't disparage your approach.
They just refuse to accept your claims, as 
they have heard many claims about "small-cell",
some utterly fantastic, some surreal.

Beekeeper participation in studies in common,
but beekeepers who are able to actually 
participate and make a positive contribution 
are rare.


----------



## Fusion_power (Jan 14, 2005)

What I find amazing is the polarization of beekeepers that this issue causes. Some are clearly believers in small cell. Others are fence riders. A few don't believe anything unless it hits them in the face.

I'm not totally convinced on small cell yet. I have some very positive results, BUT they could also have an alternate explanation. 

I have one colony of bees that have been completely untreated for 2 years. They show low levels of hive beetles and varroa. They are on large cell foundation and surviving just fine. Is this genetics?

Example: I have one colony that was caught as a swarm this spring. They have absolutely no detectable varroa at this time. I even tried moving a frame of brood from a known infested colony. 2 months later, no varroa. These bees are on small cell and do an excellent job drawing sc foundation. Genetics? or small cell?

I'm leaning toward the position that small cell is a small step in the right direction. It biases the bees behavior in a way that reduces varroa. The rest of the equation is probably genetics. I won't be convinced of this until there is a ton more evidence. Its just speculation for now.


I would like to ask Jim Fischer a non-beekeeping quesion. Jim, is there a reason you have not learned to structure paragraphs in the forum? I find your posts disruptive to read because they are stretched vertically.

For the record, I'm not an "ist", I'm an "eer". As in Engineer. I'd have to have a lobotomy to drop down the scale far enough to qualify as an "ist". (smile folks, this is NOT serious, most of the "scientists" that I know are intelligent people, though some take themselves too seriously)

Fusion


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi Guys,

I introduced the term 'ist' into the discussion concerning myself and not to demean anyone's educational achievements.

My area of study/employment had no direct relevance to beekeeping. And I didn't wish to prejudice anyone (fer or agin) my observations by a previous phase of my life. I've always really just been a beekeeper, since I was as young as I can remember. I think I got a little confused along the way and did some other things which made a decent living :>)

Regards
Dennis


----------



## Dick Allen (Sep 4, 2004)

>What I find amazing is the polarization of beekeepers that this issue causes

yep, they're stupid and we're not. this gets "debated" every so often. people get their danders up at each other and then it quiets down again for awhile. some pretend to be a bit charitable toward the other side while they are sniffing pretentious euphemesticly couched insults at them. probably after another 6 or 7 pages of this stuff they will grow a bit weary from it and go on to something else. rest assured though, nothing will come of it. no tests, experiments, trials, comparisons or whatever will be made, and in a few more months both camps will be back slinging the same hash at one another.


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

Since I carry no chip on my shoulder, and have no rhetoric in my viens, I would like to add a comment or two...

I am all for testing and proven data. I also feel that the discussion for any SC tests being talked about borders on something along the lines of..."This is the results we know, this is the result we want, this is the best way to get the results we want and not have anyone question anything".

How about just using standards and proven techniques to get to the truth. Period. Without agendas, without egos, and without a "desired" end result that seems already a conclusion. One that seeks not just to answer questions about SC, but seeks the truth in the results of data and in regards to the comparision or controls.

I have participated in a number of tests with others. I have many times drawn conclusion or ideas from what I have seen. I am reminded that although they may be casual observations, and are something I would like to state as "fact", that without proper controls and data collection, they should remain as such. Many observations are lead-in ideas for the next round of tests that go beyond casual observation.

I have a huge advantage in seeing myself, many other beekeepers operations. I sugar shake FGMO users, smallcell users, and everything else under the sun. I also see many people doing nothing with great results. I see good and bad across the spectrum with just about everything mentioned as treatments. It is becuase of this point alone that I feel without controls and guidelines in any testing format, a format without prejudice and bias, that conclusions and statements are useless.

I would like to know that SC is as good as some claim. I would also like to know that SC is the reason some see success, and not for the fact they have hardier bees due to some culling of genetics while regression is being accomplished. Culling bees and achieving better genetics is something I see with others achieve over several years, and they do it without regression. I would like to know if through regression, are other factors involved through the manipulation of comb, frames, etc, that make the results seem more promising or blurred due to other outside influences.

"Just the facts mame". Thats all I want. And it should be the only thing pursued with unbiased testing.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--bees are on small cell and do an excellent job drawing sc foundation. Genetics? or small cell--(Fusion_power)

A good point you make! It seems there is a line of thought out there in that you can throw any old bees onto small cell and have them do well. Many believe it, but it goes against the basics of breeding.

It is a fact that the basic fundamental rules of breeding honeybees written by all the greats apply to ALL beekeeping medhodry and its subsequent success or failure.

A beekeeper cannot remove genetics from playing a part in his colonies success or failure, and a beekeepers cant remove beekeeper methody from playing a part in success or failure.


--Jim, is there a reason you have not learned to structure paragraphs in the forum? I find your posts disruptive to read because they are stretched vertically.--(Fusion_power)

Yea, the content of Jims posts was never that disruptive. The reason why Jims stuff is highly annoying is that the paragraph structure he uses goes against all the principals of Feng shui. It doesnt flow in a harmonious way, and interferes with the smooth flow of thoughts. It disturbs the patterns of the two primal opposing but complementary forces of yin and yang. This structure causes a disarray in the flow of positive forces of yang which can lead to health problems.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

>because they are stretched vertically.

Perhaps comes from those early days when monitors were small?


----------



## Keith Benson (Feb 17, 2003)

"This is the results we
know, this is the result
we want, this is the 
best way to get the 
results we want and not
have anyone question 
anything"."

I think it is phrased this way because to state it something more like this "Let's see if this stuff works or not" get one caught amidst a chorus of "of course it works, my bees are fine." There is no discussion just a vehemnt defense of against what is perceived as an attack on the theory. Couched as it is above some of the small cellers can tolerate the discussion.

No matter how 
one chooses to
phrase it, you
are right. It
needs to be 
determined *IF*
small cell works
to reduce mite 
pressure, and to quantify this effect.

I think someone else hit the nail on the head. This discussion goes round and round and nothing changes. The science folks want data and get a little huffy when someone suggests that a few anecdotes are equal to scientific research, the SCers claim that all the data one needs already exists and get indignant that someone would suggest that their interpretation of what they see may not reflect the reality.

Bottom line is 
unless someone 
with the inclination 
has a few resources 
to put towards the 
problem, nothing is 
going to change.

Keith "you type funny" Benson

[ September 18, 2006, 09:39 AM: Message edited by: kgbenson ]


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> Jim, is there a reason you have not learned to 
> structure paragraphs in the forum? I find your
> posts disruptive to read because they are 
> stretched vertically.

I mostly use a Palm Pilot, and it has a small 
screen.

If my shorter line-wrap is all that you find
"disruptive", then I guess I'm doing rather
well at trying to be less harsh with those
I feel are victims of fuzzy thinking.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

"Could you point out where you think you've read that, because I'm not reading that. People are just trying to be realistic about the results based on past experiences." -Michael Bush

Sure:

"I dont get evolved in this stuff anymore, but I would like to discourage you from putting yourself thru the grief. I doubt there is an iron big enough to iron out all the details in order to satisfy the critics. IMO, it would be impossible to cover all the details because one can always think of a detail that was missed to refute the study. No mater how detailed a study you do, the test will be disqualified by the pundits for some reason or another." -Pcolar

"Joe's got a great point. Unless you have a real scientific bent, design the mite test so it suits your needs. Don't worry about proving it to anyone. It doesn't take near the numbers or rigorous protocol to see what works." -B Wrangler

"I'm with Joe and Dennis. You'll never be able to devise a test or experiment with SC that will meet with the approval of the "ist" group." -Barry

"Those studies that have been done in the USA
to date on small-cell have been reacted to with blind 
outrage by the group that wants to believe." -Jim Fischer

"I think its great when someone experiments for themselves! But I discourage them for doing it for the sake of others, because of the headaches involved." -Pcolar

">But I don't need research to see if it works. 

Precisely. Nothing succeeds like success." -Michael Bush

For more "evidence," go back and re-read this thread. What sort of feeling do you get from reading it? Then, when you're done with that, go re-read the "Constructive comments" thread. What sort of feeling do you get from that one?

Is it "realism," or is it something else? The impression I get, and the impression left in the minds of a few other people I've talked to about this thread, is something entirely different than "realism."

[Edited for spelling.]

[ September 18, 2006, 09:15 AM: Message edited by: Kieck ]


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi Kieck,

So, you asked for some suggestions and you got them. And you've got some responses, from a varity of people, some of which have actually experienced success with small cell for 7 seasons or more. I think they've shared their experience with you so you can avoid the pitfalls they've experienced.

Is it real? Well, it's alot more real than just sitting around talking about it.

Design your test. Go, invest the time, energy and money. Then keep us posted along the way and share your results. It's lots of fun, most of the time. 

I for one, will be most interested to see them. Because the track record for those who've started down this path has been dismal. Every year, for the last half dozen years, a couple of beekeepers have planned to do the same thing you are proposing. And, to date, not a single one of them has posted even a single mite count. Let alone a monthly or yearly update.

Most of these proposals are thought of during the off season. But I suspect that once they experience the reality of getting small cell colonies established and the drudgery of the test, they quickly bail out, as it's certainly easier to write about and criticise what others have done, than it is to do a better job of it.

Reality? There are a number of beekeepers keeping bees without treating. And they've done so for years. Mites are not an issue. And their hives are thriving, more productive and their beekeeping is easier than when they ran bees the standard way. They are running bees the way some beekeepers can only dream about. And they are sharing their experience, so you can do it too.

Reality? It's generally been a waste of time to get involved in these kinds of discussions. Those who have seen some possibility with small cell are already trying it. And those who want to prove it, are looking for a reason not to use it.

Caution: now I'm on a rant!

On another note, I just don't understand why there is such a heated response to the small cell issue or any bee related stuff. There are some issues in this world that are very important: War, famine, genocide, global warming, etc. I wonder sometimes, if all the fuss over small cellis a factor of its insignificance, as there's just not much risk involved. Or do those that get so charged out of this issue really need to get a life bigger than a deep super.

Regards
Dennis


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

"And those who want to prove it, are looking for a reason not to use it." -B Wrangler

Thanks for your comments, Dennis. It might not always seem like it, but I really do appreciate your comments on this topic.

OK, so now for the quotation above: I'd like to see some evidence as to whether or not SC works the way some people claim. I can't find any studies that truly test SC versus LC, so I figured I'd have to start my own. Do I want SC to fail? Nope. Honestly, I think SC could be a big advantage to beekeepers if it does work as claimed. Do I want to see LC fail? Again, nope. I'd like to think that I'm going into this with no expectations other to learn something along the way.

See, here's the problem I have with so many of the claims about SC: they have no comparison, no controls to really test what they purport to test. According to several beekeepers on this board, Lusbys have kept about 1000 hives on SC for years without treatment. Like others have pointed out, that's exactly what it means -- the Lusbys have kept hives on SC for years without treatments.

At the same time, like I pointed out before, I know one beekeeper here in SD who has close to 1000 hives, has kept them for years without treatments, and has them on LC. So where's the difference? Is it really the cell size that makes a difference, or is it something in the management techniques? Hopefully, this study can sort some of that out.

I don't know that you'll get monthly postings of mite counts, but I hope to keep you guys up-to-date on how things are going with this study.


----------



## raybmn (Sep 22, 2003)

At the same time, like I pointed out before, I know one beekeeper here in SD who has close to 1000 hives, has kept them for years without treatments, and has them on LC. So where's the difference? Is it really the cell size that makes a difference, or is it something in the management techniques? Hopefully, this study can sort some of that out.

Reply: Does anyone else see the means here to have a study of this matter using two large operations that are already having success withstanding mites without chemical treatments of any kind?

Good day to all,
Ray B.


----------



## raybmn (Sep 22, 2003)

I want names. If you are going to level such
accusations, they should be specific, as it is
unfair to level such criticism at an entire 
group of VERY diverse individuals, any one of
which would give a major organ to be the one
to "prove" that one thing or another was THE
answer to the varroa problem, if for no other
reason than to allow everyone to get back to
doing more entertaining work (varroa work is
a real drag, you see).

Reply: Would those that would want to find the answer to the varroa mite problem, (to the extent of giving up a major organ to do so) pursue the matter with such enthusiasm while trying to document, and prove something someone else has found to work already, but failed to follow proper protocol while doing so?
Or, Could they possibly feel that the energy needs to go in a different direction in order to justify such sacrifice, and first need to prove the fallacy of what's already been found to work on a large scale for someone else?

I have a hard time understanding why all the scientific work done to date has been in the direction of adding things that are unnatural to the hive in effort to control varroa.

I hear all the time, that studies are needed that would document that something works, and that it needs to be done by scientists, and that one needs to be able to duplicate any positive results of the study. At the same time, the scientific type refuse to try to duplicate the the results of someone that has already had positive, repeatable results. 

Good day all, 
Ray B.


----------



## Keith Benson (Feb 17, 2003)

"Would those that would want to find the answer to the varroa mite problem, (to the extent of giving up a major organ to do so) pursue the matter with such enthusiasm while trying to document, and prove something someone else has found to work already, but failed to follow proper protocol while doing so?"

Sure, happens all the time. Anecdote, with all of it's limitations, is often the starting point of some great areas of scientific inquiry.

"I have a hard time understanding why all the scientific work done to date has been in the direction of adding things that are unnatural to the hive in effort to control varroa."

Some would argue that varroa is not a natural inhabitant of A. mellifera colonies and only after we brought them into contact with a parasite of A. cerana did they become an issue. Also, many folks think that if there is a disease, there should be a drug to treat it.

I hear all the time, that studies are needed that would document that something works, and that it needs to be done by scientists

No one says it has to be done by scientists, but it needs to be done scientifically. Having said that the people who are generally best employed doing science are . . . scientists. Anyone can do science, just like anyone can fix their own car, shingle their house, invest in the stock market. But sometimes is better to go with the pros. FWIW  if the study is sound I wouldnt care if a third grader did it, nor would anyone else. 

"At the same time, the scientific type refuse to try to duplicate the results of someone that has already had positive, repeatable results."

That is just it - to a scientist they do not look like solid repeatable results, at least not solid enough to provolk them to spend their time and their alloted research dollars on it as yet. The "results" look like anecdote. Probably because that is exactly what they are. 

The reason they look as if they are rock solid results to some folks is that it fits their world view that everything should be "natural" and that if we simply return to the "golden age" of beekeeping we would be all right.

Keith "golden ages never look very golden to the people who live in them" Benson

 [ September 19, 2006, 04:42 PM: Message edited by: kgbenson ]


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> Here is a paragraph about cell size modification
> from page 200: "The smaller cell size of
> Africanized bees, along with the fact that these
> bees have fewer mites than European bees within
> ...


In reply, Joe Waggle said:


> I am familiar with this study.
> 
> They are talking about the depth of the cell, not the width of the cell as in the case with small cell.


Hold on here, the summary quoted said:
"_Larger cell sizes have fewer mites. 
There also seems to be a strong correlation 
between the height of the cell..."_

So why would they say "also" when talking
about one factor, the depth ("height") of
the cells? It sounds to me like the first
sentence is about width, and the second
is about depth, moreso when one considers
that AHB have smaller diameter cells (on
average) than EHB, and clearly do *not* 
have deeper (or shallower) cells than EHB.

So, I'm going to ask if anyone has a copy
of the paper, rather than bothering Larry
Conner for a copy. Has anyone read the
actual paper here, or are arguments being
offered based upon summaries and 3rd-hand
interpretations?


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--Hold on here, the summary quoted said:
"Larger cell sizes have fewer mites. 
There also seems to be a strong correlation 
between the height of the cell..."--(Fischer)

Here we go again.

You are referencing studies that you have no idea if they meet your own demands that you have placed on small cell studies that for instance they run for 3 years and control groups, detailed anylisis so that the experiments can be repeated by other researchers.
Try living up to the standards you habitually set for others for a change.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--Most beginning small-cell beekeepers will
lose 100% of their hives during regression.--(Fischer)

Nice try Jim, but
Allow me to clarify this because I have experience with small cell regression.

The losses beekeepers may experience while regression is often due to their commitment to quit treatments cold turkey which leaves the bees without a crutch while they are regressing. This loss can be reduced or eliminated by implementing drone comb removal while in the process of regressing. It may take a year or two after regression is complete for small cell to reduce varroa levels to a point where they do not affect a colonies performance.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>I know one beekeeper here in SD who has close to 1000 hives, has kept them for years without treatments, and has them on LC.

That's the first instance I've heard of such a claim.

But, of course, my guess is either the combs are so old that the cells have shrunk from cocoons, or they are Pierco (which is 5.2mm), or they are both. For that matter, they COULD even be small cell, unknown to anyone. Dee Lusby says they were just using their old foundation that had been stockpiled for decades when they ran out and orderd new foundation and noticed that it looked bigger. How many people have foundation that is decades old? I know I used to have some that was 30 years old around here up until a few years ago.

>moreso when one considers
that AHB have smaller diameter cells (on
average) than EHB, and clearly do not
have deeper (or shallower) cells than EHB.

I don't believe that's true. According to Badoux's measurments on cell size when you reduce the diameter you reduce the thickness of the
comb:

Cell Size mm--Comb width mm

5.555--22.60

5.375--22.20

5.210--21.80

5.060--21.40

4.925--21.00

4.805--20.60

4.700--20.20

ABC XYZ of Bee Culture 1945 edition Pg 126

He shows 2.4mm difference in thickness from the diameter of 4.700mm to the diameter of 5.555mm.

>What I've been reading on this thread are attempts to discourage formal research on "small cell" bees.

>For more "evidence," go back and re-read this thread. What sort of feeling do you get from reading it? Then, when you're done with that, go re-read the "Constructive comments" thread. What sort of feeling do you get from that one?

It seems to me everyone is just preparing them for the dissapointment of spending all that effort and having whatever they observe receive no respect. No one here is against someone doing formal research.


----------



## Keith Benson (Feb 17, 2003)

"But, of course, my guess is either the combs are so old that the cells have shrunk from cocoons, or they are Pierco (which is 5.2mm), or they are both. For that matter, they COULD even be small cell, unknown to anyone."

Or, they are standard size and the bees are alive. Give the claim the same level of evaluation you expect others to give the small cell claims. Accept it at face value. 

Keith

[ September 19, 2006, 07:24 PM: Message edited by: kgbenson ]


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

"But, of course, my guess is either the combs are so old that the cells have shrunk from cocoons, or they are Pierco (which is 5.2mm), or they are both. For that matter, they COULD even be small cell, unknown to anyone. Dee Lusby says they were just using their old foundation that had been stockpiled for decades when they ran out and orderd new foundation and noticed that it looked bigger. How many people have foundation that is decades old? I know I used to have some that was 30 years old around here up until a few years ago." -Michael Bush

That's the first claim of that sort you've read, Michael? I realize that I'm small scale (just a few hives right now), and "treatments" need definition, but I posted on the "100% Treatment Free" thread that I haven't used chemicals -- including sugar -- in my hives for the last few years. My bees are mostly on LC at this point.

Now, to address some of your ideas about this other instance, the beekeeper that I mentioned rotates comb every two years, and always starts with pure wax foundation from Mann Lake. As far as I know, Mann Lake does not offer SC wax foundation.

This guy hasn't been in business for "decades," either. He has only been keeping bees for twelve years.

Like I wrote previously, he attributes his success to overwintering his colonies in the long Dakota winters. He claims the long breaks in brood cycle reduce Varroa populations enough that he doesn't need to treat. Now, whether or not you accept his reasoning, he does get by without treatments, and, from what I've seen of his hives, is doing it with LC comb.

I'll confess that I'm skeptical about his idea that the long winters reduce mite populations that effectively, but why should anyone doubt those claims any more or less than claims made that other methods are effective against mites?

"It may take a year or two after regression is complete for small cell to reduce varroa levels to a point where they do not affect a colonies performance." -Pcolar

Really? I was under the impression that, once "regression" is "complete," Varroa populations should already be low enough that the mites no longer significantly affect colonies. Can anyone else confirm that it will take a year or two after "regression" for Varroa populations to drop?

I think I'm now understanding why no previous, formal studies have been completed. Based on the timeline presented on this board, "regression" takes so long that studies are impractical. Here's what I gather from many of you: "regression" and stabilizing those colonies takes three to four years, then an additional one to two years are necessary for the effects to be significant. In other words, plan on six years of work see any effects of "regression."

That says a few things to me right away. 1) If Varroa populations don't decline for one to two years after completing "regression," the smaller cell sizes are unlikely to be the reason for the lower mite populations. 2) "Regression" is impractical at this point for the average commercial or sideline beekeeper. How many operations could continue financially while waiting six years to see results? 3) Anyone claiming to see results from SC must have started the "regression" no later than 2002. Otherwise, even the shortest timeline projected for "regression" hasn't been reached, and the results must be effects from something else.


----------



## MichaelW (Jun 1, 2005)

"It seems to me everyone is just preparing them for the dissapointment of spending all that effort and having whatever they observe receive no respect. No one here is against someone doing formal research."

No need to prepare someone that works in science for controversy. Scientists love to argue one theory over another backing up their claims with research articles. Sometimes it looks like its in good spirits of mental exercise, and other times things get a bit ugly. 

Looks like folks have just about talked Kieck out of his experiment!

I'll aggree with the last 3 points Kiek makes. If it takes six years to see results, it is not going to be adobted by many beekeepers. We beekeepers ask for experiments that yield useful, applicable information. I've read many statements on this weboard saying that. Many would argue, time could be better spent finding a new/better non-contaminateing treatment. Not out of lack of patience, but for economic sustainablility of people that make a living keeping bees. Not all beekeepers have the luxury to play around with their hives following advise of people they have never met, but talked to on the internet, or heard a lecture by. I do! And I really do appreciate that advise, even if these statments make people think otherwise.

If it really does take 6 years, the protocol must be completely integrated into a beekeeping operation that will still make money, be realistic, and not a burden. If some meausreable, positive effect can be seen in 1 year, could someone please explain how.

If smaller diameter cell = less varroa reproduction, that should be a very easy thing to test.

If there are more factors that make it more like an IPM approach that yields results over time, those factors need to be identified and thought about during the experiment.

[ September 20, 2006, 10:01 AM: Message edited by: MichaelW ]


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

>> Hold on here, the summary quoted said...

> Here we go again.

> You are referencing studies that you have no 
> idea if they meet your own demands that you 
> have placed on small cell studies

You referenced (and dismissed) the paper.
I asked *you* if *you* had 
_read the freakin' paper_ with which 
you were claiming to be so familiar.

*So, Didja, or didn't ya?*

It is a simple yes/no question, avoiding
the question leaves one with the clear
impression that the answer is "no", and
therefore your interpretation of the 
paper and study is less credible than a
reading of the clear and simple wording
of the paper's abstract, which I assure
you is carefully reviewed and painstakingly
edited for all papers so as to not 
misrepresent the actual findings.

> Try living up to the standards you habitually 
> set for others for a change. 

I'm trying to - I'd like a copy of the paper
if anyone has it, so that I can do something
very basic, _read the freakin' paper_.
I can't talk about a paper that I have not
seen, nor can I listen to opinions about a
paper from anyone who hasn't read it themselves.

So, I'll ask again, just to be crystal clear:
</font>
Have you read the paper?</font>
If so, can you e-mail me a copy?</font>
If not, how can you claim to be 
"familiar" with the study, and
dismiss it?</font>
Why does the abstract speak of
*both* cell size and cell
depth as if they were two 
different parameters, if you
claim that only one parameter,
cell depth, was addressed?</font>
I asked here before:
http://www.beesource.com/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000343;p=3#000074
I was polite, I was doing nothing more than
comparing what the paper's abstract said
about the findings with what you said about
the findings.

As an aside, is there a "right side" to you
bed, or was it built with two "wrong sides"?


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> It seems to me everyone is just preparing them 
> for the dissapointment of spending all that 
> effort and having whatever they observe receive 
> no respect. 

The "respect" comes from following specific
protocols that are designed to eliminate
error and confusion. If you follow the
protocols, you can lead with your chin, and
make flat statements about your findings, and
expect respect. Anyone not giving you respect
has to have a _reason_, like maybe they
take exception to your statistical approach,
or want to nit-pick your data set as "incomplete".

But if you do an SC study "by the numbers",
your results are _by definition_ not
subject to giggles, laughs, disparagement,
and such. Anyone who wants to "refute" your
work has to go do their _own_ work, and
show that it is both more robust, and show
that the results contradict yours. 

While there are people who do nothing but sit 
around and nit-pick other people's work, this
is a lot more like writing "letters to the 
editor" than it is actual Science with a
capital "S". A perfectly acceptable answer
to such a critic is to say "_Ok, smartypants,
go do what you say I should have done, and
prove me wrong_". It is a put-up, or shut-up
kinda thing.

> No one here is against someone doing formal 
> research.

It seems that some folks posting here don't
understand that "formal" research is the only 
kind of research that has a snowball's chance
in Hades of being taken seriously.

Just as _"Stripes do not a tiger make"_
(Copyright 1980 - me), multiple anecdotes do 
not a dataset make.

You need data. You need real statistics,
blessed by a card-carrying statistician.
You need to be able to set up a clear and
compelling test. 

Lord Rutherford's famous quote was "If your
experiment needs statistics, you ought to do 
a better experiment", and he was right for
the sort of simple things he was talking
about, but this is not a simple thing to
test. Likely, all beekeepers can do is
to clamor for the study to be done, and
offer to provide the small-cell hives.
Not to worry, if they are anything even
close to what you say they are, you can
have them back after the study.

So, the game is "you bet a hive".
The upside would be fame and credibility.
The downside is you might get back empty
woodenware, and a check for your bees.

So, to quote Harry Callahan: 
"_Do you feel lucky?
...well do you, punk?_"


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

>Can anyone else confirm that it will take a year or two after "regression" for Varroa populations to drop?

Not I. Remember, I don't do mite counts. I can vouch that it was hard work getting regressed bees and SC comb. Once I had it, things changed. Was it the regressed bees or the SC comb or both? Again, I don't know.

- Barry


----------



## MichaelW (Jun 1, 2005)

Here is more details for the article. Don't know where a copy is.

ACCESSION NUMBER: CAT 10631406 
UPDATE CODE: 9406 
PERSONAL AUTHOR: Connor,-Lawrence-John. 
CORPORATE AUTHOR: International Conference on the Asian Honey Bees and Bee Mites (1st : 1992 : Chulalongkorn University). 
TITLE: Asian apiculture : proceedings of the First International Conference on the Asian Honey Bees and Bee Mites. 
SOURCE: Cheshire, Conn. : Wicwas Press, 1993. xvi, 704 p. : ill., maps 
CALL NUMBER: DNAL SF531.A78I57--1992 
PUBLISHING AGENCY: Other-US 
PUBLICATION YEAR: 1993 
LANGUAGE: English 
COUNTRY OF PUBLICATION: Connecticut; USA 
ISBN AND ISSN: ISBN: 1878075039 : 
NOTES: Includes bibliographical references and indexes. 
PUBLICATION TYPE: Monograph; Conference-Publication; Bibliography 
DESCRIPTORS: Bee-culture-Asia-Congresses. Honeybee-Asia-Congresses. Apis-Insects-Asia-Congresses. Apis-cerana-Asia-Congresses. Honeybee-Parasites-Asia-Congresses. Apis-Insects-Parasites-Asia-Congresses. Varroa-jacobsoni-Asia-Congresses. Mites-Asia-Congresses. 
CATEGORY CODES: L700; L002

[ September 20, 2006, 11:40 AM: Message edited by: MichaelW ]


----------



## MichaelW (Jun 1, 2005)

I just put in a request at the Library. We'll see.

[ September 20, 2006, 11:47 AM: Message edited by: MichaelW ]


----------



## pahvantpiper (Apr 25, 2006)

Hey thanks MichaelW for putting in all the foot work on this. I've been curious about this every since I read about it last year. When I first read I just took it at face value. Now with so many testimonials as to the benefits of SC I've been questioning what I read. 

Thanx again,

-Rob


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

>> Most beginning small-cell beekeepers will
>> lose 100% of their hives during 
>> regression.--(Fischer)

> Nice try Jim, 

Not my "try", I was quoting an "experienced
small-cell beekeeper", whatever that might
mean.









Don't argue with me, argue with them.
I think the statement was made over in the
*other* thread discussing small-cell.

What makes you think that I am anything but
a firm supporter for the idea of putting
"small-cell" to the test? Why be so hostile?


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--Really? I was under the impression that, once "regression" is "complete," Varroa populations should already be low enough that the mites no longer significantly affect colonies. Can anyone else confirm that it will take a year or two after "regression" for Varroa populations to drop?--(Kieck)

I think Dennis may be able to confirm this, or a similar observation.

Look at it this way:

Small cell does NOT have knockdown like pesticides do, it works in other ways.

The small cell approach is similar to IPM pest control, as it relies primarily reducing things that insects need to survive like food and harborage, and these things take time to be effective, but they are extremely effective over the long run.

If you reduce the food, water and harborage in a house where ****roaches are infesting. ****roaches will still be present and cause problems for quite some time. But after awhile, populations will start to decline, and over time they will be unable to survive due to the loss of these things that are essential for life.

My hypotheses is:
Small cell reduces the available food that is necessary for feeding a good brood of varroa. Varroa are not highly attracted to small cell brood and will spend more time outside the cells searching for the best site for to lay eggs. This is dangerous for the varroa and gives the bees more opportunity to groom these mites off. Varroa that do enter a small cell are find that the available food is unable to support as many offspring, so competition increases for feeding on the pupa. As a result, the varroa, harm and affect the bee larva sooner which enables the workers to detect something wrong and uncap the cell and remove the infected pupa before all the young varroa have a chance to mature. So levels get reduced a little at a time, bit by bit.

Im at the point now in small cell where I rarely see deformed wings, (I found 3 this year) and most colonies have no dead bees in front of the hives as is common this time of year with varroa infestations. And I am even getting a surplus this fall in spite of poor weather which is always an indicator of very good health and low varroa populations.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--Looks like folks have just about talked Kieck out of his experiment!

Would you rather I deceive Kieck and tell him something different? 

--If it really does take 6 years

Well, 

Regression can be done in 1 season, maybe 2.

And 2 years tops after regression for stabilization.

So thats 4 years.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--"Regression" is impractical at this point for the average commercial or sideline beekeeper. How many operations could continue financially while waiting six years to see results? --(Kieck)

Why impractical?

You regress some of the colonies and use the combs as seed comb to regress the others.

--3) Anyone claiming to see results from SC must have started the "regression" no later than 2002. Otherwise, even the shortest timeline projected for "regression" hasn't been reached, and the results must be effects from something else.--(Kieck)

No necessarily, many have used ferals that generally are of smaller sizes. Some may have bought small cell bees.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

I believe this is the manuscript:

Goetz B., Koeniger N. (1993) 
The distance between larva and cell opening triggers brood cell invasion
by Varroa jacobsoni, Apidologie 24, 6772.

The attractiveness of varroa to larvae in cells with longer distance from rim to larva is reduced due to the less food odor that is detected by the varroa hitching a ride on a bee that must decide when to jump off into a cell.

Small cell does similar in that there is less food deposited by workers in these smaller cells. 

Research has shown that when comb space is reduced, bees build wider cells to compensate for the loss of depth to each cell. When cell space is reduced, bees will tend to increase the depth of cells in an attempt to compensate for the loss of width, causing a deeper cell, resulting in less attractiveness to varroa


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

Some of the statements made in this thread are the very reasons we need experiments, with controls, and guidelines of protocol, free of bias and prejudice.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--Some of the statements made in this thread are the very reasons we need experiments, with controls, and guidelines of protocol, free of bias and prejudice.

That's why my quoted material is all taken from careful observations, scientific research manuscripts or statements backed up by such material. That way it is free of bias and prejudice.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Can anyone else confirm that it will take a year or two after "regression" for Varroa populations to drop?

I went with the wax coated PermaComb so the regression went quickly. I used FGMO fog that first year to keep them down and then followed up in the fall with oxalic acid. There weren't many mites then. Since then the mites have stayed under control. If you go with 4.9mm wax and unregressed bees, from other's experinece, I would say it will take much longer.


----------



## MichaelW (Jun 1, 2005)

I just recieved a copy of the study;
"Size of comb cell and reproduction of Varoa Jacobsoni"

It looks at colonies with these two cell sizes
800 cells/dm2 (normal cell size)
640 cells/dm2 (enlarged cell size)

I'd like to know the X.Xmm conversion from someone quicker with math than I.

I don't know what would make someone think this study was looking at cell depth instead of cell diameter.

assumeing they are calling "normal cell size" something like 5.4mm, This study also does not look at varroa population effects from cell size in the context people are discussing it now, which would be cell capping times. In fact if you look at it in that context, the study makes a strong case for small cell beekeeping. I'll explain;

They are looking at cell size effect on something called "arresting time of the adults of the mite Varroa Jacobsoni at the bottom of the cell". I will have to read;

Ifantidis. M.D. 1988 "Some Aspects of the Process of Varroa Jackobsoni mite entrance into honey bee brood cells" Apidologie 19 (4): 387-396

to get a better understanding of what this arresting period is.

By using enlarged cells, they were able to delay this period for about 2hrs, which resulted in significant reduction in mite infestation levels. This means that the period larvae where infested by varroa was 2 hrs shorter in the enlarged cells than the normal cells. Note: this is attributed to delayed "arresting period" not changes in capping times.

So, if you look at the small cell theory that, a smaller cell around 4.9mm means shorter capping times, which means shorter window for the varroa to invade, the study would support that reducing the invasion period for a 2hr period or more, should have a significant affect on Varroa populations in favor of the colony. This however would not take into account affects on the "arresting period" in cells smaller than 800 cells/dm2. But we cannot know what this factor would be without repeating the study above using normal cell size colonies and small cell size colonies.

PM me with your email if you want to take a look at the article.


----------



## drobbins (Jun 1, 2005)

Michael

800 = 5.375mm
650 = 5.96mm

check out the table half way down this page

http://bwrangler.litarium.com/a-i-root-and-cell-size/ 


Dave

[ September 26, 2006, 03:25 PM: Message edited by: drobbins ]


----------

