# small cell foundation



## Rusty Hills Farm

Like lots of others, I've been reading about the value of small cell foundation and wondering if I should give it a try. I came across this:

http://www.extension.org/pages/44732/has-research-been-done-on-honey-bees-comparing-54-mm-comb-cell-size-with-49-mm-i-have-heard-that-smal

and am trying to decide if I should still give it a try or stick with what I already know. 

I'd love to hear what others think about it.


Rusty


----------



## wadehump

`Dont know alot about small cell as i dont buy foundation. All of my hives are natural cell as i let the bees build what THEY want need. All of my bees are from local cutouts and swarm captures and tend to be a dark bee. Dont know what there genetic line is or was but there are very few local beeks close to my location so i just call the local mutts.


----------



## rweakley

wadehump said:


> `Dont know alot about small cell as i dont buy foundation. All of my hives are natural cell as i let the bees build what THEY want need. All of my bees are from local cutouts and swarm captures and tend to be a dark bee. Dont know what there genetic line is or was but there are very few local beeks close to my location so i just call the local mutts.


Not what you wanted to hear, but I second wadehump. I don't use foundation and let the bees build what they need. I don't lose many hives (knock on wood). Last hive I lost was late fall 2011, they starved (I didn't realize they were that light until it was too late). I don't know for a fact that smallcell/natural cell is the end all cure all, but I do know that foundationless saves me a TON of money.

Rod


----------



## AmericasBeekeeper

Small cell has been tried in many states and many countries. There is no evidence it hurts your bees so it is your time and money.
Small cells do not control Varroa mites
Whenever I write about small-cell combs and Varroa mite control I incur the wrath of the believers. It’s the one subject that delivers something very close to hate mail. So with that in mind, I will say it again: small-cell combs will not control your Varroa mites.
In a 2011 paper by Thomas D. Seeley and Sean R. Griffin[1]—both of the Cornell University Department of Neurobiology and Behavior—small-cell combs were once again found to produce no fewer mites than regular-sized combs. This work, along with similar experiments reported by Ellis et al. 2009, Berry et al. 2010, and Coffey et al. 2010, demonstrates that small-cell combs given to European honey bees do not significantly reduce either mite loads or mite drops compared to hives with similar genetics and similar mite infestations.
In their experiment, Seeley and Griffin studied seven pairs of colonies. Each pair was started from a strong colony with a high mite drop. In order to assure that each pair had similar genetics and similar mite loads, the bees were shook from the parent colony and then divided into two packages. Each package was then given a new Minnesota Hygienic queen and fed sugar syrup. After three days, one package from each colony was put in a hive with standard-size combs (5.38 mm) and the other package was put in a hive with small-cell combs (4.82 mm).
Once a month for five months, the seven pairs of colonies were measured for colony strength, mite infestation, and worker size. The paper contains many interesting tidbits but, to make a long story short, by the end of the experiment Seeley and Griffin found no significant difference in either infestation rates (mites per 100 worker bees) or mite drops. They also found very little difference in worker size. Even though the small cells were 10.4% narrower than the average standard cells, the worker bees showed only a 2.1% decrease in head width and a 3.5% decrease in thorax width.
Taking this a step further, they divided the average thorax width of workers in standard cells (3.95 mm) by the cell width (5.38 mm) to get a “fill factor”– or the percentage of cell filled with bee (73%). Similarly, dividing the average thorax width of a small-cell bee (3.81 mm) by the small-cell width (4.82 mm) yielded a fill factor of 79%. This throws doubt on the commonly held belief that there is not enough room inside a small cell for mites to reproduce effectively. Neither 73% nor 79% are very tight fits, so there is plenty of room to grow many mites in either case.
I hear plenty of conflicting stories—anecdotal evidence of how changing to small cells cured the mite problem. But when researcher after researcher cannot reproduce those results, I have to wonder if the anecdotal cases aren’t due to exogenous variables or just plain luck. Sometimes we want something so badly we can’t think beyond the wishing. Believe me, if I thought there was a breath of truth to small-cell mite control, I would switch tomorrow.
http://www.honeybeesuite.com/small-cells-do-not-control-varroa-mites/
Apidologie 41 (2010) 40–44 Available online at:
c_ INRA/DIB-AGIB/EDP Sciences, 2009 www.apidologie.org
DOI: 10.1051/apido/2009049 Original article
Small-cell comb foundation does not impede Varroa mite population growth in honey bee colonies*
Jennifer A. Berry1, William B. Owens2, Keith S. Delaplane1
1 Department of Entomology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, USA
2 Owens Apiaries, 4510 Springwood Drive, Monroe, GA 30655, USA
Received 1 October 2008 – Revised 23 March 2009 – Accepted 27 April 2009
Abstract – In three independently replicated field studies, we compared biometrics of Varroa mite and honey bee populations in bee colonies housed on one of two brood cell types: small-cell (4.9 �} 0.08 mm cell width, walls inclusive) or conventional-cell (5.3 �} 0.04). In one of the studies, ending colony bee population was significantly higher in small-cell colonies (14994 �} 2494 bees) than conventional-cell (5653 �} 1082).
However, small-cell colonies were significantly higher for mite population in brood (359.7 �} 87.4 vs. 134.5 �} 38.7), percentage of mite population in brood (49.4 �} 7.1 vs. 26.8 �} 6.7), and mites per 100 adult bees (5.1 �} 0.9 vs. 3.3 �} 0.5). With the three remaining ending Varroa population metrics, mean trends for small-cell were unfavorable. We conclude that small-cell comb technology does not impede Varroa
population growth.
Apis mellifera / Varroa destructor / IPM / comb / cell size
1. INTRODUCTION
The mite Varroa destructor Anderson and Trueman is a natural ectoparasite of the eastern honey bee Apis cerana F, but now parasitizes
the western honey bee Apis mellifera L. throughout much of its modern range.Mite reproduction is limited to the brood cells of its
host bee, and it is clear in free-choice studies that Varroa preferentially enter comparatively large brood cells. When Message and
Gonçalves (1995) compared brood reared in small worker cells produced by Africanized bees with brood reared in large cells produced
by European bees, they found a 2-fold increase in mite infestation rates in the larger cells. When Piccirillo and De Jong (2003) compared
Varroa infestation rates in three types of brood comb with different cell sizes (inner width), 4.84 mm, 5.16 mm, or 5.27 mm, they found
Corresponding author: K.S. Delaplane, [email protected]
*Manuscript editor: Peter Rosenkranz that percentage of cells infested was significantly higher in the largest cells compared to the other two groups. These kinds of observations have led to an interest among beekeepers in downsizing comb foundations as a cultural control against Varroa. In North America, the resulting “small-cell” foundation measures 4.9 mm per cell (Dadant & Sons, Hamilton, IL, USA) compared to that of conventional foundation measuring between 5.2 mm and 5.4 mm. These numbers are derived by measuring the width of 10 cells in a straight line, inclusive of wall widths. In this study we challenged a null hypothesis of no difference in Varroa and bee population metrics between bee colonies housed on combs of small-cell or conventional-cell foundation.
2. MATERIALS AND METHODS
In three independent experimental replicates, we compared biometrics of Varroa mite and honey
Article published by EDP Sciences
Small-cell foundation does not control Varroa 41
bee populations in bee colonies housed on one of two brood cell types: small-cell or conventional cell. In spring 2006, foundation of both types was drawn during natural nectar flows prior to set up of the experiment. Small-cell foundation was drawn out by colonies containing honey bees which had themselves been reared in small-cell combs. Conventional foundation was similarly drawn out by colonies whose bees were derived from conventional combs. Once combs were drawn we determined realized cell width (walls inclusive) by counting the number of cells in 10 cm linear (n = 60 samples each cell type). Cell width from small-cell combs was 4.9 } 0.08 mm and from conventional- 5.3 �} 0.04 mm. In August 2006, bees were collected from a variety of existing colonies (irrespective of rearing history) and combined in large cages to achieve a homogeneous mixture of bees and Varroa mites. Twenty screened packages were made up, each containing ca. 2.0 kg (15966) bees. Packages were transported to a test apiary in Oconee County, Georgia, USA (33◦50_N, 83◦26_W) where each was used to stock one of 20 single-story deep Langstroth hives. Ten of the hives each contained ten frames of drawn small-cell comb, and the other ten contained drawn conventional-cell comb. One alcohol sample of ca. 300 bees was collected from each package to derive starting mite: adult bee ratios and, by extrapolation, beginning mite populations (colonies were broodless so all mites were phoretic on adults). Queens from a single commercial source were introduced into colonies. All colonies received sugar syrup and pollen patties as needed. Colonies were
removed from the experiment if they died or their queens failed. In March 2007 a second experiment of twenty colonies was established in the same manner as before with the following differences: each package contained ca. 1.45 kg (11612) bees, and colonies were established on foundation instead of drawn comb. A third experiment was set up in April 2008, each colony with 1.36 kg (10886) bees and started on drawn comb of the appropriate experimental type stored from the previous year; honey was removed from combs to remove variation in beginning
food stores. In June 2007 (for colonies started in August 2006 and March 2007) and in August 2008 (for colonies started in April 2008) we collected the following ending parameters: daily mite count on bottom board sticky sheet (72-h exposure), average mites per adult bee recovered from alcohol samples (ca. 100–300 bees), mites per 100 cells of capped brood, and brood area (cm2). A measure of ending bee population was made by summing the proportions of whole deep frames covered by bees (after Skinner et al., 2001) then converting frames
of adult bees to bee populations with the regression model of Burgett and Burikam (1985). Brood area (cm2) was converted to cells of brood after determining average cell density as 3.93 per cm2 for conventional-cells and 4.63 for small-cell. From cells of brood we calculated the number of cells sealed by applying the multiplier of 0.53 derived by Delaplane (1999). From mites on adult bees and mites in brood we could derive ending mite populations and percentage of mite population in brood – a positive indicator of the fecundity of a mite population (Harbo and Harris, 1999). Finally, for the August 2006 colonies we sampled adult bees in October 2006 for average body weight. The duration of time between experiment start date and collection of ending Varroa population metrics was ca. 40 weeks for August 2006 colonies, 12 weeks for March 2007 colonies, and 16 weeks for April 2008 colonies. A field test of no more than 9–10 weeks is adequate to accurately appraise Varroa
population change (Harbo, 1996). An initial analysis was run as a randomized block analysis of variance recognizing the three experiment start dates as blocks and using the interaction of treatment and block as test term (Proc GLM, SAS 2002–2003). There was an interaction between treatment and block for ending colony bee population, so for this variable the analysis was performed separately for each start date and residual error used as test term. Differences were accepted at the α ≤ 0.05 level and where necessary means separated by Tukey’s test.
3. RESULTS
Significant effects of cell size were detected for ending mites in brood (F = 38.3; df = 1,2; P = 0.0252), percentage of mite population in brood cells (F = 57.4; df = 1,2; P = 0.0170) and ending mites per 100 adult bees (F = 23.8; df = 1,2; P = 0.0396). The ending number of mites in brood, percentage of mite population in brood, and mites per 100 adult bees were significantly higher in small-cell colonies (Tab. I). There was a significant interaction between start date and treatment for ending colony bee population (F = 5.14; df = 2,33; P = 0.0114)which is explained by the fact that 
42 J.A. Berry et al.
Table I. Mean values (�} se) for bee and Varroa population metrics in bee colonies housed on conventional sized brood cells or small cells. Colonies of both cell types were set up in August 2006 (15966 bees), March 2007 (11612 bees), or April 2008 (10886 bees). Ending data were collected in June 2007 (August 2006 and March 2007 colonies) and August 2008 (April 2008 colonies). A one-time measure of adult bee live weight was made October 2006 for August 2006 colonies. Numbers in parentheses = n. The occurrence of significant treatment effects (α ≤ 0.05) is indicated by *.
Variable Conventional-cell Small-cell
Beginning colony mite popn. 303.1 �} 61.4 (19) 308.6.2 �} 54.1 (21)
Adult bee weight (mg) in October 2006 141.3 �} 6.7 (4) 129.3 �} 5.7 (3)
(Aug. 2006 colonies only)
Ending cm2 brood 6320 �} 681 (19) 5627 �} 490 (21)
Ending cells of brood 24838 �} 2675 (19) 26053 �} 2271 (21)
Ending mites per 24 h sticky sheet 17.4 �} 5.0 (19) 28.3 �} 6.0 (21)
Ending mites per 100 brood cells 0.9 �} 0.2 (19) 2.8 �} 0.6 (21)
Ending colony mite popn. 409.7 �} 93.4 (18) 670.5 �} 112.5 (21)
Ending mites in brood 134.5 �} 38.7 (19) 359.7 �} 87.4 (21)*
Ending % mite popn. in brood 26.8 �} 6.7 (16) 49.4 �} 7.1 (20)*
Ending mites per 100 adult bees 3.3 �} 0.5 (18) 5.1 �} 0.9 (21)*
Table II. Mean values (�} se) for ending colony bee population in bee colonies housed on conventional-sized
brood cells or small cells. Colonies of both cell types were set up in August 2006 (15966 bees), March 2007
(11612 bees), or April 2008 (10886 bees). Ending data were collected in June 2007 (August 2006 andMarch
2007 colonies) and August 2008 (April 2008 colonies). Means for this variable are reported by experiment
start date which interacted significantly with treatment. Numbers in parentheses = n. The occurrence of
significant treatment effects (α ≤ 0.05) is indicated by *.
Variable Conventional-cell Small-cell
Ending colony bee popn. August 2006	5653 �} 1082 (3) 14994 �} 2494 (3)*
March 2007	10960 �} 2115 (6) 13717 �} 1309 (9)
April 2008 14629 �} 1111 (9) 12461 �} 2177 (9)
populations tended to be higher in small-cell colonies except for the April 2008 start date. The advantage for small-cell colonies was significant for the August 2006 start date (F = 11.8; df = 1,4; P = 0.0264) (Tab. II). We failed to detect significant effects of cell size on cm2 brood, cells of brood, mites per 24 h sticky sheet, mites per 100 brood cells, and colony mite populations (Tab. I).
4. DISCUSSION
Although a significant and favorable trend for small-cell colonies was indicated for ending bee populations for the August 2006 start
date (Tab. II), the chief interest in small-cell technology resides in its potential as a nonchemical limiter of Varroa population growth.
By this criterion, the present results are not encouraging. The ending number of mites in brood, percentage of mite population in brood,
and mites per 100 adult bees were significantly higher in small-cell colonies (Tab. I). Moreover, with all remaining ending Varroa population
metrics, mean trends were unfavorable for small cell (Tab. I).We conclude that small-cell comb technology does not impede Varroa population
growth. This null conclusion is reinforced by the facts that: (1) the experiment was replicated independently three times with start dates varying between spring and fall and test
Small-cell foundation does not control Varroa 43
periods ranging from 12–40 weeks, (2) there were no interactions between start date and treatment for ending Varroa metrics, showing that responses were consistent across experiments, (3) the question of Varroa population growth was examined holistically with six dependent variables, and finally (4) the bar for performance should be high before a candidate technology is recommended for field use. It is worth noting that Varroa densities in this study (3.3–5.1 mites per 100 bees, Tab. I) were not within the action threshold of ca. 13 mites per 100 bees shown for the region by Delaplane and Hood (1999). Interest in small-cell foundation has been fueled in part by observations of Martin and Kryger (2002) that conditions which constrict the space between the host pupa and male protonymph mite promote male mite mortality. However, as these authors point out, “reducing cell sizes as a mite control method will probably fail to be effective since the bees are likely to respond by rearing correspondingly smaller bees”. The present study supports this deduction directly, and its premise indirectly: average bee live weight in October was numerically smaller in small-cell colonies than conventional (Tab. I).
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Technical assistance was provided by Dan Harris, Cody Sorensen, Eleanor Spicer, and Nicholas Weaver.
La petite taille des alvéoles des rayons de cire n’entrave pas le développement des populations de Varroa destructor dans les colonies d’abeilles.
Apis mellifera / Varroa destructor / lutte intégrée / rayon/ taille de la cellule
Zusammenfassung – Mittelwände mit kleinen Zellen reduzieren nicht das Wachstum der Varroa-Population in Honigbienenvölkern. In
Wahlversuchen konnte gezeigt werden, dass Milbenweibchen (Varroa destructor) bevorzugt größere Brutzellen von Apis mellifera befallen (Message and Gonçalves, 1995; Piccirillo and De Jong, 2003). Diese Beobachtungen stießen bei den Imkern auf großes Interesse und haben dazu geführt, dass eine Verringerung der Zellgröße bei den Mittelwänden als eine mögliche biotechnische Kontrollmaßnahme gegen die Varroose diskutiert wurde. In Nordamerika beträgt der daraus resultierende Durchmesser für “kleine Zellgrößen” bei den Mittelwandgussformen 4,9 mm pro Zelle (Dadant & Sons, Hamilton, IL, USA) im Vergleich zu normalen Zellgrößen mit 5,2 bis 5,4 mm. Diese Werte werden ermittelt, indem 10 Zellen in Reihe einschließlich der Zellwände gemessen werden. In Feldstudien mit drei unabhängigen Wiederholungen verglichen wir die Entwicklung der Varroa-, Bienen- und Brutpopulation bei Bienenvölkern mit zwei verschiedenen Zelltypen: Kleine Zellen (4,9 �} 0,08 mm Zelldurchmesser einschließlich Zellwände) und konventionelle Zellen (5,3 �} 0,04 mm). Die Versuche begannen im August 2006, März 2007 bzw. April 2008 und die letzten abhängigen Testvariablen wurden im Juni 2007 (für Völker von August
2006 und März 2007) bzw. im August 2008 (für Völker von April 2008) ermittelt. Für die im August 2006 gestarteten Versuchsvölker war die
Bienen-Endpopulation in Völkern mit kleinen Zellen signifikant größer als in denen mit konventionellen Zellen (14994 �} 2494 im Vergleich zu
5653 �} 1082 Bienen). Allerdings hatten die Völker mit kleinen Zellen signifikant mehr Milben in der Brut (359,7 �} 87,4 vs. 134,5 �} 38,7), einen höheren prozentualen Brutbefall (49,4 �} 7.1 vs. 26,8 �} 6,7) und mehr Milben pro 100 adulte Bienen (5,1 �} 0.9 vs. 3,3�}0,5). In Anbetracht dieser Daten zur Varroa- Populationsdynamik haben kleine Zellen im Durchschnitt sogar einen nachteiligen Effekt. Wir schließen daraus, dass die “Kleine-Zellen-Betriebsweise” das Wachstum der Varroa-Population nicht reduziert. Diese Schlussfolgerung wird durch folgende Details der Versuche untermauert:
1. Das Experiment wurde dreimal wiederholt mit unterschiedlichen Startterminen vom Frühjahr bis zum Herbst und variable Versuchzeiträumen von 12–40 Wochen.
2. Es gab keine Interaktionen zwischen dem Starttermin und der Variable “Zellgröße” bzgl. Der Varroa-Endpopulation; dies zeigt, dass die Ergebnisse der Versuchsserien untereinander konsistent sind.
3. Das Wachstum der Varroa-Population wurde anhand von 6 unabhängigen Variablen beurteilt.
4. Die Vorteile einer neuen Technologie müssen eindeutig nachgewiesen sein, bevor diese in der Praxis empfohlen werden kann. Abschließend sei noch bemerkt, dass der Varroabefall in diesen Untersuchungen (3,3–5,1 Milben pro 100 Bienen, Tab. I) deutlich unterhalb des Befalls von 13 Milben pro 100 Bienen liegt, der von Delaplane and Hood (1999) für diese Region als Schwellenwert für Sofortmaßnahmen ermittelt wurde.
Apis mellifera / Varroa destructor / Integrierte Schädlingsbekämpfung / Wabe / Zellgröße
44 J.A. Berry et al.
REFERENCES
Burgett M., Burikam I. (1985) Number of adult honey bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) occupying a comb:
a standard for estimating colony populations, J. Econ. Entomol. 78, 1154–1156.
Delaplane K.S. (1999) Effects of the slatted rack on brood production and its distribution in the brood nest, Am. Bee J. 139, 474–476.
Delaplane K.S., Hood W.M. (1999) Economic threshold for Varroa jacobsoni Oud in the southeastern USA, Apidologie 30, 383–395.
Harbo J.R. (1996) Evaluating colonies of honey bees for resistance to Varroa jacobsoni, BeeScience 4, 100–105.
Harbo J.R., Harris J.W. (1999) Heritability in honey bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) of characteristics associated with resistance to Varroa jacobsoni
(Mesostigmata: Varroidae), J. Econ. Entomol. 92, 261–265.
Martin S.J., Kryger P. (2002) Reproduction of Varroa destructor in South African honey bees: does cell space influence Varroa male survivorship? Apidologie 33, 51–61.
Message D., Gonçalves L.S. (1995) Effect of the size of worker brood cells of Africanized honey bees on infestation and reproduction of the ectoparasitic mite Varroa jacobsoni Oud., Apidologie 26, 381–386.
Piccirillo G.A., De Jong D. (2003) The influence of brood comb cell size on the reproductive behavior of the ectoparasitic mite Varroa destructor in Africanized honey bee colonies, Genet. Mol. Res. 2, 36–42.
SAS Institute (2002–2003) SAS/STAT user’s guide, version 9.1, SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA.
Skinner J.A., Parkman J.P., Studer M.D. (2001) Evaluation of honey bee miticides, including temporal and thermal effects on formic acid gel
vapours, in the central south-eastern USA, J. Apic. Res. 40, 81–89.
http://www.ent.uga.edu/bees/documents/m08138.pdf

"The efficacy of small cell foundation as a varroa mite (Varroa destructor) control."
Ellis AM, Hayes GW, Ellis JD.
Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Plant Industry, Bureau of Plant and Apiary Inspection, Apiary Inspection Section, 1911 SW 34th St., Gainesville, FL, 32614-7100, USA. [email protected]
Abstract
"Due to a continuing shift toward reducing/minimizing the use of chemicals in honey bee colonies, we explored the possibility of using small cell foundation as a varroa control. Based on the number of anecdotal reports supporting small cell as an efficacious varroa control tool, we hypothesized that bee colonies housed on combs constructed on small cell foundation would have lower varroa populations and higher adult bee populations and more cm(2) brood.
To summarize our results, we found that the use of small cell foundation did not significantly affect cm(2) total brood, total mites per colony, mites per brood cell, or mites per adult bee, but did affect adult bee population for two sampling months. Varroa levels were similar in all colonies throughout the study. We found no evidence that small cell foundation was beneficial with regard to varroa control under the tested conditions in Florida."
From: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19067184

"Brood-cell size has no influence on the population dynamics of Varroa destructor mites in the native western honey bee, Apis mellifera mellifera"
Mary F. Coffey, John Breen (Department of Life Sciences, University of Limerick, Ireland ), Mark J.F. Brown (School of Biological Sciences, Royal Holloway, University of London, Egham, TW20 0EX, UK) and John B. McMullan (Department of Zoology, School of Natural Sciences, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland) 
Abstract
"The varroa mite (Varroa destructor) is an ectoparasite of the western honeybee Apis mellifera that reproduces in the brood cells. The mite will generally kill colonies unless treatment is given, and this almost universally involves the use of chemicals. This study was undertaken to examine the effect of small cell size on the reproductive success of the mite, as a method of non-chemical control in the Northern European honeybee Apis mellifera mellifera. Test colonies with alternating small and standard cell size brood combs were sampled over a three-month period and the population biology of the mites evaluated. To ensure high varroa infestation levels, all colonies were infested with mites from a host colony prior to commencement. A total of 2229 sealed cells were opened and the varroa mite families recorded. While small-sized cells were more likely to be infested than the standard cells, mite intensity and abundance were similar in both cell sizes. 
Consequently, there is no evidence that small-cell foundation would help to contain the growth of the mite population in honeybee colonies and hence its use as a control method would not be proposed."
From: http://www.apidologie.org/index.php...articles/apido/abs/2010/05/m09095/m09095.html
Below is a listing of research into European honey bees on small cell combs. Three of the articles (1, 2, and 5) deal with small cell and varroa mites. All three conclude that small cell does not help the bees deal with varroa mites, or otherwise reduce varroa mite numbers. Article #3 shows that small cell combs do not reduce tracheal mites. 
Study #4 is unrelated to small cell's effect on parasitic mites and shows that smaller combs do result in smaller bees, when measuring specific morphological characters.
--references--
1. Berry, J. A., Owens, W. B., and Delaplane, K. S. (2010). Small-cell comb foundation does not impede Varroa mite population growth in honey bee colonies. Apidologie 41: 40-44.
2. Ellis, A. M., Hayes, G. W., and Ellis, J. D. (2009). The efficacy of small cell foundation as a varroa mite (Varroa destructor) control. Experimental and Applied Acarology 47(4): 311-316.
3. McMullan, J. B., Brown, M. J. F. (2006). Brood-cell size does not influence the susceptibility of honey bees (Apis mellifera) to infestation by tracheal mites (Acarapis woodi). Experimental and Applied Acarology 39: 273-280.
4. McMullan, J. B., Brown, M. J. F. (2006). The influence of small-cell brood combs on the morphometry of honeybees (Apis mellifera). Apidologie 37: 665-672.
5. Taylor, M. A., Goodwin, R. M., McBrydie, H. M., and Cox, H. M. (2008). The effect of honey bee worker brood cell size on Varroa destructor infestation and reproduction. Journal of Apicultural Research 47(4): 239-242.


----------



## deknow

I suggest doing some archive searching on this one. Unfortunately, everyone wants to cite Seeley on this, as he has a stellar reputation. ...yet, those that cite his work _n small cell rarely look closely enough to realize that he found it impossible to get the bees to draw small cell comb....in two years of funding he failed to get comb drawn. ...so he used honey super cell (which is fully "drawn", fully molded plastic comb with smaller cells, flat bottoms, and really thick cell walls...so thick that the density of cells on the comb is the same as 5.4 large cell comb.
None of the studies used any kind of protocol that anyone that has had success would expect to be effective.
Citing and quoting pages of research is all well and good, but understanding what was and what was not done is imperative....you won't get that from a casual reading. Seeleys study especially was a waste of time and money. 

Deknow


----------



## Rusty Hills Farm

Hmm. Sounds like what I really need to be researching is foundation-less, since what I was looking for are the most natural ways to do this. 

Thanks, everybody!


Rusty


----------



## Acebird

deknow said:


> Seeleys study especially was a waste of time and money.


I have not done small cell but everything that I have read about it supports your statement except I am wondering who paid Seeley to mock up the research.


----------



## Michael Palmer

deknow said:


> I suggest doing some archive searching on this one. Unfortunately, everyone wants to cite Seeley on this, as he has a stellar reputation. ...yet, those that cite his work _n small cell rarely look closely enough to realize that he found it impossible to get the bees to draw small cell comb....in two years of funding he failed to get comb drawn. ...so he used honey super cell (which is fully "drawn", fully molded plastic comb with smaller cells, flat bottoms, and really thick cell walls...so thick that the density of cells on the comb is the same as 5.4 large cell comb.
> None of the studies used any kind of protocol that anyone that has had success would expect to be effective.
> Citing and quoting pages of research is all well and good, but understanding what was and what was not done is imperative....you won't get that from a casual reading. Seeleys study especially was a waste of time and money.
> 
> Deknow


I for one am still waiting for someone to do the study correctly. How about it Dean? You seem to have a firm grasp on the method, and have multiple reasons why ALL the studies have been done incorrectly. Last I read, you said that there's no need for such a study, as the proponents of SC know it's the answer,and don't have to prove anything to anyone. 

I'm not criticizing anyone, or trying to dis-credit anything. I'm only getting impatient with the attacks on the SC studies, with nothing better coming out of the SC camp. Remember in 2009...I asked you for the same. Gave you 2 1/2 years to put it together...really would have included your report at EAS. Ramona said, at the time..."He's a really smart guy and could do a good job". 

I know how busy you are...as posted recently in discussions with squarepeg. But, we're all busy.

How about it?


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

Quotes are great resources! This part is particularly useful. :scratch:



AmericasBeekeeper said:


> La petite taille des alvéoles des rayons de cire n’entrave pas le développement des populations de Varroa destructor dans les colonies d’abeilles.
> Apis mellifera / Varroa destructor / lutte intégrée / rayon/ taille de la cellule
> Zusammenfassung – Mittelwände mit kleinen Zellen reduzieren nicht das Wachstum der Varroa-Population in Honigbienenvölkern. In
> Wahlversuchen konnte gezeigt werden, dass Milbenweibchen (Varroa destructor) bevorzugt größere Brutzellen von Apis mellifera befallen (Message and Gonçalves, 1995; Piccirillo and De Jong, 2003). Diese Beobachtungen stießen bei den Imkern auf großes Interesse und haben dazu geführt, dass eine Verringerung der Zellgröße bei den Mittelwänden als eine mögliche biotechnische Kontrollmaßnahme gegen die Varroose diskutiert wurde. In Nordamerika beträgt der daraus resultierende Durchmesser für “kleine Zellgrößen” bei den Mittelwandgussformen 4,9 mm pro Zelle (Dadant & Sons, Hamilton, IL, USA) im Vergleich zu normalen Zellgrößen mit 5,2 bis 5,4 mm. Diese Werte werden ermittelt, indem 10 Zellen in Reihe einschließlich der Zellwände gemessen werden. In Feldstudien mit drei unabhängigen Wiederholungen verglichen wir die Entwicklung der Varroa-, Bienen- und Brutpopulation bei Bienenvölkern mit zwei verschiedenen Zelltypen: Kleine Zellen (4,9 �} 0,08 mm Zelldurchmesser einschließlich Zellwände) und konventionelle Zellen (5,3 �} 0,04 mm). .


----------



## beemandan

Acebird said:


> I am wondering who paid Seeley to mock up the research.


What would this tell you Ace?


----------



## Acebird

Knowing where the money comes from usually explains the results and conclusions.


----------



## beemandan

Acebird said:


> Knowing where the money comes from usually explains the results and conclusions.


So...you would say that money universally corrupts?


----------



## Solomon Parker

Michael Palmer said:


> I for one am still waiting for someone to do the study correctly.


If you want to match funding with the Seeley, I'd be happy to do it.


----------



## Acebird

beemandan said:


> So...you would say that money universally corrupts?


Not always. But it very often has strings attached unless it is a small sum.


----------



## millerdrr

Acebird said:


> I am wondering who paid Seeley to mock up the research.


From the quote posted, "In a 2011 paper by Thomas D. Seeley and Sean R. Griffin[1]—both of the Cornell University Department of Neurobiology and Behavior"...I'm not sure who funded the project for Cornell, or if they paid for it out-of-pocket, or what their interests may be in the results. I'm new to the concept of small-cell, never heard of Seeley, but that post about using fake comb does seem like sloppy science...


----------



## beemandan

millerdrr said:


> that post about using fake comb does seem like sloppy science...


would this be the same fake comb recommended in the complete idiot's guide?


----------



## Solomon Parker

Sloppy science is irrelevant to the materials used.


----------



## millerdrr

beemandan said:


> would this be the same fake comb recommended in the complete idiot's guide?


I'm not sure, having never read it, nor am I familiar with his experiment beyond the assertion above that they failed to get the bees to draw their own comb using small cell foundation.



Solomon Parker said:


> Sloppy science is irrelevant to the materials used.


But, if their goal was to see if bees naturally emerging from small-cell were resistant to mites, wouldn't the bees need to be drawing their own comb?


----------



## beemandan

millerdrr said:


> I'm not sure, having never read it


The author is deknow…the same person pointing out it’s use in the study.



Solomon Parker said:


> Sloppy science is irrelevant to the materials used.


If the stuff is effective enough to be promoted in the idiot’s guide, it would appear that this so called sloppy science would have skewed the results in the favor of sc.


----------



## Solomon Parker

millerdrr said:


> But, if their goal was to see if bees naturally emerging from small-cell were resistant to mites, wouldn't the bees need to be drawing their own comb?


Exactly. What happened was, they apparently never asked any actual small cell beekeepers how it was done and they attempted to have the small cell wax foundation drawn in the honey supers (like you do with conventional sized comb) which was an abject failure (as any small cell beekeeper could tell you). They substituted plastic comb and the results were unfavorable (as any beekeeper who has used the stuff could tell you).

Normally in doing a piece of research like this, you'd find relevant information in your literature review, but since there wasn't much literature to be found, they should have taken the initiative and talked to small cell beekeepers any of which has already made these mistakes and can tell you how not to do it. 

Science is about removing variables. I don't see any solid conclusion that can be drawn from this study.


----------



## Gord

Many people hoot and holler, but there's no downside to small cell.
(maybe a little more wax made) I use PF120's or go foundationless in my langs.
The PF120's are easier, and no crossed comb.
Read what people write, but learn from yourself.
People will form opinions and defend them to the death; right or wrong.
I have wee bees and I like wee bees.


----------



## millerdrr

beemandan said:


> The author is deknow…the same person pointing out it’s use in the study.


Wow, really?! That was unexpected, to say the least.


----------



## squarepeg

i'm with mp on this one. i think the best we can say about small cell is that the jury is still out.

having said that, i believe there is ample reason to believe that it could play a role.

but, teasing out that role from the many other factors would require a carefully controlled study.

in the meantime, i wish that we could obtain mite counts from folks who are running small cell, not treating for mites, and getting good survival.

if nothing else, these counts might help all of us to better understand what % infestation is workable in real time colonies.


----------



## Solomon Parker

beemandan said:


> If the stuff is effective enough to be promoted in the idiot’s guide, it would appear that this so called sloppy science would have skewed the results in the favor of sc.


Irrelevant. There can be no comparison made in the study because what was being compared had too many variables. Compare wax big with wax small, or plastic big with plastic small, not wax big with plastic small. You can't compare two treatments (plastic AND small cell) without at least four test groups. A portion of the research I am about to finish now (nothing to do with bees) used four groups to test two treatments. My thesis committee would have laughed me out of the conference room if I had pulled something like this. This got through because it was reviewed by people unfamiliar with the subject. 

What comb Dean recommends is not at issue.


----------



## Michael Palmer

Acebird said:


> except I am wondering who paid Seeley to mock up the research.


You're kidding, right?


----------



## AstroBee

deknow said:


> ...so thick that the density of cells on the comb is the same as 5.4 large cell comb.


What's the role of cell density on the success or failure of SC? On http://www.bushfarms.com/beesnaturalcell.htm Mr. Bush calls out HSC as 4.9, but says nothing about cell-frame density or even cell volume, which would seem to be an important parameter. Are you suggesting that for SC to be effective that the cells must be no greater than 4.9 cell-to-cell width, have an overall cell density of 4.9 on average per frame, and not have flat bottoms?


----------



## squarepeg

>What comb Dean recommends is not at issue. 

...unless you are new, and relying on dean's book for guidance.


----------



## deknow

I can't post further until I get some other important things done, but briefly:

1. Michael, I'll reply to you later :lookout:
2. We do recommend HSC in our book as a regression tool....for expansion beyond 1 box we recommend SC foundation (with an inch or so gap at the bottom) and foundationless.
3. If I offered you fully drawn plastic comb (a 5.4mm version of HSC) as an even swap for your best drawn comb (the LC comb in the Seeley study had no drone cells), would you take me up on it? Plastic material, thick walls, less cells per frame, flat bottoms, thermodynamically very different from wax. You would prefer best wax? Why? Because they are not equivalent? Really? This is a separate question than if HSC is usefull as a regression tool, this is about experimental design and introduction of variables.

We've already gone over many of the issues:
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?261724-Small-Cell-Studies
...some of my initial comments there:


> ok, I do have some notes I made, but can't find them at the moment...so lets cover some of the issues with the study.
> 
> 1. Although the author(s) cite some research as background, it is worth noting that there is no mention of anyone claiming actually using SC with any kind of result in the field. Obviously the authors are aware of "SC beekeepers", and of the claims of success...yet, it is never mentioned. This is unfortunate, as what has been written, discussed, and debated among beekeepers is very relevant to the research at hand.
> 
> 2. ...For instance, only one possible mechanism of effectiveness (less room for mites in the small cell) is considered...one of which I know no SC beekeeper I know thinks is the only mechanism (or even part of the mechanism) at play. ...more on this as we proceed.
> 
> 3. It's rather obvious that no beekeepers (or researchers) consider wax comb (built by bees with or without foundation) and molded plastic comb as equivalent. ...if we did, no one would have an issue with replacing their best wax comb with HSC. This was the most surprising part of the study....with no mention of any issues wrt the experimental model due to the use of plastic comb...again, more on this as we continue.
> 
> 4. The bees used in the study were taken from colonies that "scored highly on a varroa mite drop test conducted 6 weeks earlier [before the packages used in the study were shaken from them]. So to highlight the issue here, they chose the most mite infested colonies they could, then allowed the mites (and associated problems) to fester for 6 weeks before shaking packages and beginning the study. This seems more like a way to test a "treatment" (shaking the bees onto broodless comb of varying sizes) for varroa infestation rather than a test to see if "small cell comb controls" mites....this is like testing cancer controls on patients that have the worst cases...and letting each case get worse for 6 weeks before treating. Certainly no one that claims any success with SC comb claims to have success doing what was done here....it is a test of something, but it is a straw man argument to imply that they are testing the same thing beekeepers are doing...even in part.
> 
> 5. WRT the claim made in the introduction:
> "As a rule, if a colony of European honeybees does not
> receive mite control treatments, the mite population
> will grow from just a few mites to several
> thousand mites in 3 to 4 years, ultimately killing
> the colony "
> ...is mite treatment the only thing between a dead colony and a live one over a 4 year period? Could the researchers (or have the researchers) reliably keep a colony alive with no manipulations, no feed, no management other than the application of mite treatments...for 4 years?
> 
> 6. This one is more of a question....in materials and methods, they state:
> "feeding them with a 50/50 (v/v) sucrose solution
> brushed onto the wire screen of one side of each
> package cage. "
> ....I thought that brushing syrup on a screen like this damages the feet and tongues of the bees inside the cage, and that this was considered poor practice.....anyone know more?
> 
> 7.
> "There were no drone cells in any of the
> frames of comb used in this study. "
> ...
> and later...
> "When we took our monthly measurements of the
> colonies, we cut out any drone comb that the colonies
> had built, usually along the bottoms of the frames. At
> most, this involved removing 25 drone cells per
> colony per inspection; none of the drone comb
> contained drone brood. In this way, we prevented
> drone rearing in our colonies and this meant that all
> the mite reproduction in our study colonies occurred
> in cells of worker brood. "
> Ok, so a few things are being reported here:
> A. That in a colony with NO DRONE COMB AND NO DRONE BROOD that, at most, 25 drone cells were produced a month.
> 
> B. That in these cells, no drones are ever reared...in a colony with no drone brood.
> 
> C. That removing all the drone comb once a month (comb that never shows any sign of being used to rear drones) that drone rearing is prevented?
> 
> ...all of this seems hard to believe...or the colonies were under some kind of stress that prevented them from producing drones....such a stress should be looked into as a possible issue with the study, not to be seen as a normal situation.
> 
> 8.
> "We measured the
> mean width of the cells in each hive by measuring the
> width of ten cells in a straight line (inclusive of wall
> widths) in the center of one side of each frame of
> comb. "
> ....to me, this reads that they measured 10 cells in the center of each comb (where we know the cells tend to be smaller)....and called it the "mean width". "Mean" can describe a few (related) concepts, but it is beyond any reasonable assumption to clam that measuring 10 cells gives you a "mean" for the entire 2 sides of a comb.
> 
> 9.
> The colonies in the hives with the
> plastic, small-cell combs grew noticeably less
> rapidly than those in the hives with the
> beeswax, standard-cell combs.
> Of course, most of us with actual experience with HSC would have predicted this...and could have even suggested ways to mitigate this effect of molded plastic fully drawn comb...cell size may have been a factor here (I don't have experience with fully drawn, molded LC comb and acceptance), but certainly the brand new plastic is a variable that is outside what is being claimed to be tested...but firmly in the way of obtaining data to support the claims of the study
> 
> More later...but this should start some things rolling....
> 
> deknow


----------



## beeman2009

Rusty,

When you speak of going small cell, am I to conclude you already have larger bees that would need to be regressed or are you starting out with small cell bees? This has a big bearing on the answer to your question since the regression process is done in stages & could take a long time to properly complete. You are going to hear every kind of response to this question as you have already seen. Me, I've been on small cell for 5 years and have never seen a mite on my beeks or on any sticky boards, not a one and I have 2 large cell hives on the same property that I have found a few mites on, not enough to worry about. Like was said I have heard of other small cell beeks whose hives were eat up with mites. So no, small cell is not a miracle cure all. Does it help? It has helped me but others it has not. The problem with any foundation you buy is the chemicals you are bringing into your hive. You have no clue where it came from, whats been used on it or why it was removed from the hive in the first place.

I do heartily agree with the comments about foundationless. That's the route I' going for the above stated reasons. There are a lot more experienced beeks on here than I am, but if I could make a suggestion it would be this; do you own testing if you have the resources to do so. Maybe try 2 - 3 hives on small cell with small cell bees, ( to avoid the regression process ) and see for yourself if small cell works for you. It seems that it's sucess varies from beek to beek. Just a suggestion.


----------



## deknow

squarepeg said:


> ...unless you are new, and relying on dean's book for guidance.


If you use Dean's book for guidance, you will never have more than 10 frames of HSC in a hive. Furthermore, Dean's book is a beginning beekeeping book. We had no room (or need) to stress things that would be important for a well respected phd researcher at Cornell to consider when designing an experiment.

I don't know how to offer a direct link to this document (I can only access it through a search), but this is the background and progress of the whole project (no mention on how much was spent over the three years).
http://cris.csrees.usda.gov/cgi-bin/starfinder/15650/crisassist.txt



> ACCESSION NO: 0211868 SUBFILE: CRIS
> PROJ NO: NYC-191419 AGENCY: NIFA NY.C
> PROJ TYPE: HATCH PROJ STATUS: TERMINATED
> START: 01 OCT 2007 TERM: 30 SEP 2010 FY: 2010
> 
> INVESTIGATOR: Seeley, T. D.
> 
> PERFORMING INSTITUTION:
> NEUROBIOLOGY AND BEHAVIOR
> CORNELL UNIVERSITY
> ITHACA, NEW YORK 14853
> 
> EVALUATION OF SMALL-CELL COMBS FOR CONTROL OF VARROA MITES IN NEW YORK HONEY BEES
> 
> CLASSIFICATION KA	Subject	Science	Pct
> 312	3010	1130	100
> 
> CLASSIFICATION HEADINGS: R312 . External Parasites and Pests of Animals; S3010 . Honey bees; F1130 . Entomology and acarology
> 
> Animal Health and Disease Related -- 100%
> 
> BASIC 000% APPLIED 100% DEVELOPMENTAL 000%
> 
> NON-TECHNICAL SUMMARY: The mite Varroa destructor poses the largest threat worldwide to honey bees. This project will evaluate the effectiveness of small-cell combs for the control of Varroa in New York State.
> 
> OBJECTIVES: 1) To establish an apiary of 20 genetically homogeneous colonies of European honey bees that are housed in hives with either standard-cell combs or small-cell combs, and that are infested with the parasitic mite Varroa destructor. 2) To compare the population dynamics of the mites in the two treatment groups, to see if giving colonies combs with small cells results in effective control of the Varroa mites. 3) To compare the patterns of colony growth and honey production in the two treatment groups, to see if giving colonies combs with small cells hampers their growth and productivity.
> 
> APPROACH: In year 1, we will prepare 20 hive bodies with frames of small-cell (4.9 mm) combs and 20 hive bodies with frames of standard-cell (5.4 mm) combs. All combs will be built by providing colonies with honey supers filled with frames of either small-cell or standard-cell foundation. The bees will build these combs while filling them with honey. At the end of the summer, we will extract the honey from these combs so that they can serve as brood combs the following summer. We will also establish 12 source colonies to provide bees the following summer; each colony will be headed by a new Italian queen bee. These queens will be sisters, to minimize genetic differences among colonies. In year 2, we will select the 10 strongest source colonies and will prepare from each colony two equal-size artificial swarms. Each swarm will be given a new Italian queen (queens will be sisters). Because both swarms in a pair will come from the same colony, they will have equal infestations of Varroa mites. In each pair of swarms, we will give one swarm a hive (two hive bodies) with small-cell combs and the other swarm a hive with standard-cell combs. Each month thereafter, we will measure for each colony the number of cells containing brood, the mite infestation level (measured by counting the mite drop per 48 h), and the weight (honey) gain. Using a paired-comparisons statistical analysis, we will test for differences between the two treatments in brood population, mite infestation, and honey production. In year 3, we will continue making the monthly measurements and comparisons between the two treatments.
> 
> KEYWORDS: honey bees; varroa mites; small-cell combs
> 
> PROGRESS: 2007/10 TO 2010/09
> OUTPUTS: Over the three-year period of this study, the PI, Thomas D. Seeley, made 15 presentations of the findings related to the grant at meetings of beekeeper associations. The venues included the Southern Adirondacks Beekeepers Association, the Ohio Beekeepers Association, the New Jersey Beekeepers Association, the British Bee Keepers Association, the Yorkshire Beekeepers (England), the Somerset Beekeepers (England), the Meridian Beekeepers (England), the Maine Beekeepers Association, the Massachusetts Beekeepers Association, the Backyard Beekeepers Association, The Eastern Apicultural Society, the Georgia State Beekeepers Association, the Virginia State Beekeepers Association, the Chester County Beekeepers Association, and the Maryland Beekeepers Association. Each summer, Dr. Seeley mentored a Cornell undergraduate who participated in the project, and during the 2009-2010 academic year he worked with one of these students, Sean R. Griffin in the preparation of the manuscript that reports the results of the grant. PARTICIPANTS: The research work on this project was performed by the PI (Thomas Seeley) and one Cornell undergraduate student each summer (Madeleine Girard, Sean Griffin, and John Chu). TARGET AUDIENCES: There are two target audiences. For the basic knowledge about the effects on the population dynamics of Varroa mites of altering cell size in honey bee combs, the target audience is all researchers on the biology of honey bees. For the applied knowledge about beekeeping that this research is generating, the target audience is beekeepers worldwide. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: Not relevant to this project.
> 
> IMPACT: 2007/10 TO 2010/09
> The work supported by the grant has now shown conclusively that providing honey bee colonies with frames of small-cell (4.9 mm) combs does not depress the reproduction of Varroa mites relative to giving colonies frames of standard-cell (5.4 mm) combs. These results from New York State match those of two other investigations on this topic that were conducted independently and in parallel in two southern states, Georgia and Florida. It seems clear, therefore, that despite much interest by and discussion among beekeepers in using small-cell combs to control Varroa mites without chemicals, this approach is completely ineffective. The research work supported by this grant is about to appear in a leading peer-reviewed scientific journal (Apidologie) and once this formal publication appears the PI will publish a companion report written for beekeepers in a popular beekeeping magazine (Bee Culture).
> 
> PUBLICATIONS (not previously reported): 2007/10 TO 2010/09
> Seeley, T.D. and S.R. Griffin. 2011. Small-cell comb does not control Varroa mites in colonies of honey bees of European origin. Apidologie. In press.
> 
> PROGRESS: 2008/10/01 TO 2009/09/30
> OUTPUTS: Senior personnel: Dr. Thomas D. Seeley made 8 presentations of findings related to the grant at scientific conferences and beekeeper association meetings, and was invited to speak about the research findings at several universities and colleges. These venues included: 1 presentation at a regional scientific workshop (SUNY Conversations in the Disciplines), 1 invited presentation at a monthly meeting of the Backyard Beekeepers Association, 2 invited presentations at the annual meeting of the Eastern Apicultural Association, 2 presentations as an invited seminar speaker at the annual fall meeting of the Georgia State Beekeepers Association, and 2 presentations as an invited seminar speaker at the annual fall meeting of the Virginia State Beekeepers Association. Dr. Seeley continued to mentor a Cornell undergraduate who participated in the project throughout the Summer of 2009, and guided him in the preparation of a manuscript regarding another study that was not part of the grant. PARTICIPANTS: The research work on this project was performed by the PI (Thomas Seeley) and one undergraduate student (Sean Griffin). TARGET AUDIENCES: There are two target audiences. For the basic knowledge about the effects on the population dynamics of Varroa mites of altering cell size in honey bee combs, the target audience is all researchers on the biology of honey bees. For the applied knowledge about beekeeping that this research is generating, the target audience is beekeepers worldwide. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: Not relevant to this project.
> 
> IMPACT: 2008/10/01 TO 2009/09/30
> The work supported by the grant has now shown conclusively that providing honey bee colonies with frames of small-cell (4.9 mm) combs does not depress the reproduction of Varroa mites relative to giving colonies frames of standard-cell (5.4 mm) combs. These results match those of parallel investigations on this topic that were conducted independently in Georgia and Florida. It seems clear, therefore, that despite much interest by and discussion among beekeepers in using small-cell combs to control the nites without chemical, this approach is ineffective. The studies that have been supported by this grant will be reported through a publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal (Apidologie) and a beekeepers' magazine (Bee Culture).
> 
> PUBLICATIONS: 2008/10/01 TO 2009/09/30
> No publications reported this period
> 
> PROGRESS: 2007/10/01 TO 2008/09/30
> OUTPUTS: The principal output over the past year has been an Activity: developing further the methods for getting the bees to build combs with small cells (4.9 mm diameter), rather than their normal size cells (5.4 mm diameter). The key experiment of this study calls for setting up paired colonies, with one colony in each pair living on combs of small cells and the other colony living on combs of normal cells, then comparing the two types of colonies in terms of the growth of their populations of the mite Varroa destructor. I have tried various methods for getting bees to build small-cell combs but have not yet found a method that results in combs filled with small cells. Instead, I get combs that are a weird mixture of small cells and quite large cells. So, despite my best efforts over the past two summers, I have not yet performed the key experiment. Given that I have just one more summer of support in this project, I will perform the key experiment next summer using combs of small cells that are made of plastic and that are commercially available. Doing the experiment this way is not ideal, for these combs are too expensive for general use by beekeepers, but using them will enable me to test the still untested (but widely believed) hypothesis that small-cell combs lower the population growth rate of the Varroa mites in a honeybee colony. We shall see! PARTICIPANTS: There have been two participants: myself, and a Cornell undergraduate student, who has worked as the research assistant. TARGET AUDIENCES: The target audience for this project is ALL beekeepers in North America and Europe, i.e. all beekeepers who work with the European subspecies of the honey bee and whose colonies are infested with the parasitic mite Varroa destructor. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: As indicated above in the Outputs and Outcomes, I need to stop trying to conduct the experiment using combs of small cells built by the bees (my bees won't build combs filled with these diminutive cells), and need to conduct the experiment using combs of small cells built of plastic. Although my bees won't give me the combs I need for this experiment, a human manufacturer will!
> 
> IMPACT: 2007/10/01 TO 2008/09/30
> The principal outcome over the past year has been a Change in Knowledge. Specifically, I have learned just how difficult it is to get honeybees to build combs made of smaller than usual cells. This is an important finding, because beekeepers are being encouraged to have their bees build combs with small cells as a means of controlling the mite Varroa destructor, and beeswas comb foundation is being sold to guide the bees to build these combs, but at this point no way has been found to get bees to reliably construct combs of small cells. I now know that I cannot recommend this approach to Varroa control. There has also been a Change in Action. Because I've not succeeded in getting my bees to build combs filled with small cells, I've decided next summer to perform the key experiment of this project (setting up paired colonies, with one colony in each pair living on combs of small cells and the other colony living on combs of normal cells, then comparing the two types of colonies in terms of the growth of their populations of the mite Varroa destructor) using combs of small cells manufactured of plastic, rather than built by the bees of beeswax. This will at least enable me to test the critical hyptothesis: a colony living on small-cell combs will have a lower population growth rate of the Varroa mites than will a colony living on regular-cell combs..
> 
> PUBLICATIONS: 2007/10/01 TO 2008/09/30
> No publications reported this period
> 
> PROJECT CONTACT:
> 
> Name: Hoffmann, M. P.
> Phone: 607-255-2224
> Fax: 607-255-9499
> Email: [email protected]
> 
> SUPPLEMENTARY DATA: Institution Type: SAES Region: 1 Process Date: 2007/08/08 Progress Update: 2011/02/08


----------



## deknow

For the Record:
CIG Beekeeping, Page 129:


> HSC is an injection molded plastic comb with 4.9mm cells. HSC is not foundation, it is fully formed plastic comb. HSC is not a perfect replacement for wax comb. The bottoms of the cells are flat and the cell walls are thick so that the density of brood is closer to that of 5.4mm comb (the cells are 4.9mm across, but 5.4mm center to center). HSC only comes in deep frames. If you want to run medium boxes, you have to trim the frames using a table saw.


Gee...it's almost like we actually said that HSC isn't an equivalent for wax comb, isn't it?
Page 130:


> As the broodnest expands, follow the technieques for adding boxes and pyramiding up that we discussed in Chapter 7 [in chapter 7, we only discuss adding boxes with foundation (with a gap at the bottom) or foundationless...not HSC]. Once the HSC has been used by the bees, future bees will accept it freely. Just remember that while HSC will always produce small cell bees, you will never have the density of bees per square inch that is possible with small cell foundation or foundationless comb.



deknow


----------



## beemandan

Let’s compare credibility.

Research conducted and interpreted by:
Delaplane/Berry
Ellis/Hayes
Seeley
Submitted to, accepted by and published in peer reviewed journals.

Or the criticism of that research by:
Stiglitz
Parker


----------



## deknow

I guess that's less work than actually reading the studies.

deknow


----------



## Vance G

I can't understand the heat that this topic generates. If one want's to try small cell or natural cell, the drawing of it costs no more than the industry standard 5.4 mm foundation. If you wish to intermingle the different sizes, it is not detrimental to anything but some engineer types anal sense of order. When I chose to test for myself the efficacy of 4.9mm I chose the mann lake frames. I found that shaving the frames to 1 1/4" so 11 were drawn in a box on a good flow or under feeding, resulted in a good job by the bees. If or when I decide that there are no advantage in mite abatement or wintering, all I have to do is just keep running them. So why all the heat?


----------



## deknow

Vance G said:


> When I chose to test for myself the efficacy of 4.9mm I chose the mann lake frames. I found that shaving the frames to 1 1/4" so 11 were drawn in a box on a good flow or under feeding, resulted in a good job by the bees. If or when I decide that there are no advantage in mite abatement or wintering, all I have to do is just keep running them. So why all the heat?


Vance, since Seeley found it is impossible to get bees to draw small cell....you _must_ be lying...right Dan?



> Specifically, I have learned just how difficult it is to get honeybees to build combs made of smaller than usual cells. This is an important finding, because beekeepers are being encouraged to have their bees build combs with small cells as a means of controlling the mite Varroa destructor, and beeswas comb foundation is being sold to guide the bees to build these combs, but at this point no way has been found to get bees to reliably construct combs of small cells.


----------



## Rusty Hills Farm

Beeman,

I am starting up again after a 7 year absence. I have the boxes and the foundation from my earlier venture and am debating whether to start up again with what I know or if I should experiment from the get-go with small cell or foundationless. I am strictly a hobbyist and will likely never have more than half-a-dozen or so hives--just enough to have fun with the bees. So I am reading up on the current stuff and basically weighing that against what I already learned and looking for what of my own ideas I need to adjust based on all the new stuff. For instance, I am falling in love with the idea of Minnesota Hygienic stock. And toying with the small cell or no foundation route.

Still need to do a lot more reading, though.



Rusty


----------



## beemandan

deknow said:


> Vance, since Seeley found it is impossible to get bees to draw small cell....you _must_ be lying...right Dan?


How can you make such a presumption? There are countless variables at play. It may well have absolutely nothing to do with whether someone does_something_right_or_not. Any study that doesn't reach a conclusion you want, gets subjected to microscopic scrutiny but someone can make statement that agrees with you and it becomes an immediate, uncontested, absolute fact....and anything contradictory must be a failure of technique.
Where_does_lying_enter_into_this?


----------



## Solomon Parker

beemandan said:


> Let’s compare credibility.


Yes, let's.


Persons who haven't succeeded in keeping bees on small cell wax:


beemandan said:


> Delaplane/Berry
> Ellis/Hayes
> Seeley



People who have:


beemandan said:


> Stiglitz
> Parker


Also:
Bush
Lusby


----------



## beeman2009

Rusty,

I hear you. Like you I have fun with the bees. Dr's been telling me for years to get a relaxing hobby, beekeeping was it. Even though I plan to make it a business, it's still fun. Just a thought; if you want to experiment with natural cell you could start a top bar hive. Cost is low, easy to build if you have any wood working skills/tools at all and no foundation worries at all and you don't need an extractor, plus you will get plenty of clean wax that you can use to make your own chemical free foundation, provided you don't treat the TBH. Lots of plans on internet on how to build them. Michael Bush's site has a very simple one & Phil Chandler biobees dot com has on too.

Hope this helps. Have fun and don't get overwhelmed by all the conflicting info you will find. Beekeeping is relative to location. Do what works best for your bees & you.


----------



## beemandan

Vance G said:


> I So why all the heat?


I can only speak from my perspective.
I tried small cell. It failed in a number of ways. I’ve documented my experience on Beesource in the past.
The Seeley study demonstrates one typical difficulty. They went to hsc because they couldn’t get their bees to draw small cell.
Dennis Murrell documented high losses in his conversion to small cell.
Even Dee Lusby has written about losses during the regression process.
Small cell is promoted by some to beginning beekeepers. Evidently it works for some. I can tell you that there are many others for whom it doesn’t. And as new beekeepers, they often don’t understand why their colonies failed. Many believe that they were responsible for the collapse. Often they don’t try again.
I’ve said this on any number of occasions. I don’t care what you choose to try as long as you understand the risks or are experienced enough to know the early signs of trouble. But if you promote a path to new beekeepers that has a high probability of failure….I will challenge you.


----------



## squarepeg

not arguing with those successes sol, the argument is whether or not the successes are attributable to small cell or other factors. there are cases of treatment free success without small cell.


----------



## Solomon Parker

I'm not talking about successes. I'm talking about simply using small cell. There is a distinct lack of research that has attempted to use the methods of those who actually use the method. It's almost as if the studies were designed to fail. I'm not saying that's the case, but if you were going to study something you hadn't done, wouldn't you find out how it's done first?


----------



## squarepeg

like you will be sol, i have defended a master's thesis.

wouldn't the answer to your question be that a study should be designed to control all of the variables except that one?

i would think before such a study could start, one would have to already have regressed bees in the (small cell) experimental group, hopefully on identical comb material as the (not small cell) control group.

hive design, feeding regimen, colony size, ect. would have to be matched between the two groups.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Exactly.


----------



## squarepeg

the more difficult variable to control would be genetics. one would have to first regress bees from the same lineage as the controls. 

it would be no small task to conduct such a study.


----------



## Solomon Parker

I'd do it given proper funding. I don't ask for much, money for supplies and a typical Master's candidate stipend for the duration.


----------



## squarepeg

can we do it on credit?


----------



## Hawkster

What are you trying to prove ? I don't see many indicating that small cell is the panacea for mites but that it is part of a larger management plan. As such rather than trying to prove the efficacy of small cell with these studies why not study the guys that are successful and mimic thier entire methodology?


----------



## squarepeg

zactly. although it would be nice to know one way or the other, for example, if it is worth someone going to the trouble of regressing their entire operation to achieve whatever potential benefit there may be.


----------



## deknow

Here is a rough draft of the study I would do....if anyone wants to fund it, please let me know. There would be both observation hives and 10 frame hives I've been working on the observation hive setup for a while, so that is hashed out a bit more than the 10 frame trials. I can't take the time go through all the details at the moment....but I have given this some thought 

Ideally the observation hive trials should be done in several locations concurently (I imagine a set of customized trailers that could be placed with various beekeepers).

(20) 2 Frame Observation Hives, in 4 groups, each group facing a different direction (NSEW). Cross A and Cross B combs are made from left and right halves of Mann Lake small and large frames “married” together (much like the "mosaic frames" used in comb contamination trials). Cross A will have small on the top left and bottom right, Cross B will have small on the top right and bottom left.
•	Small Mann Lake
•	Large Mann Lake
•	Foundationless
•	Cross A
•	Cross B

Each observation hive (OH) will have 24 hour video recording on each face, as well as other metric data collection (weight, bee counter, array of temperature sensors). 

Observational data obtained would be:
•	Cell size preferences for various functions/activities
•	Development time (pre and post capping)
•	Behavioral Differences between the groups
•	Survival

Experimental data obtained would be:
•	Mite counts
o	Shake/Wash/Drop
o	Pulling Brood
o	Behavioral differences in marked bees emerged from different sized comb
•	Impact of queen could be measured by swapping queens between large and small cell hives
•	Microbial analysis
o	Bees
o	Bee Bread
o	Bee Poop

Costs (X 20 per location)
•	Observation Hives ($200)
•	Monitoring Equipment
o	Cameras ($200)
o	Scale equipment ($200)
o	Bee Counter (?)
o	Temperature Probes ($200)
•	Package of Bees ($95)
•	5 Plastic Frames ($25) (packages will be started in a nuc to first draw comb and to regress where appropriate) 
•	Climate controlled space with outside walls on 4 sides (?)

Fixed Costs
•	Computer equipment ($2000)
•	Systems integration and customization ($2000)
•	Time (?)

10 frame trials: Should be done X 100 by 20 beekeepers with various practices (weighted towards “no treatment” types) in all different parts of the U.S. (or world)…each beekeeper with 5 sets of hives in 5 locations.
•	Small Mann Lake
•	Large Mann Lake
•	Foundationless
•	Wax small cell
•	Wax large cell


----------



## BeeCurious

> if anyone wants to fund it, please let me know


Is funding through Kickstarter a possibility?


----------



## deknow

Actually, that's not a terrible idea. Let me think about that.

deknow


----------



## Baja

Solomon Parker said:


> Exactly. What happened was, they apparently never asked any actual small cell beekeepers how it was done and they attempted to have the small cell wax foundation drawn in the honey supers (like you do with conventional sized comb) which was an abject failure (as any small cell beekeeper could tell you). They substituted plastic comb and the results were unfavorable (as any beekeeper who has used the stuff could tell you).
> 
> Normally in doing a piece of research like this, you'd find relevant information in your literature review, but since there wasn't much literature to be found, they should have taken the initiative and talked to small cell beekeepers any of which has already made these mistakes and can tell you how not to do it.
> 
> Science is about removing variables. I don't see any solid conclusion that can be drawn from this study.


I don't believe the researchers are as dumb as your suspect. I do believe that any time you mess with mother nature (i.e. increasing cell size over 100 years ago) you eventually end up paying for it. Philosophically I believe completely in the concept of natural, small cell beekeeping but wonder why of the many scientific studies that I have read on the possible advantages of small cell beekeeping is there nothing supporting this method. All of the natural beekeepers that I have talked to speak in religious terms as to their belief in small cell beekeeping and arrogantly dismiss all others as duped victims of the corrupt system we live in (i.e. Dee Lusby). As an old beekeeper I long for factual evidence supporting small cell beekeeping.


----------



## AstroBee

Surely this would fit into the SARE Program.

SARE's vision is an enduring American agriculture of the highest quality. This agriculture is profitable, protects the nation's land and water and is a force for a rewarding way of life for farmers and ranchers whose quality products and operations sustain their communities and society.

http://www.sare.org/Grants


----------



## Lburou

You guys sure have a lot of testosterone 

Anybody know off hand the size of a bee found in unmolested/isolated locations containing native bees in Africa or Europe or the Middle East? I've seen reports of cell sizes with a wide range. I ask this because you should have some basis in theory or fact for choosing 4.9, 5.1 or whatever cell size you use to test your hypothesis.


----------



## Michael Palmer

Baja said:


> All of the natural beekeepers that I have talked to speak in religious terms as to their belief in small cell beekeeping and arrogantly dismiss all others as duped victims of the corrupt system we live in (i.e. Dee Lusby). As an old beekeeper I long for factual evidence supporting small cell beekeeping.


Exactly as I feel Baja. As it stands now, in my eyes, small cell beekeeping is faith based beekeeping. Nothing empirical. Only anecdotal reporting. The SC proponents claim great successes, and elevate their leader to high priestess status. I watch SC beekeeper friends...yes I consider you all friends and I have no ****erel in this fight. I see them lose most of their bees every winter, and make great claims of success with the remaining "survivor" bees. 

This beekeeping is no game to me. I eat, sleep and drink bees. Other than our house, everything is invested in bees, treated for nothing but varroa mites. Would I like to see SC beekeeping be the successful future of beekeeping? You bet I would. Would I regress some apiaries if someone could show me the proof? You bet I would. Counting production colonies and nucleus colonies, with more than 1000 out there in the fields of Vermont and New York, do you really think I would start the change-over of my combs to small cell because some are claiming great successes, but losing most of their bees every year. I can't afford an expensive mistake at this point in my career. 

Yes, there are those that hold up the successful SC beekeepers who have been at this for some time. Dee Lusby has recovered her operation at least 3 times. She says her bees' survival with no treatments is due to small cell comb. I think it's African blood. I think it's breeding from survivors. Kirk Webster has been treatment free for what, 10 years? I believe he's shifting to small cell...makes his own foundation. Claims it's his Russian stocks. But every other year or so he has a major loss of bees and re-stocks them with wintered nucleus colonies. Management, not small cell or any special breeding. And Dennis Murell claimed great successes with small cell. Gave great reports on his regression progress and success....until his colonies all perished from CCD. CCD?? Whatever.

So, all I'm saying is...as so well stated by Baja...and you SC, TF beekeepers, friends and not, can slam me if you want...

"As an old beekeeper I long for factual evidence supporting small cell beekeeping".


----------



## Cleo C. Hogan Jr

At this point in the SC evolution, I would put a lot more faith in good stock, and good management practices, than I would in trying to say all the success is due to SC. Far too many variables to definatively say, at this time, that success is due to SC. Twenty years from now, ( I won't be around), but others might be more convincing, with more proof. 
.

cchoganjr


----------



## Acebird

Michael Palmer said:


> "As an old beekeeper I long for factual evidence supporting small cell beekeeping".


Why? Is there enough profit (and time) in your operation to swap out 1000 hives? I can't see where that would ever be cost justified even if you had 5% losses from small cell. Wouldn't your customer base change? You are breeding for honey production not bee longevity. Why would you even consider small cell? Why would any commercial endeavor consider small cell?


----------



## Gord

Whatever happened to seeing for yourself ?
Discussion is beneficial, but I can't count the times people have demanded empirical evidence (and lots of it), while essentially defending methods and practices that amount to little more than dogma. My Dad farmed, and I used to hear "that's the way my Daddy did it, and that's the way I'm gonna do it."
My dad started strip grazing, and was inundated with predictions of failure. He had great success with it.
I experiment in order to learn what's best for me, here and now.
I'll try new ideas, and what works for me, works for me.
Just because you do it differently, doesn't mean that you, or I, are wrong. 
Just different.


----------



## beemandan

Gord said:


> Whatever happened to seeing for yourself ?


Who is this directed to?


----------



## deknow

Michael and I are good friends...there is far more that we agree on than disagree on...but the disagreements make for a bit more drama  This is a bit of rant (or tirade)…but it is thoughtful, and I think reveals some of the issues and history that are at play.



Michael Palmer said:


> ....How about it Dean? You seem to have a firm grasp on the method, and have multiple reasons why ALL the studies have been done incorrectly.


There is one overriding reason that all the studies have been done incorrectly...none of the researchers seem to be willing to base their studies on what people are actually doing, are actually reporting success with.

If I were to start some academic research on the economics of running a nuc and queen producing business in Vermont, I would have a few options of how to setup the model.

If one was not aware of what you and Kirk teach (or not bothered to understand it well enough to appreciate the advantages), the obvious thing to do would be to split in the spring to make up winter losses, and harvest some frames or bust up yards at various times throughout the year for the nucs....and buy in fancy "3 letter queen" stock every year. The conventional wisdom is that wintering nucs in Vermont is iffy at best (this is not to say that you haven't been changing this).

You could do the above, and you could show that it is either profitable or not.

But if the academic instead looked at what people are actually doing in Vermont to run a nuc and queen production operation....especially if they looked at what Mike Palmer was doing, they would see a method that would probably produce more nucs/year, produce nucs with a higher market value (overwintered nucs with overwintered queens that are selected for honey production in a commercial honey production operation in the north), _and_ produce a commercial honey crop to boot. Such research (based upon some proven successful models) would be much more valuable than a research done with procedures determined by the researchers first instincts.

Comparing the two, one would see not only a huge difference in economic outcome, but also see an operation that is much more robust. Not only is your system elegant, it actually works and has some redundancy built into it. I'm sure you feel the same way, otherwise I don't think you would care as much as you do that people understand what you are talking about.

As recently as two years ago, one of our state bee inspectors (you know the one) told me to my face that nucs won't survive in Massachusetts over the winter. ...yes, I feel the same way when I'm told by Marla Spivak to my face that non-AHB won't/can't draw small cell comb without foundation and she say's "no thank you" to an offer to bring her some the next day....it's as if you aren't actually doing what you are doing....it's as if no one wants to know.

I know that for USDA trials held in these parts (the one run by Jeff Pettis on tree injected imidacloprid specifically), HFCS feeding is part of the protocall. No one has to mix anything, and its easy on the beekeeper to feed and measure. I think you have commented recently that you moved away from HFCS because nuc survival, specifically, suffered. 

What if there were a study, using HFCS as winter feed as part of the protocall, that claims to prove that nucs can’t be overwintered effectively in the north? Using “package” style queens for the nucs? Doesn’t “feed up to weight” in the fall, but opens hives to put HFCS patties on the nucs every week? You would say (loudly, I imagine), “But that isn’t what works.” “I’ve shown what works, but you have to look at the details and at the operation and management as a whole system.”

RIGHT?

What if there were 10 such studies? What if Jim Fischer threatened your publisher with litigation if they didn’t recall the book you wrote talking about what you actually do? What if Peter Borst posted a bogus 1star review on Amazon…removed it when there were negative comments made in response, and then reposted a similar one (in an effort to get rid of the negative comments)? What if Amazon (on their own) found it to be abuse, and deleted all traces of the reviews? Now, what if neither of the above had actually read the book you wrote? What if they didn’t even know what you wrote, yet thought that it was important enough to discredit that they bother to take the above actions? That would feel pretty weird? …WOULDN’T IT?

This is essentially what is going on WRT small cell and treatment free beekeeping.


> Last I read, you said that there's no need for such a study, as the proponents of SC know it's the answer, and don't have to prove anything to anyone.


I'm not sure exactly what you are referring to (I’m sure I’ve said something like that, I’m just not recalling the context), but it does bring up a few thoughts.

Do you remember what your first words were to me when we first met? I do...you said, "I think it is terribly unfair what they are doing to you over on Bee-L." (I’m pretty sure that’s word for word).

At the time, I was posting to bee-l about some of the research and thoughts we had regarding the gut microflora. Statler and Waldorf over there were having a field day, while we were busy going over everything as Ramona was giving her first presentation on the gut microflora. This was October/November 2008, and well before these issues were being discussed by anyone....certainly before the 3 part series in ABJ June-Jully 2009. You should listen to the recording of the talk…she hadn’t given a public talk since college, and was really nervous. Please remember that she assembled this without the aid of any of the articles, discussion, or knowledge that we have 4 years later…she had a vision and went with it.

http://www.beeuntoothers.com/index.php/beekeeping/audiovideo/98-2008-microbe-talk

The stuff we were saying back then is largely commonly accepted nowadays, but if you read the discussions on Bee-L from the time, you will understand why Michael felt I was being treated unfairly. 

This is typical of the environment in which we’ve been able to try and discuss these ideas….

•	A Bee-L moderator posts a paper touting antibiotics as being beneficial to all manner of livestock. When I replied after looking at the paper, that the paper was the product of a trade group for animal meds, and was entirely made up of reps from major pharmaceutical companies (Phyzer, Bayer, etc), the mod replied back privately stating simply that this fact was not worthy of discussion, and my post would not be put through (there were no issues with personal attacks or any of that stuff).

•	The same moderator claims to lose all of his bees by following the “advice” of the treatment free folks….except that in addition to the obvious things that deviated from what those who’s “advice” he claimed to have followed, he used two antibiotics (TM and Tylan), at least one miticide, and I can’t remember if/what else. So much for testing anything about not treating…but this remains his claim….his failed no treatment experiment.

•	More recently, the _same_ moderator posted results of how the bees drew some pf100’s (small cell) vs some other brand of 5.4mm plastic frame/foundation. He reported that the bees much preferred the other brand…that they didn’t all draw the pf frames well. ….later to mention that the other brand was wax coated, and the pf frames were bare.

DUH!

Things are quite a bit better here on beesource in this regard, but there is also a different demographic here, and some discussions would be better served by being allowed to happen on Bee-l. I say all this just to highlight that we have been trying to get to the bottom of a lot of this for a very long time…and we haven’t had much support from “the establishment”. This is the long way around of explaining why I might have been dismissive of doing these studies…the other (most important reason) is that they are not done well, and the conclusions are not supported by the work. Why perpetuate more of the same?



> I'm not criticizing anyone, or trying to dis-credit anything. I'm only getting impatient with the attacks on the SC studies, with nothing better coming out of the SC camp.


Mike, you would be the first to criticize any work that I did where I:

•	Measured 10 cells in the middle of each side of a frame, averaged them, and called that “the mean cell size” for that frame. …Seeley did this.

•	Reported that overwintering nucs in New England is not possible…without spending any time talking to a beekeeper that overwinters nucs in New England. …Seeley did this with respect to small cell.

•	Pretended that molded plastic comb is the equivalent of wax comb in a side by side comparison. …Seeley did this.

•	Found the most mite ridden bees I could find, let them fester for 6 weeks, then break them down into nucs to see if they will survive winter (conventional wisdom is that nucs do a better job of handling mites, especially if they are newly made up…..but will this work in the most heavily infested bees you can find? Are such results relevant?) ….Seeley did this wrt small cell.

•	Claimed that none of my experimental or control colonies contained any drone comb. That none of the colonies tried to rear a single drone. That at most these hives (with no other drone comb) built 25 drone cells in a month…but never tried to rear a single drone. …This is exactly what Seeley claims with both the control and experimental colonies….it is not believable.

I’m with you…I want to see some good work in this area…but not critiquing the incredibly bad work done so far (no matter who’s name is on the paper) is not going to make that happen. I was excited that Tom Seeley was looking into small cell, and you will see that I posted several times that I was looking forward to reading his study. I was disappointed.




> Remember in 2009...I asked you for the same. Gave you 2 1/2 years to put it together...really would have included your report at EAS. Ramona said, at the time..."He's a really smart guy and could do a good job".


Yes, I do remember, and I was flattered. …but I think the Paul Harvey version (“the rest of the story”) needs to be told in order for this to be honest.

You did ask, but there were conditions. It had to be something with “real science” behind it..some hard data to work with. I have a lot of respect for you, and I had (and have) no doubt that we would generally agree on what kind of work would meet that standard. I have some ideas of some more simple things that would be interesting, but it remains that I have no budget, no grad students, and a limited time. Is anyone asking Tom Seeley to do research on his own time and on his own dime?

Michael, now that your EAS is over and done, how many speakers can you name that presented who presented work that you would consider up to that standard who work for themselves? I’m sure there were a few with small SARE grants, I certainly would consider your data on your overwintering operation as valid. Most, I expect, do research as a career. They are employed by institutions that pay them a salary, and their job is to secure funding and carry out the research.

How many speakers who were asked to speak were told that they had to have “scientifically valid data” to back them up as a precondition? Did the guy who claimed to be able to affect the shape of water crystals by saying “I love you” rather than “I hate you” to a freezing glass of water have data? Given that presentation, do you think that anything that I would present would be any kind of embarrassment? I know you didn't have total control of the program, but we were excluded for not having better "science" than we have, while Tom Seeley would have been presenting "valid research" if he talked about his small cell study...meanwhile you have the angry ice crystals being presented next door....I'm supposed to feel like I'm being treated fairly?

There was no funding offered. EAS notoriously doesn’t reimburse speakers for expenses. I appreciated the offer (and I still do), but it is not quite as simple as you make it out to be, it isn’t quite being fair to me at all, in fact. Remember, to some extent, it is the opportunity to present to the same crowd that has already dismissed anything that I have to say.

You did have Tom Seeley at EAS?…did he speak about his small cell study? He did have funding. He did have a reputation to uphold. He did have the resources of Cornell behind him. He did have 3 years to do the study. He did have a phd and years of experience behind his model and execution. He failed miserably. I don’t know what the funding was, but it was for 3 years. At the very least the write up could have been more honest with the write up…fortunately we have the funding reports (that I posted earlier) to let us know how things unfolded. Telling me I can’t critique such a bad study unless I do my own is, frankly, insulting. I’m not criticizing it for no reason…it’s simply lousy, and the beekeeping community should demand better (that includes you).



> I know how busy you are...as posted recently in discussions with squarepeg. But, we're all busy.How about it?


Well, as you can see from the rough outline I posted yesterday, I have some ideas, and Ramona and I are discussing how to get all this stuff funded….but thanks for poking a bit at it…it has stimulated some new ideas that might be workable.

I love ya Mike,

deknow


----------



## BeeGhost

Edited because I just seen AB's post on the first page, deknow, you are the runner up in the longest single post I have ever seen on a forum!LOL


----------



## beemandan

Dean, the UGA study was funded by the Georgia Beekeepers Assn (sorry Ace...no big bucks mega outfits pushing for preferred results) to the tune of $2500..if my memory serves me. No grad student. Much of the work and material was supplied by volunteer/donation. I'm sure you could do some of the same.
Keep it as short and simple as humanly possible (this is one area I'm afraid you will have problems) otherwise the number and variety of variables will grow exponentially.
Good luck...


----------



## deknow

...yeah, but I actually _wrote_ my post. 

deknow


----------



## deknow

beemandan said:


> Dean, the UGA study was funded by the Georgia Beekeepers Assn (sorry Ace...no big bucks mega outfits pushing for preferred results) to the tune of $2500..if my memory serves me. No grad student.


This is one of the Jennifer Berry studies? Is she not paid for her time as part of her job? Does she not have a reasonable entomology dept. supporting her (run by Keith Delaplane)?

I could do some interesting studies with a $2500 budget if I was also being paid a salary and had some institutional facilities and resources. ...not really the same thing.

deknow


----------



## deknow

This is just speculation...I have no data to base this upon...just a hunch.

I think the Seeley study was mostly the work of the undergrad involved. My recollection from talking to Tom briefly about it (between when it was done and when it was published) was that he didn't even claim to know much about the details.

This doesn't excuse him...he should have made sure that at least the writeup was good with the data they had...he didn't, and he is listed as the PI. Unfortunately, it is impossible to get to the bottom of such things...no one can afford to admit that they didn't perform a study well, as it will certainly affect future funding.

deknow


----------



## beemandan

deknow said:


> This is one of the Jennifer Berry studies? Is she not paid for her time as part of her job? Does she not have a reasonable entomology dept. supporting her (run by Keith Delaplane)?


Sheeesh! Do you think all of her time was devoted to this study? What support do you think she got from the entomology dept? Or Keith Delaplane? 
As I said....$2500. Small Cell beekeeper Bill Owens was one of the investigators. He supplied much of the work and material. He never collected a dime. There were a number of others who made contributions of labor and material. If you are unable to find that sort of support....sorry..
I didn't bring it up to put you in a snit....but so be it.


----------



## beemandan

BeeGhost said:


> deknow, you are the runner up in the longest single post I have ever seen on a forum!LOL


I heard a fellow one time do a thirty minute talk on .......brevity. Seriously.


----------



## deknow

beemandan said:


> Sheeesh! Do you think all of her time was devoted to this study? What support do you think she got from the entomology dept? Or Keith Delaplane?


Are you saying that she did this all on her own time...outside the time she is getting paid for to work for the university in her position as Apicultural Research Coordinator and Lab Manager? That no university supplies or facilities were used? Somehow I doubt it...but maybe...you tell me. I assume Keith provided some support...as his was one of the 3 names on the paper, no?



> As I said....$2500. Small Cell beekeeper Bill Owens was one of the investigators. He supplied much of the work and material. He never collected a dime. There were a number of others who made contributions of labor and material. If you are unable to find that sort of support....sorry..
> I didn't bring it up to put you in a snit....but so be it.


I'm not in a snit....but there are a few things here:
1. Jennifer was working as part of her salaried position...no?

2. The same people who tout this study refuse to consider the obvious faults in the Seeley study. Until we can get past that, there is no way that I'm going to spend my time explaining what is wrong with the UGA study...it's a waste of my time if no one is willing to actually read the studies in question and recognize the faults. 

3. Until we consider the merits of this study specifically, it is impossible to evaluate if that $2500 and all the volunteered time and equipment was well spent.

deknow


----------



## beemandan

I’ve read the three studies I mentioned earlier. Berry/Delaplane, Hayes/Ellis and Seeley.
You and I have already made our thoughts on those studies clear. I have no intention of repeating those circuitous, long winded, semantically driven, purposeless debates with you.
I pointed out that a study could be conducted on a shoestring if the parties involved were able round up volunteer support. I now understand that you are unable to do that.
Now….go ahead and have the prerequisite last word.
As I said before….good luck.


----------



## deknow

Brevity? I challenge anyone to cover honeybee genetics in _less_ than 5 minutes!


----------



## deknow

beemandan said:


> I pointed out that a study could be conducted on a shoestring if the parties involved were able round up volunteer support. I now understand that you are unable to do that.


This isn't a fair characterization at all of what you have pointed out. 2 of the 3 investigators on the study are salaried researchers who were being paid a salary (and benefits) to secure such funding and volunteer resources to do this exact work...at least two reasonably compensated, highly trained individuals were involved on the universities time...to pretend that this was done with merely $2500 is dishonest.

deknow


----------



## beemandan

deknow said:


> dishonest


A memorable, personal insult.


----------



## deknow

OK, I apologize....to pretend this [UGA Study] was done with merely $2500 is honest. 

deknow


----------



## beemandan

deknow said:


> OK, I apologize....to pretend this [UGA Study] was done with merely $2500 is honest.
> 
> deknow


I never pretended anything. I simply pointed out that a trial could be conducted on a small budget. You've attempted to portray the figure $2500 in absolute terms.
Until today I accepted that you and I had strongly held, adult differences of opinion.


----------



## Andrew Dewey

@Dean - I would welcome a study such as the one you are describing and I know that this Bee-L lurker would welcome it as well. While it is easy to make offers, and often times once made they are regretted, what can I do to help make the study happen?


----------



## Riskybizz

deknow

I really don't have much of a dog in this fight but as the old saying goes "if ya want something done right, you might have to just do it yourself"..I for one would certainly welcome an additional study regarding small cell application for treatment free beekeeping. I happen to use different sized cell foundation here and I look forward to tracking my individual results in keeping my bees alive and healthy. I view sc beekeeping as hardly a revolutionary development but frankly I would rather argue the merits of really good tequila vs. the size of cells my bees make, or what I try to force them to make. However in the interest of science (and you most likely being a Red Sox and Patriots fan), I will go on record today as saying I will donate a minimum of $25.00 to any potential sc study that you happen to be involved with in the next 3 years. Now, as this website alone offers 16,000 members, even a commitment of a mere $25.00 from 25% of that population would rake in $100,000 big ones. That would surely buy a few cups of research and another unbiased scientific evaluation. Lastly it would appear to me that there just might be a few bucks available from the manufacturers of sc foundation and or plastic frames who might also wish to see some positive energy shed on one of their products. In closing, my offer remains as a starting point for any possible future research regarding small cell beekeeping. Let me know where to send the first check. 

* This offer is rescinded if for any reason you would happen to be supportive of any N.Y. teams.

Cheers (and go Patriots)


----------



## BeeCurious

Accepting funds from any sc manufacturer would not be a good idea... Imo


----------



## Riskybizz

but they could surely donate some equipment...


----------



## squarepeg

maybe oldtimer will have some useful info at some point. i believe he set up a small cell yard treatment free yard as a test, but still runs standard cell and treatments on the rest of his operation.


----------



## deknow

beemandan said:


> I never pretended anything. I simply pointed out that a trial could be conducted on a small budget.


I'm simply baffled that you can't agree that $2500 means a whole different thing to an individual and to a university lab. Heck, we spend $2500 every 2-3 months just on health insurance...we have to actually produce that money.

For us, doing $2500 worth of research would mean that whatever of our time we weren't spending on that specific research, we would have to spend producing some kind of income. No one compensates us for the time we spend.

For 2 members of the UGA entomology department, the time they spend doing that research is compensated in salary _and_ health insurance (I assume). The computers they use (and the office software they use) are paid for, maintained, and periodically upgraded by the university. Any analytical equipment they need is likely on hand. Other professors that (as part of their salaried positions) are willing to help with statistical data or experimental design input.

I agree that there are some interesting low cost study ideas out there (several in my head)....but any of these things requires a lot of time. I've already started to lay out what I think a good design would be for some of this research....no one has commented. I know I can't afford to do it for free, and I know that in my own circumstance, that my overhead makes $2500 not enough to do much worthwhile. Why aren't the researchers asked to volunteer their time as well?
As far as volunteers go....everyone raise your hands if you will let some volunteers run some of your hives for you.....no one? You'd rather actually have people who need the income and are willing to do what you need when and in the way you tell them you want it done? Really? I would think that the promise of competent free labor would cause all commercial beekeepers to recruit new beekeepers from the local bee club to help out for free.

deknow


----------



## Barry

I'll match the $25 donation above. Up to $50 now. For this to go anywhere, there needs to be a protocol written up as to how this money will be spent, etc., etc. I am more than happy to start a thread where members can post an amount to see what we can come up with if Dean is committed to doing a study.


----------



## deknow

....let me work some of this out before we start talking money. thanks...this is encouraging.

deknow


----------



## Riskybizz

I have my checkbook out...your welcome dean..


----------



## Riskybizz

Barry I agree..and after watching a couple of the posted videos of dean..we need to insure that the money doesn't all go towards his coffee habit..


----------



## beemandan

BeeCurious said:


> Accepting funds from any sc manufacturer would not be a good idea... Imo


Why not? It's already going to be conducted by someone who has their professional reputation riding on the results.


----------



## deknow

Yes, I'm very concerned about my "professional reputation"

A bachelors degree in music
The author of a complete idiots guide to beekeeping
An "internet authority"
A honey pedler

I don't care how such trials come out. I'm interested in treatment free beekeeping, and the best way I've found to accomplish that includes small cell regression...so that is what i suggest others do. At this point, it only costs a few extra dollars to regress first with pf frames before going foundationless. Probably costs nothing extra if you are using foundation. I cant see an objection or downside, unless one is militantly against plastic and/or wax.

Deknow


----------



## squarepeg

dean, for what it is worth, i have had some experience in the design, execution, and publishing of a handful of scientific studies, (although that was several years ago).

after reading your suggestions for a design in your previous post, it is not clear to me exactly what hypotheses your are trying to test.

my take on the small question, is that there is interest as to whether or not regressed bees have an advantage over nonregressed bees in resisting collapse from varoasis.

if this is the prime question, my initial thoughts on a study would be these:

the experimental variable would be regressed vs. nonregressed bees.

the control variables would be everything else. i.e. type of hive, comb material, feeding or not, genetics, manipulations, and anything else that would mean managing the two groups as identically as possible.

both groups should located nearby geographically to control for differences in weather and available forage.

treatments should not be part of the protocol, because we would want to know specifically what difference cell size makes.

the measure would be regular mite counts, and ultimate success rate in terms of survival.

controlling for genetics would be challenging, because it might be hard to get genetically similar colonies that have are both regressed and not regressed. it might be easier to use already regressed bees for the experimental group, and shake out genetically similar bees onto standard cell for the control group?

it would take someone versed in statistics to figure out an adequate number of colonies needed for both groups to make the data meaningful.

and, it may take a couple of years of observation.

this is my first go at the thought process, i'll keep thinking about it.

and, i'm good for $25 as well.


----------



## Cleo C. Hogan Jr

Barry...I am willing to match the $50.00 posted above, but, wouldn't it be better if the study was conducted by someone with no dog in the fight. I would love to see an objective study of SC vrs traditional. The ones I have seen are neither objective nor conclusive 

cchoganjr


----------



## BeeCurious

beemandan said:


> Why not? It's already going to be conducted by someone who has their professional reputation riding on the results.


Dean has more to lose if a clean, well designed study revealed benefits to Small Cell Beekeeping. Treatment free honey and bees could become more readily available and cheaper. Reputation wise I don't see any risk there. At worse, there could be a convincing study that finally ends the debate and disproves there being any benefit to Small Cell Beekeeping. Dean would have had the pleasure and recognition of designing and executing it. 

There's several sources for SC wax foundation. Mann Lake is the sole supplier of the "PF" frames, and Honey Super Cell is sold primarily by Simpson's. They could benefit from a positive small cell study. The few small cell nuc suppliers could make a few dollars and some additional sc foundation rollers could be sold. Mann Lake would have the most to gain in my opinion. And, therefore, I believe I would avoid accepting funds or material from them.


----------



## squarepeg

after a little more thought....

all of the colonies should be in the same yard.

no in hive feeders should be used, but rather a yard feeder if needed.

the person doing the mite counts should be 'blind' as to whether the hive is regressed or not.


----------



## Barry

Cleo C. Hogan Jr said:


> wouldn't it be better if the study was conducted by someone with no dog in the fight.


Ideal, but unlikely to happen. I think next best would be to let Dean do it, but also have that someone with no dog in the fight to monitor and report independently.


----------



## Cleo C. Hogan Jr

O.K. I'm still in for the $50.00, and I did not mean to imply that Dean would not be objective, just that some will question methods, or conclusions, based on the comments already submitted on this thread. Dean is fine with me.

cchoganjr


----------



## Barry

Perhaps Michael Palmer could be the overseer.


----------



## squarepeg

randy oliver, if willing, would be perfect for designing the study. it starts with deciding on what the question you are trying to answer is.


----------



## Vance G

I will throw in some money with the following caveats. The study has to last at least three years and deadouts can be repopulated with survivors from the same side of the study. This does not mean controlling mites by brood breaks. maybe that is unrealistic or enlarges the scale too much but I think those results are an important peice of this debate. I think mite counts are good information but survival and production of surplus honey are the goals.


----------



## Acebird

Am I missing something? I can't see how hundreds of years of breeding bees to be larger so they can produce more honey can be undone is a few months. I also can't see why anyone with a stake in honey production would be interested in going back to once was. Is there an advantage for a commercial endeavor to flood the world with feral stock after man has succeeded in purging most of it?


----------



## squarepeg

ace, i'm not sure it has been proven that bigger bees make more honey.


----------



## beemandan

Vance G said:


> The study has to last at least three years


Let's see….you’ve got to collect enough money to pay Dean a salary and benefits equal to that of Jennifer Berry for a period of three years. You have to provide enough to compensate a PhD entomologist to oversee the study for the same period. Plus enough to cover the overhead of a university entomology department and beelab…oh yeah…don’t forget another $2500 for incidentals. You’d better check your savings and plan to dig deep……maybe check your 401k


----------



## squarepeg

it might be hard to get meaningful results if any dead outs are restocked with remaining colonies in either group. the spitting of a colony would introduce an unwanted extraneous variable.

the endpoint of the study would be whenever there was enough data statistically to answer the question one way or the other.

randy oliver conducted a small trial like this using hsc a few years ago. but both groups suffered a ccd type collapse before he was able to get enough data, and he didn't attempt to repeat it.

(but, oliver's work gave me another instance where non-regressed bees took directly to hsc).


----------



## beemandan

deknow said:


> Yes, I'm very concerned about my "professional reputation"


Author of the Complete Idiot’s Guide to Beekeeping
Regular speaker at the Organic Beekeepers Meeting in Oracle, AZ
Organizer of the Northeast Treatment Free Beekeeping Conference in Leominster, MA
Speaker at various other regional and national beekeeping meetings/conferences


Do you promote small cell in/at any of the above?
Are you paid for any of the above?
Pretending that you could conduct an unbiased study of small cell is….dishonest.


----------



## Michael Palmer

deknow said:


> Michael and I are good friends...there is far more that we agree on than disagree on...but the disagreements make for a bit more drama  This is a bit of rant (or tirade)…but it is thoughtful, and I think reveals some of the issues and history that are at play.


Whoa! Where to start. Yes, of course I remember all you have brought up. I'm not defending any of the SC studies done to date. The discussion is heavily weighted to their side as there is nothing from the SC side. I'm only asking that those that dis-credit the studies already done...do it the right way...whatever that is. 

I think trying to equate the small cell studies, and the faults you come up with, to the fact that many older beekeepers poo-pood the wintering of nucleus colonies isn't a fair comparison. The studies done try to quantify why the colonies died...a hard thing to prove. When wintering nucleus colonies, the bees are alive. One only needs to keep track of what lived and what died and decide if the management is worth the time and resources. When you no longer have to buy replacement bees or split honey producers, it becomes obvious. Identifying SC beekeeping as the reason for a successful apiary would require a different approach, IMO. It seems when a beekeeper experimenting with SC beekeeping loses the bees, there are always "extenuating circumstances sighted by the SC proponents. Something the beekeeper forgot to do or did incorrectly, etc. Housel positioning comes to mind first.

Now, wintering nucleus colonies is nothing new. It wasn't dreamed up by Webster. It wasn't dreamed up by Brother Adam, or even his predecessor, Brother Columban. CC Miller talks about wintering nucleus colonies in _Fifty Years Among the Bees_. In fact, he talks about wintering nucleus colonies...referenced in _ABC of Bee Culture_

Miller, Dr. C. C., Fifty Years Among the Bees, 1911, The A. I. Root Company

The frames for nuclei are the regular full sized frames, and a full hive may be used for each nucleus, but it is economy to have the hive divided up into two or three compartments for as many nuclei. P. 247

Now, if during the time I have mentioned, we can have two colonies in one hive, we shall, I think, find in advantageous in more than one direction. It is a common thing for bee-keepers to unite two weak colonies in the fall. Suppose a bee-keeper has two weak colonies in the fall, each occupying two combs. He unites them so they will winter better. If they would not quarrel and would stay wherever they were put, he could place the two frames of the one hive beside the two frames in the other hive, and the thing would be done. Now, suppose that a thin division-board were placed between the two sets of combs, would that not see the same result? Not quite, I think, but nearly so. They would hardly be so warm as without the division-board, but nearly so; and both queens would be saved. In the spring it is desirable to keep the bees warm. If two colonies are in one hive, with a thin division board between them, they will be much warmer than if in separate hives. The same thing is true in winter. I have had weak nuclei with two combs come through in good condition during a winter in which I lost heavily; these nuclei having no extra care or protection other than being in a double hive. You would understand the reason of all this easily if in winter you would look into one of these double hives in the cellar. On each side the bees are clustered up against the division-board, and it looks exactly as if the bees had all been in one single cluster, and then the division-board pushed down, through the center of the cluster. P. 300

Root, A. I., ABC of Bee Culture, 1882, A. I. Root Co.
I have wintered many colonies, two in a hive, with a 3/8-inch division between, and I have always found the two colonies practically in one cluster. CC Miller

Snelgrove, L. E., Queen Rearing, 1946, Miss I. Snelgrove

A four-comb nucleus containing a young queens and at least two combs well filled with brood will winter quite well if fed with 10 lbs. of thick syrup, warmly covered with quilts, and kept in a place sheltered from cold winds. It will need to be fed again in late spring, and when strong, transferred to a larger hive. 
Several nuclei can be wintered side by side in a large packing case through the sides of which suitable entrance holes are bored. The hives should be covered with hay or straw and a waterproof roof provided. The extra queens so wintered will be of considerable value in the spring. P. 289

But there are no historical references for small cell foundation. 

>>How many speakers who were asked to speak were told that they had to have “scientifically valid data” to back them up as a precondition? Did the guy who claimed to be able to affect the shape of water crystals by saying “I love you” rather than “I hate you” to a freezing glass of water have data? Given that presentation, do you think that anything that I would present would be any kind of embarrassment? I know you didn't have total control of the program, but we were excluded for not having better "science" than we have, while Tom Seeley would have been presenting "valid research" if he talked about his small cell study...meanwhile you have the angry ice crystals being presented next door....I'm supposed to feel like I'm being treated fairly?<<

Dean, don't compare Mr. Natural and Tom Seeley. And don't get me going about the crystal thing. Last time I said anything about HIM, I got a long email threatening libel. See, it's not just you that gets flack for your opinion. 

No, Tom didn't talk about his SC study. I was only able to listen to her Arnot Forest talk, and something about swarms...honeybee democracy. Too busy with the meeting and honey show to attend all. AYSM...I especially didn't attend the crystal talk. 

>>Telling me I can’t critique such a bad study unless I do my own is, frankly, insulting. I’m not criticizing it for no reason…it’s simply lousy, and the beekeeping community should demand better (that includes you).<<

Dean, you've got it wrong. I'm not criticizing you or anyone...as I said...for the critique. I respect your opinion, and those of the rest of the SC, TF beekeeping camps. I'm only asking that you or someone else do it the right way...whatever that is...and end the contentions debate. 

>>Well, as you can see from the rough outline I posted yesterday, I have some ideas, and Ramona and I are discussing how to get all this stuff funded….but thanks for poking a bit at it…it has stimulated some new ideas that might be workable.<<

Well great! That was my intention. I'm sure we all could design a study that all here would be comfortable with. Don't you? Not so sure about your rough outline, though. Can't you keep it simple? Can't we just set up a number of apiaries with both LC and SC colonies, manage all the same over time, and keep track of the things that are important. Strength in spring, brood volume measurements, mite loads, virus loads, annual honey production, colony survival. 

Wouldn't all the colonies have to be started from bulk bees, and have sister queens? The SC and LC comb should be from where? Bulk bees on foundation in each group...following them over several years? The colonies would have to be manage identically. Colonies would have to be fed...sucrose syrup not HFCS or honey...unless the honey fed came from each colony. I know how you feel about feeding Dean, but you would have to eliminate starvation as a case of colony failure. 

Be well Dean, and don't take my opinion as any kind of personal attack.


----------



## deknow

....a couple of things briefly.

1. I think it's great to have beekeepers deciding and debating what goes into a well designed study. I encourage you to read more studies.....you will find the the protocols are generally not living up to the ideals one would think science would demand. 

2. Look closely at Randy's hsc trial. Note that after the formal experiment, he reticulated the hsc hives, does not treat them, and they "refuse to die". Randy seems to give credit to the offgassing of the food grade polypropylene as acting as a miticide. 

Deknow


----------



## squarepeg

yes dean, i saw oliver's interesting remarks regarding his hsc colonies. i think the question is ripe for answering.

and, just because others have had bad protocols or badly followed good protcols isn't an excuse for doing it again, (i'm not implying that is what you are implying  )


----------



## Acebird

squarepeg said:


> ace, i'm not sure it has been proven that bigger bees make more honey.


So the breeding of managed bees has been a waste of time and effort for the last 200 years?


----------



## Barry

Ace, you're going off topic again. That's not what squarepeg said. Read it again.


----------



## BeeCurious

Acebird said:


> So the breeding of managed bees has been a waste of time and effort for the last 200 years?


Don't you think that breeding and cell size are two different things? 

You could spend some time learning about the subject.


----------



## deknow

I'm going to try and reply to a bunch of this...I will try to keep it in shorter posts....and no Mike, I don't see your reply as a personal attack of any kind....I just think you are wrong  (I saw a Tshirt recently that said, "I could agree with you, but then we'd both be wrong")



Michael Palmer said:


> I'm not defending any of the SC studies done to date.


Mike, that is all well and good. But....you are universally recognized as a well above average beekeeper (top of the heap for the kind of beekeeping you are doing), clearly have had the good sense and judgment to take advice and methods from all kinds of places and have put them together and refined them in your own way that they actually work...really well (it is one thing to replicate someone elses business model...to forge your own is not a small task), are a smart, critical thinker, and have good grasp of reality. I'm not trying to stroke your ego....I'm pointing out that people listen to what you have to say, and they do so because what you say is consistently worth listening to.

This is not the first time you have seen me post my objections to the Seeley study. I understand that Tom holds a special place in the beekeeping community. I've met him a few times and he is a really nice guy. I've heard him present a few times, and he is excellent (one of the best). 

What purpose does it serve to not be critical of this study? ...preserving some kind of "cult of personality"? This is supposed to be a peer reviewed study from our most respected researcher....and there is no need to take drones into account because they used magic bees that don't produce drones all season? That measuring the average of 20 cells in the center of a frame (10 on each side) is sufficient data to cite it as the mean cell size for the frame?

I won't "demand" anything, but if out of Tom Seeley, the review process, the beekeepers that claim to want to have a good study done on this topic...that I'm the only one willing to ignore the source and point out huge problems that should have been obvious all the way through this process, then I guess we deserve no better.



Michael Palmer said:


> Dean, don't compare Mr. Natural and Tom Seeley.


Actually, the two of them have something in common (and also with us)....we all became interested in learning about small cell around the same time (not exactly the same time..but all within a couple of years).

Ramona and I, with our curiosity, had joined the organic list, and were engaging with Dee directly on the subject. In the spring of 2008 was the first of the Arizona Organic conferences...also really the first time Dee had done anything public since the loss of Ed. Ramona insisted with Dee that if we were going to come to the conference, we had to be able to stay with her afterwards so we could see her operation for ourselves. In the end, we were so inspired by what we saw, that we came back 6 weeks later, got Dee an online ordination, and she married us in the desert near one of her bee yards, while we spent a 2 week working wedding/honeymoon.

In short, we spent some time and money to see what small cell and no treatments really looked like in the desert. We wanted as much information as we could get, and we wanted to see for ourselves....we wanted to be successful.

Which brings us to....

When Ross Conrad was interested in SC beekeeping...enough that he wanted to regress his bees, what did he do? He called someone who had been successful....he picked up the phone and called Dee. I know, I answered the phone. Dee spent at least 45 minutes on the phone with him discussing the process....Ross even wanted to buy the foundation from Dee (Ross wanted to use the foundation that Dee had used successfully...he wanted to limit the number of variables). This was a genuine attempt to attempt to replicate the success that someone else is claiming. This is the _least_ one can do if they are serious.

Now, Tom Seeley has a student and 3 years of funding to evaluate small cell. He is a highly respected phd level researcher at one of the most respected agricultural research universities in the world (I don't think any of this is overstated). 

He makes no attempt to find out what people are actually doing WRT small cell. He spends 2 years trying to get SC comb drawn perfectly above the brood nest, above an excluder...and fails. He makes no mention of the potential impacts (besides cost to the beekeeper) that the HSC might have on the results. Tom Seeley didn't make an honest effort in 3 years of professional academic work in this topic, and it is shameful. It is more shameful that he gets a pass on this. Why didn't he pick up the phone? Why didn't he ask a beekeeper that knew something about it?

Mike, I've never been one that thought you should be doing anything other than the way you are doing them....but for a moment, consider that you have decided you are going to regress one of your yards....and consider that you have never heard anyone who used small cell explain what/why they did (pretend you know only what Tom Seeley knew when he started his project).

You would at least do what Ross did...you'd call up Dee, or Mike Bush, or Erik Osterlund...and ask some questions.

You might do what Ramona and I did...spend a little money to go and see one of these operations you have heard about.

You would not do what Tom Seeley did....of that I am certain. 

I am certainly not going to claim that "Natural Beekeeping", "The Complete Idiot's Guide To Beekeeping", or "Michael Palmers Handy Dandy Guide to Queen Rearing" are "Honeybee Democracy"...but when it comes to learning about how small cell beekeeping might be accomplished, Tom's approach shows the least desire to learn anything....and just because I'm pointing it out doesn't mean it's my fault....Tom advised the student, Tom put his name on the manuscript, Tom should have known better....and Ross did.

deknow


----------



## beemandan

Cleo C. Hogan Jr said:


> wouldn't it be better if the study was conducted by someone with no dog in the fight.


Been done a number of times. The issue is some who do have a dog in the fight are unhappy with the consistent results.


----------



## Riskybizz

MP > Well great! That was my intention. I'm sure we all could design a study that all here would be comfortable with. Don't you? 

Well spoken Mike my sentiments exactly. So dean I think most of us are aware of your objections to Seeley's previous study, and your follow up treatise. Without beating that old horse to death it would be beneficial to hear some of your possible concrete ideas that you would be interested in pursuing in regards to your own trial study of sc. There are certainly a lot of resources in the New England area that might be valuable in your pursuit of a more comprehensive examination of small cell treatment free beekeeping.


----------



## Barry

deknow said:


> What if Jim Fischer threatened your publisher with litigation if they didn’t recall the book you wrote talking about what you actually do?


I would have wet my pants from laughter!


----------



## deknow

Michael Palmer said:


> I think trying to equate the small cell studies, and the faults you come up with, to the fact that many older beekeepers poo-pood the wintering of nucleus colonies isn't a fair comparison.


I apologize if it came across as if I was trying to do that.

What I was trying to equate was the small cell studies with a (hypothetical) study of overwintering nucs that uses a different, and unproven method to "overwinter nucs" than you are using...one in which the investigator makes no effort to find out what goes into wintering nucs successfully, and instead assembles a host of unproven (and unwise) procedures (like starting with the most heavily mite infested hives you can find in an apiary) out of whole cloth, and when the results were negative, made a blanket statement that "overwintered nucs in new england simply die.

At least the Ellis and Ellis study qualified their claims with "under the conditions tested in this study" or some such.

I think we can agree that if we ignore all of the information from those that are overwintering nucs successfully, that it would be easy to come up with a procedure that looked ok on paper, but resulted in near 100% mortality.

As far as the historical record goes, beekeepers have been overwintering a lot longer than they have been dealing with mites. All of the quotes you provided are from well before mites.....I don't know about Snellgrove, but the other authors you cite (and everyone else from that time period....Root, Langstroth, Doolittle, Miller) all cite the size of worker comb at 5 cells within an inch...that's 5.08mm on the large side of things.

The historical record on cell size is clear...5.4 is larger than "natural". What affect this has on the bees and on the mites requires more research certainly. The people you are citing as overwintering nucs were not large cell beekeepers, and I think that's worth keeping in mind.

dkenow


----------



## deknow

I'm going to be a bit blunt with a few thoughts (yes, I know you will all find this shocking) 

1. It is difficult to imagine that a group of people can get together a valid study which avoids the glaring problems in previous studies if they have not read those studies. You've got to do your own homework if you want to have an informed opinion....there is no difference between people who read the study abstract and accept it as truth and people who read my criticisms of the work and accept those as truths. Simply put, your opinion isn't valuable unless it is informed.

Now, given the above...

2. It is difficult to imagine that a group of people can get together a valid study which avoids the glaring problems in previous studies if they are not willing to discuss the glaring problems. If you take someone's word for what the problems are (even if it is my word), you are not acting from an informed place....you are just as likely to take someone elses word for the opposite conclusion. You've got to do your homework and have an opinion.

3. I do have a vision of how this (and other bee research) should and could be done. I don't see much point in pursuing any of this unless it is spectacularly done, and the transparency of the data, procedures, and results place it above petty and casual scrutiny. I don't see any point in pursuing this with less rigor and with less numbers than would provide robust, general, and convincing results...we've already seen enough of that.

I know Mike has suggested something simpler....but again, I don't see the point of doing this and not doing it right....find out if the bees store more varieties of pollen on small cell (as is claimed by some), find out brood emergers faster on the small half of the comb than on the large, find out what behaviours are modified with a changing cell size. We are always told that "what works" isn't enough...we have to explain how....so, if we are going to explore this, lets explore it.

With that said, although I appreciate the input, I will let you all know when I come up with something that I think is viable....I don't mean to be dismissive or unappreciative, I just have been through this a few times already....

deknow


----------



## Oldtimer

Got excited and ready to write a cheque, but further reading made it seem likely this study will never happen.

The level of compensation being asked is just too much.

If someone wants to run a study to prove their own point of view, a level of voluntary effort should reasonably be expected. If money is wanted not only for time, but for equipment, why? During the study the bees will presumably be productive. At the end of the study the person running it gets to keep all the equipment. 

An "open chequebook" type approach has to be left aside, or this thing won't even get off the ground in my opinion.

I will pitch in some money, if I'm happy with the way the study is set up, and i also need to be happy it's not just being run as a money making venture.


----------



## Riskybizz

Oldtimer

So whats the weather like there today? I am envious. Its been well below freezing here for over a week, with lows 10-15 degrees. The week before I was feeding some old honey back to a few colonies and they were flying everywhere. Are you rearing any queens these days. I really enjoyed your post here about no-grafting a few quuens and I look forward to giving it a shot this coming May. If they vote to move this sc study to New Zealand sign me up ! Cheers


----------



## Oldtimer

Riskybizz said:


> If they vote to move this sc study to New Zealand sign me up ! Cheers


Ha Ha! 
A properly run study would use more resources than I've got, fun though it would be. Since starting some small cell hives and finding how difficult it is to regress them, and after that KEEP them regressed, I'm really hoping that there will be an eventual treatment free solution to varroa that does NOT involve 4.9 sized cells. It's been fun, and interesting, but to run a whole outfit at 4.9 would be pretty time consuming, at least where I am, with the bees we have.

The weather is excellent beekeeping and queen raising weather at the moment, temperatures reaching up to around 75 during the day and dropping to around 50 or 55 at night, in my area. Humidity is high so everything is very green, nectar pouring in. Good cell raising conditions but only hassle is cell raisers and nucs getting painfully clogged with honey, but a better problem to have than starvation. Yes I'm still selling nucs, hives, and queens. Just sold 50 hives to a commercial guy who went certified organic. Worked for him for 2 years then this year (the third year) he had major losses, he's treating again and buying bees wherever he can get them.

Good luck with the queen cell raising Riskybizz you'll have to post up & let's know how it goes!


----------



## squarepeg

interesting oldtimer. can you expand on your small cell trial? how many hives? do they have less mites? how did you regress, and what kind of problems are you having keeping them regressed?


----------



## Oldtimer

Hmm well to answer all that properly I'd have to write a book LOL! 

There is a thread on how I regressed the first hive here, which primarily shows that at the time I was a small cell ignoramus. 
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?250294-Small-Cell-Hive

How many hives? Not enough to be statstically valid, currently 8 hives and 21 nucs. All my cell raising is done in the small cell hives, primarily so they can be raised in a treatment free environment. After ironing out the initial bugs, the small cell bees are now raising queen cells the same size as a large cell hive would.

Do they have less mites? All I can say at this stage, is that for SOME of the hives it seems to be working. 2 hives were overwhelmed by mites a few months ago, others have some mites and from time to time show some PMS, and others are more mite free than any other hive I've had, without being treated in that time frame. So, if I was keenly trying to find evidence that small cell have less mites, based on the good hives I could find a way to say yes, but overall, on balance, the jury is still out.

Keeping them regressed? Main problem is even fully regressed hives will try to build bigger cells. I am not convinced 4.9 is a natural size for _apis mellifera_. I have had to cut out and re-foundation a LOT of combs. As I've learned a bit more about it I now only get comb drawn a few at a time, centre of the broodnest. You cannot just stick a honey box on full of foundation as you do with large cell foundation. If you do the bees will overite the 4.9 foundation and build larger cells.


----------



## squarepeg

thanks for taking the time to reply oldtimer, and thanks for the link to that thread.

i went back and read it in its entirety, which i had not done before posting to it.

looks like the state of affairs is still the state of affairs.

i still say the mite question is the main one, and the question that i think would be the easiest to answer in a focused study, (and the answer to _that_ question the most useful in regards to whether or not being preoccupied with sc is worthwhile).


----------



## Acebird

deknow said:


> find out what behaviours are modified with a changing cell size.


Bingo! this is key. Crack this nut and you will answer the benefits / detriments of small cell or small feral bees.


----------



## Acebird

Oldtimer said:


> It's been fun, and interesting, but to run a whole outfit at 4.9 would be pretty time consuming, at least where I am, with the bees we have.


 Time consuming, of course. Unless you flood your area with bees that come out of this 4.9 cell how can you expect the 4.9 cells will remain? It shouldn't take more than 150 years, maybe only a 100.
Please tell me why you want these bees and what behavior characteristics you are willing to live with.


----------



## rweakley

I know this is supposed to be about small cell foundation, but small cell and natural cell are not that much different of an animal. Why in the world do we need a study about this to tell us if it's beneficial. For natural cell the bottom line is it costs me much less money to do, so even if the bees survive exactly the same as they would on large foundation I am $$ ahead. Personally I think most of the studies that have been done were flawed. Either because they didn't properly regress the bees or the study wasn't long enough or who knows what else. Let's try a study comparing the 5 year survival rates of regular foundation bees and foundationless bees.


----------



## deknow

Mike, I want to make sure that I express to you _exactly_ how I feel about you:







 Sorry, couldn't resist

deknow


----------



## Oldtimer

Acebird said:


> Please tell me why you want these bees and what behavior characteristics you are willing to live with.


Well just purely because like evryone else it would be nice to be treatment free I thought I'll give it a shot. Unlike many though the method won't be getting my 100% support, until AFTER i've discovered wether or not it works. By which I mean for me, over a decent time period, and losses I could accept living with (not greater than 5%). Behavior characteristics? Not quite sure what you are getting at?


----------



## BeeCurious

Oldtimer said:


> Unlike many though the method won't be getting my 100% support, until AFTER i've discovered wether or not it works. By which I mean for me, over a decent time period, and losses I could accept living with (not greater than 5%).


What are your average losses of treated colonies?


----------



## deknow

...you are in a rather unique situation in NZ, as you don't allow any honey imports, a lot of unnavigable but productive land (helecoptering in bees for a honey crop and such), not that many beekeepers in most places, and a reasonable domestic demand...couple this with the MHMS (Manuka Honey Marketing Scheme) run along with the local university for the export market, and you have a great market for honey.

I thought that all beekeepers in NZ were single (unmarried)...as I (and a whole room of beekeepers at the organic conference in Arizona) was sure that Roy Arbon said he knew of no married beekeepers....it later became clear that he said "no Maori beekeepers" 

There is no commodity market for "treatment free honey"...so the market price is really market determined. I don't know what other people pay, but our suppliers secure a reasonable premium for being treatment free in their management. I wonder if you would accept 20% losses if you were making double per pound for honey? I'm not offering anything here....I don't know what you get per pound....I don't know your market. 

Here in New England, we have soccer moms and hipsters supporting what Dee is doing 2000 miles away...what Kirk is doing in Vermont, what Bob is doing in NY...because they want the purist product they can get, and they appreciate what we are doing....because they want to feel like they are doing everything they can to provide their family with food produced in sustainable ways without pesticides....in ways in which the actual producer is not being exploited.

If (as you say), all things being equal, you'd like to be treatment free.....consider that there may be a market out there that would actually like to buy honey from untreated and unfed bees....a market that (unlike you or me), has little time to do something like keep their own treatment free bees, but plenty of money to throw at the problem of obtaining honey from those that do. I see no reason why one couldn't (with a little work) double the price from that of NZ organic honey....I presume the organic standards allow feeding with organic cane sugar, and treating with essential oils and/or acids? Aren't there customers of NZ organic honey that would love to pay more for something that hasn't been fed or medicated...a true sustainable treatment free apiary?

Don't interpret this as disrespect for the customer...they are the ones that make the whole thing go round....I very much appreciate that _they_ appreciate what we all do.

deknow


----------



## Oldtimer

BeeCurious said:


> What are your average losses of treated colonies?


 Zero. If a hive is failing for any reason I save it. (Other than 3 years ago when I got AFB and burned 4 hives). I have few enough hives to manage each one properly. 

However for the treatment free hives, to be consistent with methods currently being used by others, I am allowing losses, even though it goes against the grain. Current TF losses are greater than 5% but I'm writing this off as part of the learning process and possibly something that has to be gone through. Long term though it will have to work withing commercially acceptable parameters for someone who sells bees.


----------



## Oldtimer

A good post Dean. NZ already produces un mite treated honey because a good slab of the South Island has been varroa free, until this season. It has not been marketed as chemical free though because the beekeepers don't know where their bees have been, it is not differentiated from any other honey.

We also don't use some of the more nasty mite treatments like, say coumaphos, treatment is not an issue in the publics minds most of them have total faith in the product. Honey here is tested before sale to very demanding standards because the bulk of our honey is exported, we have to comply with the highest standards from around the world. NZ honey, in bulk anyway, does command a premium price around the globe because it is not adulterated or tampered with or even filtered for pollen, little sugar is fed here, and no corn syrup, we have a good rep.

The comments about accepting 20% losses for double the price for honey, do make sense from a commercial perspective. For me, it's a hobby and I don't have an approved honey processing plant so cannot legally sell honey, that why I'm selling bees and queens. Most bees are sold early in the season, or at least that's when they are worth the most. So if I had to spend the first part of the season making up my own losses it would damage my income and losses of 5% would be the most I would be prepared to wear. For a honey producer it would be of less financial importance, he could do early splits and the bees would recover before the main honey flow anyway. There is also a lot of crop pollination done and for that you want good hives early, a winter deadout would kill a major part of many beekeepers earnings on that hive.

Oh, glad you met Roy Arbon! Quite a character yes!  He's wrong on the Maori beekeepers though I know several.


----------



## jim lyon

deknow said:


> ...you are in a rather unique situation in NZ, as you don't allow any honey imports, a lot of unnavigable but productive land (helecoptering in bees for a honey crop and such), not that many beekeepers in most places, and a reasonable domestic demand...couple this with the MHMS (Manuka Honey Marketing Scheme) run along with the local university for the export market, and you have a great market for honey.
> 
> I thought that all beekeepers in NZ were single (unmarried)...as I (and a whole room of beekeepers at the organic conference in Arizona) was sure that Roy Arbon said he knew of no married beekeepers....it later became clear that he said "no Maori beekeepers"
> 
> There is no commodity market for "treatment free honey"...so the market price is really market determined. I don't know what other people pay, but our suppliers secure a reasonable premium for being treatment free in their management. I wonder if you would accept 20% losses if you were making double per pound for honey? I'm not offering anything here....I don't know what you get per pound....I don't know your market.
> 
> Here in New England, we have soccer moms and hipsters supporting what Dee is doing 2000 miles away...what Kirk is doing in Vermont, what Bob is doing in NY...because they want the purist product they can get, and they appreciate what we are doing....because they want to feel like they are doing everything they can to provide their family with food produced in sustainable ways without pesticides....in ways in which the actual producer is not being exploited.
> 
> If (as you say), all things being equal, you'd like to be treatment free.....consider that there may be a market out there that would actually like to buy honey from untreated and unfed bees....a market that (unlike you or me), has little time to do something like keep their own treatment free bees, but plenty of money to throw at the problem of obtaining honey from those that do. I see no reason why one couldn't (with a little work) double the price from that of NZ organic honey....I presume the organic standards allow feeding with organic cane sugar, and treating with essential oils and/or acids? Aren't there customers of NZ organic honey that would love to pay more for something that hasn't been fed or medicated...a true sustainable treatment free apiary?
> 
> Don't interpret this as disrespect for the customer...they are the ones that make the whole thing go round....I very much appreciate that _they_ appreciate what we all do.
> 
> deknow


Seems like it would be a whole lot simpler, a whole lot better for the consumer and the producer and a lot more straightforward to define what it is you are assuring your customer is not in the honey and then test the product before marketing it. The most judicious of producers may have their bees rob out a nearby hive tainted with antibiotics or miticides or perhaps foundation they were using has traces of such chemicals and despite an honest attempt you arent truly delivering an honest product to your customers despite all of your efforts. You know where I am coming from Dean. I refuse to accept the notion that because I dont meet someones strict definition of treatment free that there is one iota of difference between honey where treatments were used judiciously and responsibly and those who claim that the title of treatment free bestows upon thier honey any more purity, in either case you are taking someones word for what might or might not be in it. There are two entirely different issue at play here. A. Those who feel that being treatment free helps them breed better and stronger bees and B. Those who feel that being treatment free actually makes their honey better. I won't argue the former but I will argue the latter is not necessarily so.


----------



## deknow

Is there a difference between a shirt made by an American union worker, and the same shirt, the same materials, the same quality, made by a slave in some far eastern country?

Is there a difference between an ipod maufactured in China (as they are now) and the same ipod manufactured in the U.S. (as they are now advertising they are going to do next year....one product)?

For a while there was a ruling in Pennsylvania that because in lab tests milk produced without synthetic hormones could not be differentiated from milk that had been, the the producers could not advertise this as a difference between the products. The producers could not advertise that they produced milk without synthetic hormones...this was later reversed.

I'm not sure why customers that want to buy honey from operations that aren't treating shouldn't be able to.

If you want to market premium honey based on a testing regimen, then I say go for it. Most organic standards are first and foremost based on practices, not testing standards. 

You are selling a commodity product at a commodity price. Your price is subject to market forces beyond your control that include the supply/demand of honey in your own category, but of the worst stuff being sold at discount prices to be used in food processing. I'm not trying to be dramatic, and I'm not putting you down...I'm sure your product is well above average (although I doubt anyone could compete with Dee's honey on Penn State pesticide tests....out of 4 samples, one sample tested 1ppb coumaphos. All other samples and all other pesticides were below the limits of the tests). You should be getting a above average price....but you are selling as a commodity. Wouldn't it be great if we could do something about that 

deknow


----------



## Riskybizz

Jim I agree. It appears to me that no matter how you slice this bread the consumer still must rely on the honesty and integrity of the seller of the product they are purchasing from. Honey is a unique product in that it comes from different open source locations and is not produced directly by the seller. It is instead produced by the bees themselves and we only package what they provide us. It’s not like your caging your chickens and monitoring everything they eat or every place they go. Honey sellers don’t follow their bees around to make sure they are only bringing back what the seller says they do. I have always felt that my honey sells itself and that I don’t have to bother to preach the virtues of mine over the guys down the road in order to get people to purchase it. I don’t care what anyone else is selling, but I do pay attention to what goes into my jars. It boils down to the simple fact that even a good honey producer can profess quite the song and dance to their customer base regarding the virtues of their particular honey. Some sellers have to make certain that their buyer knows how knowledgeable they think they are about bees and honey. The buyer is generally satisfied that the seller is providing them with enough factual information so that they can feel comfortable consuming what they purchase. I have visited our local farmers market enough and stood listening to someone selling their honey to know well enough that too many people are quite adept at slinging the bull, to make their product seem more attractive. Regardless of the validity of some statements the buyer will generally buy into the marketing as gospel.


----------



## squarepeg

is it true that honey cannot be sold as 'certified organic' because one cannot control what the foragers might come in contact with, (to jim's point about robbing, but also taking into consideration what chemicals may be used on gardens, orchards, crops, ect within foraging distance of the bees).

and am i understanding correctly that those soccer moms and hipsters are happy to pay $11.00 for a half a pound of honey, because it comes from bees that aren't being exploited? 

how would they feel if they learned that the process of not treating means that some colonies are exploited, in that they end up dying an unimaginably horrible death due to mites?

i wonder why these customers aren't aware that not all methods of treating bees result in contamination of the honey.

i wonder what these customers would think if they found out that it's possible to have more formic acid naturally occuring in honey than is sometimes found in honey from a hive that was treated with formic acid.

if these customers are making an informed decision as to what may or may not be different about the quality of the honey, and if these customers are informed as to what the practices of keeping bees without treatment really means for the bees,

then yes customers that want to buy honey from those operations should absolutely free to do so.

my guess is that the average customer in this situation is giving somewhat less than an 'informed consent'.


----------



## deknow

I will simply make an open statement.

There are few people as outspoken as myself on topics that might be termed as "controversial organicish style beekeeping practices". I stand by every statement I've ever made, and always have....and I've apologized when I've made mistakes or been wrong....consistently, for years. 

I don't see any reason why anyone would think that I'm less than honest in my dealings with our customers, wholesale accounts, or suppliers.

If you want to imply otherwise, please give some specifics....or stick it.

deknow


----------



## deknow

...the consumer and retailer that relies on the honesty and integrity of Dee Lusby, Kirk Webster, and Bob Brachman as well as the integrity of Ramona and me, is in very good hands.

deknow


----------



## Andrew Dewey

squarepeg said:


> is it true that honey cannot be sold as 'certified organic' because one cannot control what the foragers might come in contact with, (to jim's point about robbing, but also taking into consideration what chemicals may be used on gardens, orchards, crops, ect within foraging distance of the bees).


Honey can be sold as organic if you can find an organization to certify it. It is not easy to satisfy the requirement of being able to show that 100% of the forage area is being managed organically. So if your neighbor wants to use weed and feed on her lawn, no organic certification for you.

Another standard that is easier to achieve is Certified Naturally Grown. Essentially CNG pays minimal attention to where the bees may forage instead focusing on how the bees are managed.

There are a few beekeepers who have had their apiaries certified as organic over the years. Based on what we were told at EAS I think some (what percentage I'm not sure) found the paper work and hassle of jumping through hoops didn't result in the hoped for premium price for their honey, resulting in the beekeepers opting out of the organic program.

I looked at CNG for my operation and found some of the requirements (like minimum hive stand heights) over the top.


----------



## Riskybizz

"...the consumer and retailer that relies on the honesty and integrity of Dee Lusby, Kirk Webster, and Bob Brachman as well as the integrity of Ramona and me, is in very good hands."

And thousands of others.


----------



## jim lyon

deknow said:


> Is there a difference between a shirt made by an American union worker, and the same shirt, the same materials, the same quality, made by a slave in some far eastern country?


....and while we are talking about "implying" perhaps you could be more specific about why you used this analogy in response to my post? Has the conversation really morphed from honey purity to social awareness?


----------



## squarepeg

"but our suppliers secure a reasonable premium for being treatment free in their management"

and why is that dean? is it because the public has come to believe that this honey is superior to honey that was obtained from suppliers that are not treatment free in their management?

how would the public come to believe such a thing?

welcome to the no spin zone.


----------



## deknow

When we sampled honey from the shelf of local health food store (as I've posted here before), most was adulterated with up to 30% beet or corn sugar (from an "organic farm" no less). Small beekeepers that bought in honey from a large beekeeper had adulterated...the same large beekeeper's honey under their own label is pure. ...all the while the small beekeepers are claiming to have produced the honey with their own bees (in one case, the beekeeper had recently come to this country, and didn't yet have bees).

I can't keep track of thousands of beekeepers...but I can work with a few who have practices that make sense to me and are in line with my own. It's worth noting that they all have very different practices...Dee is the only one that is small cell, she and Kirk both make their own foundation, Dee keeps repopulating the same number of production hives with walk away splits from survivors to maintain numbers, Kirk overwinters nucs to hives 3:1, Bob is part of the Russian breeding program. Dee harvests year round, kirk in the summer, and Bob (even though he is not too far from Kirk) sometimes gets a summer harvest and a reliable fall flow or two.

When we have discussed this stuff before we have talked about rice syrup adulteration, about HFCS feeders on with honey supers, of shop towel treatments, transhipped honey, etc.

There is great honey out there...but it is rather impossible for the consumer to be sure they are getting it....and no segment of "the industry" is interested in solving this problem. Hobbyists want to be able to buy a few buckets and do a flea market or two and sell it as their own. Packers want to buy cheap and market high.

So you are free to figure out how to separate the wheat from the chaff for everyone go ahead...I don't have a clue. I can only do what I can do.

deknow


----------



## deknow

Are you accusing me of marketing an honest product that has the beekeeper's name and practices on the label? Of not making any misrepresentations but being honest in all my interactions with my customers? If not, please be specific.

In any case, I'm not really sure what your problem is...I've done my best to be as helpful as I can to you and answer your questions the best I can....I'm a pretty easy going guy, but I'm probably not going to waste any more time with your jeckyl/hyde act. ...it isn't terribly rewarding.

deknow


----------



## jim lyon

I am not here to defend the practices of others, no doubt there are some shady ones out there, I hope they get busted. But you have spoken to my very point why not let testing be your criteria you apparently dont have a problem testing your competitors honey.


----------



## deknow

jim lyon said:


> ....and while we are talking about "implying" perhaps you could be more specific about why you used this analogy in response to my post? Has the conversation really morphed from honey purity to social awareness?


Sorry Jim...I meant no offense or parallel. This was an example using extremes (union labor vs slave labor) in a common object. I deliberately didn't use a "fair trade" analogy because I'm not sure how fair they are.
Regardless of how you feel about the social issues, it remains that two shirts have different values on the market....if they are marketed honestly.

I was only trying to use an analogy of extremes to illustrate my point. I wasn't trying to make any kind of social point.

deknow


----------



## squarepeg

i don't believe anyone here is against seperating the wheat from the chaff dean.

i do believe the majority here are all about marketing great honey, and would take exception with the examples you provided in your last post.

the problem arises when wheat = treatment free, and chaff = not treatment free.

it's difficult to see how you are not implying this based on what you have posted.


----------



## deknow

No, I didn't have any problems testing honey that I purchased off the shelf. It was during a brief time when I had access to some free testing by Polarmetrics. 
We tested our own honey, and honey from several beekeepers that don't feed...came back pure.

We tested honey that came from a local sideline beekeeper who does feed and is very conscientious....came back pure.

We tested honey from a few local beekeepers/farms that all bought in from the same source...15-30% adulterated.

We tested honey from a larger local honey producer..came back 5% beet or corn....the producer said "that sounds about right" when I told him.

We tested honey under the label of the large beekeeper who supplied honey to the beekeepers above...tested pure.

Also worth noting is that when they were originally calibrating the machine, they asked local hobby beekeepers for samples so they could see some different kinds of pure honey...the developers were not beekeepers and didn't know about beekeeping practice, and couldn't figure out why these samples kept coming up adulterated, when they knew they came from hobby beekeepers that weren't using commercial practices....they didn't know about the feeding.

I'd love to be testing honey....the Polarmetrics machine we would like to get is about $40k, and I'd have to do a bit more research before commiting that if I had it. The nice thing about this device is that (unlike the pesticide tests) there are no expensive disposables (reagents that might cost the tester $200/each), and can be done in 4 minutes without a heavy duty lab.

It remains, I can only do what I can do.


----------



## jim lyon

Dean: What does it cost to test a sample for the three most commonly used antibiotics (tetracycline, tylosin and fumagillan plus the leading miticides (amitraz, coumaphous and fluvalinate) plus of course an adulteration test? Plus anything else an ethical packer would be concerned about.


----------



## deknow

squarepeg said:


> i don't believe anyone here is against seperating the wheat from the chaff dean.


Ok...so how are you going to do it? You want to test? Go ahead. I can't afford that... You want to promote all honey as being equal like the NHB? Go ahead....it isn't true.

I remain able only to do what I can do.

deknow


----------



## deknow

jim lyon said:


> Dean: What does it cost to test a sample for the three most commonly used antibiotics (tetracycline, tylosin and fumagillan plus the leading miticides (amitraz, coumaphous and fluvalinate) plus of course an adulteration test? Plus anything else an ethical packer would be concerned about.


My recollection is that the Penn State pesticide profile is about $285/sample.

Sugar adulteration tests vary by method and LOD (limit of detection)...my recollection is that it was about $45 for the cheap sugar test (down to 15% LOD) and something over 100 for something more sophisticated. Last I heard, no lab contract lab has been willing to claim to identify rice syrup (I think some in house packer labs probably do identify rice syrup internally).

deknow


----------



## Acebird

Barry said:


> Ace, you're going off topic again.


It is only off topic if I answer a question that is posed to me. If anyone else goes off topic for what ever reason it is not going off topic.:scratch:
Is that how it works Barry?


----------



## squarepeg

deknow said:


> Ok...so how are you going to do it? You want to test? Go ahead. I can't afford that... You want to promote all honey as being equal like the NHB? Go ahead....it isn't true.
> 
> I remain able only to do what I can do.
> 
> deknow


good question dean. 

i guess the bigger question is, is it fair to represent one's honey as superior to any other honey, without having the tests? which as you point out is not practical.

the jeckyl in me would want to approach that by not saying anything derogatory about a competitor's honey, or the practice's he employs to produce that honey. i would rather explain how careful and responsible i was with my practices to ensure the quality of my honey.

the hyde in me would rise up about the time one of my competitors was claiming his honey was superior to mine because of a difference in practice, that may not necessarily result in a better product.


----------



## squarepeg

welcome to the discussion ace.


----------



## Acebird

squarepeg said:


> the jeckyl in me would want to approach that by not saying anything derogatory about a competitor's honey, or the practice's he employs to produce that honey. i would rather explain how careful and responsible i was with my practices to ensure the quality of my honey.


Everyone hates the mud slinging around election time but it is hard to educate a consumer on the differences if you don't explain what is wrong with someone else's product.


----------



## Oldtimer

Provided you got tests to show that there actually ARE any differences.


----------



## deknow

squarepeg said:


> the hyde in me would rise up about the time one of my competitors was claiming his honey was superior to mine because of a difference in practice, that may not necessarily result in a better product.


Really? You would be upset that a competitor told a potential customer the truth about what you are actually doing? 

I only get upset when competitors lie about what I am doing to my customers.

deknow


----------



## Oldtimer

Acebird said:


> It is only off topic if I answer a question that is posed to me. If anyone else goes off topic for what ever reason it is not going off topic.:scratch:
> Is that how it works Barry?


My reply is off topic, of course, but just so you know Ace, I've been warned by Barry, had posts deleted, and generally been roughed around, for my tendency to go off topic. 

It's not only you. I think the standard of moderation is pretty good.


----------



## Oldtimer

deknow said:


> I only get upset when competitors lie about what I am doing to my customers.
> 
> deknow


Well that's begging competitors to get upset when you imply their honey is not as good as yours, when it is.

Same thing isn't it?


----------



## squarepeg

deknow said:


> Really? You would be upset that a competitor told a potential customer the truth about what you are actually doing?
> 
> I only get upset when competitors lie about what I am doing to my customers.
> 
> deknow


not at all dean. i would never have a problem with a competitor telling a potential customer the truth about what i am actually doing, (not sure how a competitor would know what i am actually doing).

i am 100% open to any potential customer about what i am doing anyway.

i said, i would take issue with a competitor claiming his honey was superior due to a difference in practice, which may not necessarily be the case.

i have no idea what you say to your customers.

i only see that you market treatment free honey as superior to nontreatment free honey.


----------



## deknow

Who's honey did I imply was not "as good" as anyone elses honey?

I tell my customers that the honey comes from bees that aren't treated.

I educate my customers truthfully and accurately what that means.

There has been a lot of talk of what I'm "claiming" and what I'm "implying". I don't think it's too much to ask that if you are going to accuse me of something, that you be specific. I can't be responsible for what the voices in your head tell you I'm doing or saying. I don't think I could be any more open about what I do.

deknow


----------



## Oldtimer

Oh Purleeees. 

You have posted often enough about how you "educate" your customers. 

Seems all honey except what you sell is painted with the same brush. You've even posted that if somebody elses honey is perfectly good, but he doesn't actually take the time to differentiate himself, then he, in your words, "deserves what he gets", when you "educate" your customers.


----------



## Michael Palmer

deknow said:


> Mike, I want to make sure that I express to you _exactly_ how I feel about you:
> View attachment 3693
> 
> Sorry, couldn't resist
> 
> deknow


Good one Dean.


----------



## squarepeg

fair enough. like i said, i have no idea what you say or don't say to your customers.

i don't know what educating customers 'truthfully and accurately' means.

so, let's get past the claiming and implying, and cut straight to the chase.

dean, yes or no, do you think honey harvested from treatment free bees is superior to honey harvested from bees that have been treated, and should it be marketed to consumers as superior?


----------



## deknow

There is a whole lot of complaining going on...but tell me....who else (anywhere) is doing anything to secure a premium price for a premium product FOR THE FREAKING PRODUCER? Anyone? Really? No one?

Jim wants to have the high quality of his honey be recognized...but the people that buy it and market it don't...they want to pay commodity prices for it....well under $2/lb? That sounds like a great system 

What everyone else is advocating is the status quo....where good quality honey is sold as a commodity in competition with crappy honey. You are all welcome to that market model if you like....a race to the bottom...the most profit is made by buying the lowest quality honey possible and marketing it as the highest....and there is really no mechanism or force to stop this.

If you have a different vision...then I say follow it. Keeping bees without treatments is important to me (whether or not they are "small cell" isn't). I've got a business model that allows me to spend my time supporting exactly what I believe is important, support others that share my vision, and we've been lucky enough to find a customer base that is willing to support our vision. I'm not sure what you all should be doing, but I'm pretty happy doing what I'm doing, and I feel just fine about it.

deknow


----------



## deknow

I don't really know what you are asking. "Superior" in what way? "Superior" to what?

deknow


----------



## squarepeg

squarepeg said:


> fair enough. like i said, i have no idea what you say or don't say to your customers.
> 
> i don't know what educating customers 'truthfully and accurately' means.
> 
> so, let's get past the claiming and implying, and cut straight to the chase.
> 
> dean, yes or no, do you think honey harvested from treatment free bees is superior to honey harvested from bees that have been treated, and should it be marketed to consumers as superior?





deknow said:


> I don't really know what you are asking. "Superior" in what way? "Superior" to what?
> 
> deknow


superior in 'any way' to 'honey harvested from bees that have been treated'


----------



## deknow

Oldtimer said:


> You have posted often enough about how you "educate" your customers.


And I am always honest and truthful. 



> Seems all honey except what you sell is painted with the same brush. You've even posted that if somebody elses honey is perfectly good, but he doesn't actually take the time to differentiate himself, then he, in your words, "deserves what he gets", when you "educate" your customers.


Wait a second....I'm responsible for my own actions. How someone else retails or wholesales their honey is their own business. It's absurd to imply that I should have anything to do with how some other beekeeper gets paid by someone else. 

What do you think I should be doing to make sure that other beekeepers get a fair price for their honey? Why is it any of my business what someone else is willing to sell their honey for?

deknow


----------



## jim lyon

...and I am pretty happy where I am right now as well. No complaints about the price I am getting at all. Dean's assumption that my honey isnt bringing above market price is only an assumption. My quibble is putting "treatment free" honey on a pedestal when there is really no proof that the same result cant be achieved through other means. Does anyone reading this truly believe that the guy who used Formic or Hopguard this past fall when his honey supers were in storage is really producing a product that isnt every bit as good as the guy who dosent? Where is the proof? I applaud the ethical standards that Dean and Ramona take in marketing their product. I wish all honey was marketed in such a manner I would just like to point out that talking down the competition does not make their product one bit better and that treatment free beekeeping isnt the only means to achieving a pure product.


----------



## squarepeg

good post jim.


----------



## Oldtimer

deknow said:


> What do you think I should be doing to make sure that other beekeepers get a fair price for their honey?
> 
> deknow


Stop telling everyone that other honey is not as good as yours?


----------



## deknow

Well, I think the practices of beekeepers that don't treat are superior to those that do.

I think the chances of breeding strong bees that don't need treatments in the long run are much greater in operations that take pains not to use treatments in the short run....I think they are worth supporting, and I think therefore that their products are worth a premium. In this way I think they are superior.

I think A LOT of honey available (especially on the local level...honey that isn't tested) has various amounts of feed in them...and the beekeepers that aren't feeding are much less likely to have feed adulterated honey.

I think beekeepers that don't put treatments in the hive have a lot less chance of having those treatments show up in the honey.

I think that honey that is honestly labeled as to who produced it and where is less likely to be bought in honey from an unknown source....a source even the seller can't vouch for.

....you can all market your products however you want....let me know how it works out.

deknow


----------



## deknow

Oldtimer said:


> Stop telling everyone that other honey is not as good as yours?


When did I say that?

deknow


----------



## Andrew Dewey

Take a deep breath everyone. The discussion on this thread thus far has been great but I think we are fast approaching the point where tempers are going to flare. Let's not let that happen.

A question: Is a sustainable apiary with the need to split and/or make up nucs to replace deadouts really all that sustainable? Forget about the treatment/non-treatment arguments for a moment, if you have to regularly replace X percentage of your stock because X percentage didn't survive/wasn't productive, how are you off a treadmill?

Is keeping enough bees alive so that the economics still work good enough? (Work in progress...Do what we need to do to stay in business...)

The big question: Do we have confidence in the US Govt. to set rules and standards to protect the food supply by testing and approving products such as miticides for use in honey bee colonies?

Allowing for healthy skepticism at the ability of the US Govt to implement rules and standards to protect the food supply without political intrigue or conspiracy theories, to what extent do we follow the dogma "an educated consumer is our best customer?"

What about the consumers who don't have the time and/or interest to become educated on this topic? "Just give me my honey and back away..."

I'm starting to feel like this post is just a continuation of the same old arguments and I'm tired of them.

It seems to me that we have sincere individuals producing a product by different methods and advertising their product as somehow better because of the way their product was produced.

I think the discussion really turns into one of confidence in the commercial agricultural "system" to produce healthy products. And there is no way that argument will ever get settled as it all comes down to belief.


----------



## squarepeg

thanks for hanging in here dean, good answer. (from the jeckyl side of me  )


----------



## Oldtimer

deknow said:


> Well, I think the practices of beekeepers that don't treat are superior to those that do.
> 
> I think the chances of breeding strong bees that don't need treatments in the long run are much greater in operations that take pains not to use treatments in the short run....I think they are worth supporting, and I think therefore that their products are worth a premium. In this way I think they are superior.
> 
> I think A LOT of honey available (especially on the local level...honey that isn't tested) has various amounts of feed in them...and the beekeepers that aren't feeding are much less likely to have feed adulterated honey.
> 
> I think beekeepers that don't put treatments in the hive have a lot less chance of having those treatments show up in the honey.
> 
> I think that honey that is honestly labeled as to who produced it and where is less likely to be bought in honey from an unknown source....a source even the seller can't vouch for.
> 
> 
> deknow


Don't disagree with all of it, but a lot of "I thinks" in there.

TF practises being superior? In what way. Much practises I've read about on the TF forum are pretty shonky.


Chances of breeding stronger bees more likely? The reality is most of this is not being done by TF beekeepers it's being done by properly run breeding programs such as the BR bee lab etc. you'll find most TF folks who have "survivor" bees, if they could trace the ancestry of their bees it would include influence from one of these programs.

But I don't have any particular beef with you having an opinion, whatever it is. Long as other people aren't getting slagged off, and most particularly, if the slagging off is not even accurate. Ultimately this is bad for everybody.


----------



## deknow

Oldtimer said:


> Stop telling everyone that other honey is not as good as yours?


Wait a second...you think that marketing treatment free honey as a premium product drives down the price of other honey? That might be true if we were also competing on price...we aren't...we are raising the price to the producer, and getting the customer used to the fact that a premium product costs something extra.

Nothing we are doing is driving down the price of honey.

deknow


----------



## deknow

Oldtimer said:


> A lot of "I thinks" in there.
> 
> TF practises being superior? In what way.


...in any way!

deknow


----------



## deknow

This is absurd....I won't reply to anything else regarding my "claims" unless they are quoted. I've never said the things I'm being accused of saying. Put up or shut up...please.

deknow


----------



## Oldtimer

deknow said:


> Wait a second...you think that marketing treatment free honey as a premium product drives down the price of other honey? That might be true if we were also competing on price...we aren't...we are raising the price to the producer, and getting the customer used to the fact that a premium product costs something extra.
> 
> Nothing we are doing is driving down the price of honey.
> 
> deknow


 Telling people, and enough people, that other honey is adulterated, has poison in it etc, ultimately, will drive down price.


----------



## Oldtimer

deknow said:


> This is absurd....I won't reply to anything else regarding my "claims" unless they are quoted. I've never said the things I'm being accused of saying. Put up or shut up...please.
> 
> deknow


Oh. You've never said other honey is adulterated. Or you've never said other honey has poisonous treatments in it. Unless I go to the trouble of quoting it for you.

RRRight........

While in general I agree with the principle of quoting stuff in these situations, in this case we've all read stuff you've said Dean. Really, trying to deny it is semantics and word play. I'll not waste my time finding the quotes that everybody has seen anyway.

Unless you REALLY want me to. A whole page of them may not be a good look......


----------



## deknow

Oldtimer said:


> Telling people, and enough people, that other honey is adulterated, has poison in it etc, ultimately, will drive down price.


Some honey is adulterated. Some honey has "poison" in it ...sometimes the beekeeper put there. These are exactly the things that I work really hard to change. Ignoring them and pretending they don't happen does nothing to protect the consumer. Does nothing to change things. Good luck.

deknow


----------



## Oldtimer

deknow said:


> I've never said the things I'm being accused of saying.
> 
> deknow





deknow said:


> Some honey is adulterated. Some honey has "poison" in it.
> deknow


 We seem to have a contradiction.


----------



## Ramona

While you boys were "talking" all day I was out selling honey!

No need to talk about what others may or may not be doing...I give out the tastes and the customers buy. Many have been coming for four years, many got the honey as gifts and come back to buy on their own.

Many care about the beekeepers practices...all are amazed by the taste and quality. I have lots of customers from other countries - Morocco in particular - who are actively seeking honey from bees that are not fed sugar or hfcs. They are crazy for Dee's honey. Apparently beekeeping is changing in Morocco as more bees now are being fed and the customers don't like it. They are very happy to pay a premium as even our honey is less expensive than honey in Morocco.

Ramona


----------



## squarepeg

for what it is worth, i price my honey a little higher than most others in my market.

and i still don't think it is selling for what it should, given all that goes into bringing it to market. i am inspired by dean and ramona's approach, and i plan to adopt some of their ideas for marketing next year.

i don't disagree with selling the customer/distributor on the fact that much expertise, great care, and a whole lot of sweat was involved to make it possible to hand them that jar of honey, and that they can be confident that it is the real deal and without contamination. we should all do that.

i don't agree with using treatment or no treatments as the distinquishing criterian, and would take the time to explain to a potential customer that it is not a litmus test. i hope that no one is promoting such a thing.


----------



## squarepeg

ramona, i vote that dean go to market tomorrow, and you do the posting on beesource.


----------



## Oldtimer

Ramona said:


> No need to talk about what others may or may not be doing
> Ramona


That I approve of. If you could drop doing that from your public "education" I'd have no further beef.


----------



## squarepeg

Rusty Hills Farm said:


> Like lots of others, I've been reading about the value of small cell foundation and wondering if I should give it a try. I came across this:
> 
> http://www.extension.org/pages/44732/has-research-been-done-on-honey-bees-comparing-54-mm-comb-cell-size-with-49-mm-i-have-heard-that-smal
> 
> and am trying to decide if I should still give it a try or stick with what I already know.
> 
> I'd love to hear what others think about it.
> 
> 
> Rusty


this was the op, and rusty's 5th post on beesource.

rusty, don't worry, it's not always like this.


----------



## squarepeg

dean, for what it's worth, i looked carefully at the information at beeuntoothers.com, and as you said, i didn't find any statements claiming 'treated' honey was inferior.


----------



## beemandan

deknow said:


> I'm a pretty easy going guy


Ohhhhhh.....please stop! My side hurts. Hahahahahaha.......


----------



## Acebird

Oldtimer said:


> Provided you got tests to show that there actually ARE any differences.


You don't have to keep proving the earth is round once it has been proven. No food item is 100% tested. Many of the test are destructive. You test the processes and procedures until you get repeatability so that if you follow the processes and procedures you are reasonably assured that the outcome is the same.


----------



## Acebird

jim lyon said:


> treatment free beekeeping isnt the only means to achieving a pure product.


This could only be a viewpoint from someone that treats their bees. I suspect you could never convince any of Dean's customers otherwise. You could never convince me and I am not one of Dean's customers.


----------



## Rusty Hills Farm

squarepeg said:


> this was the op, and rusty's 5th post on beesource.
> 
> rusty, don't worry, it's not always like this.


Actually, I've learned quite a lot from this "dust up" and have been able to consolidate a few vague ideas into a firmer plan than the one I started with. Plus y'all have pointed up some deficiencies in my knowledge base that I am now working to correct.

Nobody can ever say it is dull around here!

:lookout:


Rusty


----------



## deknow

It has been very difficult to say anything about treatment free bees, as there has been no recognition in the research community that the gut microbiota of treated bees is affected by treatments, feeds, antibiotics, etc.

Martha Gilliam looked at some of these issues in the 70's at the Tucson Bee Lab (you will find copies of all of her work on our website under "Gilliam Archives"...there are a few magazine articles, but mostly peer reviewed journal articles spanning 20+ years. Ramona and I painstakingly scanned them one page at a time because they were not readily available.

The more recent look at the gut microbes has considered very little at the effects of our practices on these communities.

The recent work out of the Moran lab, however, is a bit different. I suggest you do some reading into the credentials, and read some of the other excelelent work they have published in the last two years on bees. Especially, you should consider the most recent one:

http://mbio.asm.org/content/3/6/e00377-12.full

I've made a few notes to highlight what is important here.

This work shows rather definitively that gut microbiotia is heritable (and very old), and that a line damaged by antibiotics does not return (at least in 25+ years) to its original population. How these populations are affected by other treatments, feeds, and ag chemicals remains to be seen…but Gilliam’s work in the 70’s showed a big change in gut microbal makeupwhen bees were fed sugar, confined, exposed to 2,4,D, fumagillin, and terramycin (yeasts, molds, and bacteria).

What This Study Showed

•	That gut microbes in bees from countries that never used antibiotics have a very low copy rate [infrequent in the population] of antibiotic resistance in their gut microbes
•	That Bees From Dee Lusby’s operation have levels almost as low as those from countries that never used antibiotics…lower than “feral” bees from Utah…much lower than bees from the Tuscon Lab nearby (that are 2 years without antibiotics)….much, much lower than bees established from commercial packages.


What is Significant

•	The honeybee microbial community is very diverse, and presumably selecting for only the antibiotic resistant individuals greatly reduces this diversity (a bottle neck selecting only for the antibiotic resistant individuals). In the buildup period following wiping out all the non-resistant variations, millions of years of co-evolution are thrown out the window.
•	Remember that in parallel to selecting _for_ antibiotic resistance, since you are placing the microbial culture into an environment where antibiotics are used to suppress pathogenic bacteria, any pressure on the community to suppress these pathogens is removed…you are now selecting _against_ traits of bacteria that can suppress EFB, AFB, etc are selected _against_ when antibiotics are used.
•	Thusly rebuilt communities lack the continuum of diversity inhabiting the continuum of niches that exist throughout the digestive tract and throughout the superorganism…they can’t possibly be as efficient as the undamaged version….and remember…these communities are heritable...the damaged culture is passed along with its damage intact to the next generation.
•	Note that the not using of antibiotics, and the incorporation of feral stock has allowed a much less damaged version of these communities to persist in Dee’s bees vs. the bees up the road.
•	Antibiotic resistance is metabolically expensive. Populations that are selected for antibiotic resistance have less resources for functions other than antibiotic resistance…this is to say that antibiotic resistance comes at a cost to the population.
•	If you don’t think small cost savings are important and affect evolution in relatively short time periods, note the isolated populations of cave fish. When eyes don’t do you any good, the rare genetic combinations/mutations that don’t develop eyes become dominant.


----------



## squarepeg

interesting dean.

as far as i know, the vast majority of beekeepers in my area have long since stopped using tm and ty preventatively, (i only know of one that still does).

there may be a few using fumagillin in the fall, but not many.

what are you reading these days with respect to the impact of feeding syrup, (with its higher ph), has on bee gut microflora?


----------



## BeeCurious

squarepeg said:


> what are you reading these days with respect to the impact of feeding syrup, (with its higher ph), has on bee gut microflora?


As one who adds ascorbic acid to adjust ph I'm interested to learn about the actual benefits...


----------



## squarepeg

same here bc, when i'm forced to feed it's 1000mg ascorbic/gallon, (credit michael bush, who recommends slightly more). i believe it is supposed to help maintain the normal gut flora, and not give unfair advantage to pathogens, but i would also like to learn more about it.


----------



## deknow

http://naldc.nal.usda.gov/download/17780/PDF

Suppression of growth rate of
colony-associated fungi by high fructose
corn syrup feeding supplement, formic acid,
and oxalic acid.


Jay A. Yoder", Brady S. Christensen', Travis J. Croxall',Justin L. Tank' and Diana Sammataro2.

Department of Biology, Wittenberg University, Springfield, OH 45501 USA.


Carl Hayden Honey Bee Research Center, United States Department of Agriculturc, Agricultural Research Service,Tucson, AZ 85719, USA.


Received 23 October 2007, accepted subject to revision 7 February 2008, accepted for publication 24 February 2008.


Corresponding author Email: jyoderwittenberg.edu
-j- Mention of a proprietary product does not constitute an endorsement of use of the product by the U.S D.A


Summary


Select colony-associated fungi (bee isolates), Absidia sp., Ascosphaera apis, Aspergillus flavus, Fusarium sp., Penicillium glabrum, Mucor sp., showeda 40% reduction in radial growth rate with formic acid, a 28% reduction with oxalic acid, and a 15% reduction with fructose and highfructose corn syrup (HFCS) when grown on supplemented media at 30°C to mimic colony conditions. No effect, suppressing orpromoting growth, was observed on other colony-associated fungi, Alternaria sp., Aspergillus niger, Cladosporium cladosporioides, Rhizopus sp.and Trichoderma sp., except 0.1 M formic and oxalic acid. Sensitivity to these compounds did not correlate with the fungus species being aslow- or fast-grower and sensitivity to one compound did not translate to sensitivity to another compound. Given the competitive natureand high-sporing (conidia) activity of these species, our results suggest that alteration or disruption of the colony\mycoflora can occur byuse of these compounds. This may indicate a possible link between compound application and incidence of bee fungal pathogens.


----------



## Oldtimer

I see the experiment was done in a petri dish. 

Wasn't that the problem with all those small cell studies? That they weren't done in an actual real world small cell beehive, as used by small cell bekeepers? LOL 

But joking aside, at the end of the experiment they show that "our results suggest that alteration or disruption of the colony\mycoflora can occur byuse of these compounds". However I'm not sure of what the point of that is, the very purpose people apply antibiotics is to alter the colony microflor, so they think they've discovered something new? Only spin on it is they then conclude "This *may* indicate a *possible link* between compound application and incidence of bee fungal pathogens". It may. Or it may not. 

Would be interesting to test some bees from my country. It's illegal here to use antibiotics in a beehive, for any purpose, and our bees have never in their history been treated with antibiotics. So they could be used as a "control", of what untreated gut microflora would be, if someone wanted to do it. Also, it's extremely rare here to see symptoms of _nosema apis_, although when experimental tests have been done it's found that many hives have it, at below a symptomatic level.


----------



## deknow

> Martha Gilliam looked at some of these issues in the 70's at the Tucson Bee Lab (you will find copies of all of her work on our website under "Gilliam Archives"...there are a few magazine articles, but mostly peer reviewed journal articles spanning 20+ years. Ramona and I painstakingly scanned them one page at a time because they were not readily available.


http://www.beeuntoothers.com/index.php/beekeeping/gilliam-archives

Also, Ramona has painstakingly put together a page of references, with as many articles freely available as possible. It hasn't been updated in a while, but there is a lot of stuff there.
http://www.beeuntoothers.com/index.php/beekeeping/articles/63-microbe-references

There is also the book that came out recently, "Honeybee Colony Health, Challenges and Sustainable Solutions" Edited by Diana Sammataro and Jay Yoder.
http://www.amazon.com/Honey-Bee-Colony-Health-Contemporary/dp/1439879400/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

The book is a bit spendy, so you might want to get your local library to secure it through interlibrary loan, or maybe your club should have it in their library. I've only skimmed parts of it, Ramona has read it more thoroughly.


----------



## squarepeg

i've completed post-graduate courses in microbiology, and this is still over my head.

is there a solid take home lesson here?


----------



## squarepeg

the 'discussion' in the usda study states that the 'potential' alteration in microflora "could lead to promoting the occurrence of either beneficial fungi or fungal pathogens."

they suggest it could cut both ways.

what's your take on it dean?


----------



## squarepeg

oldtimer, are the synthetic miticides banned there as well?


----------



## Oldtimer

Most of the synthetic miticides are allowed but not all. It was considered that if miticides were banned we would lose all our hives. As opposed to AFB which can be controlled by burning, and nosema is not a problem so no chemicals needed for those.


----------



## squarepeg

understood, thanks. do you have a similar debate there regarding synthetic vs. organic vs. treatment free?


----------



## deknow

Oldtimer said:


> Would be interesting to test some bees from my country. It's illegal here to use antibiotics in a beehive, for any purpose, and our bees have never in their history been treated with antibiotics. So they could be used as a "control", of what untreated gut microflora would be, if someone wanted to do it.


I don't know what to say. The Moran study I posted a few hours ago looked at the antibiotic resistance of the gut microflora...NZ was one source for the study.

deknow


----------



## deknow

...there is also our kitchen table demonstration..."No Bee Is an Island"
http://beeuntoothers.com/NoBeeIsAnIsland.pdf


----------



## squarepeg

http://www.apimondia.com/apiacta/articles/2005/donders_1.pdf

i mentioned in a post above, that it is possible to have naturally occurring formic acid at higher levels in honey harvested from hives that had not treated with formic, that in honey harvested from hives that have been treated with formic.

this is the source for that.

the researchers attempted a worse case scenario, but putting on honey supers in the spring immediately after treating with formic acid.

the spring honey they harvested did have, on average, higher levels of formic acid in the hives that were treated compared to those that were not, but those levels were below the taste threshold, (except for one outlyer).

note there were some in the untreated group with higher levels than some in the treated group.

formic acid occurs naturally in honey and varies greatly depending on the nectar source.

the take home for me was that formic is nothing to worry about, even in the worse case scenario, and especially if i apply it after the honey harvest.

according to the usda study on microflora, the use of formic may or may not alter the microflora, and if it does, it may or may not be beneficial.


----------



## Oldtimer

deknow said:


> I don't know what to say. The Moran study I posted a few hours ago looked at the antibiotic resistance of the gut microflora...NZ was one source for the study.
> 
> deknow


Oh thanks didn't know that! Haven't yet read every link posted in it's entirety! 




squarepeg said:


> do you have a similar debate there regarding synthetic vs. organic vs. treatment free?


 No, we are an agricutural country with a lower percentage of "hipsters", pretty much everybody treats. Last couple of years there's been more people reading sites like Beesource and talking about treatment free, some trying it, there is skeptisizm from the treaters, but not really the "animated debate".


----------



## deknow

...the above shows a great misunderstanding of what formic acid does in the hive...when used as directed, it isn't uncommon for the grass outside the entrance to die. Levels found months later are important if you are concerned only about what might be in the honey.

If you are concerned about the microbial culture, the amount you put in the hive is staggering. Olfeson and Vasquez have shown that at least part of the not-understood mechanism that turns nectar into honey (we know it is more than evaporation) is microbial fermentation.

Of course the make up of microbial fermenters is exactly what produces unique and valuable cheeses, wines, beers, breads, etc. Any change to a culture responsible for fermentation changes the product. Let me repeat, honey is a fermented product.

The USDA study looks at _some_ of the fungi associated with beebread...it doesn't look at the bacteria, yeasts, etc.

But I've now posted here a large amount of information talking about the effects that treatments, feeds, and agricultural chemicals (even confinement) have on the microbial cultures.

I've been falsely accused of being dishonest on this thread so many times I can't keep track. Read these studies yourself, and read them critically. Get your library to order in the book I referenced earlier and read it. If you are interested in learning about these topics, all of the resources to do so have been posted.

deknow


----------



## squarepeg

i justed look at your "ktichen table demonstration" dean.

the results are not surprising.

but to make the results meaningful in terms of comparing what maqs would do in a hive, you would have to translate the amount of formic acid into ppm, rather than how many drops in your solution.

maqs is supposed to give 100 ppm, or 0.0001 concentration of formic in the air in the hive.

what would you estimate the concentration to be in your gloves?


----------



## Oldtimer

deknow said:


> I've been falsely accused of being dishonest on this thread so many times I can't keep track. Read these studies yourself, and read them critically. Get your library to order in the book I referenced earlier and read it. If you are interested in learning about these topics, all of the resources to do so have been posted.
> 
> deknow


Who me? I certainly haven't falsely accused you of being dishonest, don't recall anyone else falsely accusing you either.

If it is me you are talking to I may or may not get the book. I have a pretty sound grasp of the topic.


----------



## Acebird

Oldtimer said:


> It's illegal here to use antibiotics in a beehive, for any purpose, and our bees have never in their history been treated with antibiotics.


Interesting. Why do you think that is?


----------



## Oldtimer

It was initially to ensure antibiotics would not be used to control AFB, as burning had worked well for us.


----------



## squarepeg

you could just as easily debate that since formic is there anyway, and since it naturally occurs much higher at times, that it plays a helpful role in pest and pathogen resistance, as well as help determine which yeasts get to do the fermenting.

wine and cheese producers routinely kill unwanted yeasts, allowing the preferred yeasts to do the work and achieve the desired outcome.


----------



## squarepeg

Oldtimer said:


> No, we are an agricutural country with a lower percentage of "hipsters", pretty much everybody treats. Last couple of years there's been more people reading sites like Beesource and talking about treatment free, some trying it, there is skeptisizm from the treaters, but not really the "animated debate".


that's interesting. so you have to come to beesource to have 'fun' eh?


----------



## beemandan

deknow said:


> I've been falsely accused of being dishonest on this thread so many times I can't keep track.


 Did it ever cross your mind that if a number of other folks say the same thing about you......it might just have merit?


----------



## squarepeg

maybe it's not really being dishonest if what you believe what you are saying is true?


----------



## deknow

Formic acid never occurs at the levels found in the hive when treating.....never. I would bet it never occurs within orders of magnitude of what is in the hive when treating with it.

deknow


----------



## Oldtimer

squarepeg said:


> that's interesting. so you have to come to beesource to have 'fun' eh?


LOL 

Actually I've learned a lot at Beesource. Tips on queenbreeding from Robert Russell, stuff of dubious quality, but interesting and inspiring, about treatment free, and the wealth of very knowledgeable people all gathered, general brainstorming with lots of beekeepers, and even total nuubs with bright ideas that are useful.

Even hanging out with Deknow will no doubt add to, well, something....


----------



## Acebird

squarepeg said:


> wine and cheese producers routinely kill unwanted yeasts, allowing the preferred yeasts to do the work and achieve the desired outcome.


That is true but it doesn't have effect on the grape vines or cows only the humans that consume the wine and cheese.
If you were allergic to the sulfates you would be looking only at organic wines and maybe making mead yourself so as not to be experiencing the bounding head aches.


----------



## squarepeg

deknow said:


> Formic acid never occurs at the levels found in the hive when treating.....never. I would bet it never occurs within orders of magnitude of what is in the hive when treating with it.
> 
> deknow


you would likely win that bet dean. the question is to what degree does temporarily raising it result in any long lasting detrimental effects to the bees or the honey.

i don't think the information you have provided here, and i am doubtful that the other references you suggested would convince me in the way that you are convinced of those detrimental effects.

but, i would defer to those with more background and training than myself, randy oliver for example.

it's been awhile, but i did look over a lot of his information and don't remember seeing any of the problems you are raising here.

i contribute to his web page, and he has been good to answer questions that i have emailed to him.

can you state specifically what harm to the bees and the honey you believe using formic acid causes, so that i might email randy for his response?


----------



## Acebird

Oldtimer said:


> Even hanging out with Deknow will no doubt add to, well, something....


You can't BS a BSer. I think you are picking his brain.


----------



## Oldtimer

Ha Ha!


----------



## deknow

Well kiddies...I can't tell you all how much fun this has been (really, I can't), and how great it feels to be appreciated for providing analysis and references for you all...it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside (not).

In any case have fun...I'm sure you can all make a great mess of things quoting abstracts and such....remember...ignorance is bliss....and armchair beekeeping no longer requires that you read the studies on the coffee table next to the armchair. 

deknow


----------



## squarepeg

does this mean you would like us to accept your analysis without questioning it?

can we not question whether or not the references you provide lead us to the same conclusions?

teachers are edified by teaching, by the challenges of their students.

if you can't defend your theses here dean, will you keep looking until you find somewhere you can?


----------



## deknow

1. You are not my students....I am not your teacher. If you want a teacher, either go to school, or learn to teach yourself. Is this really how you treat people who you want to send time helping you understand? Does it generally work out well?

2. Tell me what I should be defending....and I won't respond unless you are specific, and quote a statement I actually made. Seriously...you first said my book was missing all kinds of things....and so far haven't named a single one. Then you said I was making all kinds of "superiority" claims...which I never did...and you didn't find on our website, you won't find in our book, in the talks that we give, or in anything we say to customers. It's old. I've been helpful, I've been honest, and I've been forthright...and I've worked hard to make sure you all had references.

3. You can question anything you want (and you should). But if you haven't actually read a study (not just the abstract), how can you even discuss it?


----------



## squarepeg

1. my bad dean, when you referred to us as 'kiddies' for whom you are providing 'analysis and references', and 'spending time helping (us) to understand', well, it's sort of like a teacher/student thing isn't it? i thought it was working out well, you provoked a desire on my part to seek more knowledge on this particular subject. i'm sorry if my questioning caused you to feel personally attacked, it wasn't meant that way, i'm only questioning the conclusions.

2. specifically, i thought you are asking us to accept that the use of formic acid has long term deleterious effects on the microflora in the honeybee and the honey. if i misunderstood, i apologize, and if you can, please clarify.

regarding the book, i accepted your explaination as to why hsc isn't being used as described, and i conceded that i missed the part about the drone comb. again, my bad, please excuse me. i do have one rather important point that i would like to discuss that is not covered in your book, but it's not covered by the treatment free camp as a whole, and isn't only about your book. i hope that we can get to that.

3. not true. i read your kitchen table study in it's entirety, as well as the usda study. the part of the usda i referenced was from the 'discussion' section. believe it or not, i have read a lot of studies, and i know how to read them critically.

were you offended that i wanted to ask these questions to someone whose training, background, and experience surpasses yours and mine?

funny thing dean, my beekeeping practices are probably more like yours than a lot of folks on beesource. 

i will describe my position as:

i am not trying to prove anything, nor do i think that i already know the answers are, nor do i have an agenda for what i want the answers to be. 

i am seeking the best truth that i can find, knowing that even if i find it, it won't be perfect.

you are helping me to do that, but if we've lost that loving feeling, i understand.


----------



## Oldtimer

deknow said:


> you said I was making all kinds of "superiority" claims...which I never did...





deknow said:


> I think the practices of beekeepers that don't treat are superior to those that do.
> deknow





Oldtimer said:


> TF practises being superior? In what way.





deknow said:


> ...in any way!
> deknow


...


----------



## d.frizzell

The name of this forum should be changed because it is very misleading. The "unique forum rules" are a joke. It's too bad because there is so much to be learned by those who are "real" and successful treatment free beekeepers but so many of you just want to talk and not do. I'm sure now we will need to revisit the definition of success, with all the same naysayers posting. Anyway, yes I know I can leave, and most likely will. Very disappoined...am I the only one? I think not.
Donna
46N


----------



## d.frizzell

The name of this forum should be changed because it is very misleading. The "unique forum rules" are a joke. It's too bad because there is so much to be learned by those who are "real" and successful treatment free beekeepers but so many of you just want to talk and not do. I'm sure now we will need to revisit the definition of success, with all the same naysayers posting. Anyway, yes I know I can leave, and most likely will. Very disappoined...am I the only one? I think not.
Donna
46N
sorry this got posted twice....computer glitch

one more thing I want to add...I think it is important to tell customers about chemicals and dopes used on honeybees, a lot of people already know and ask..I make no apologies for telling my customers and if those who are treating want to tell their customers that I DON'T use chemicals...please do..I don't mind at all.


----------



## beemandan

d.frizzell said:


> The "unique forum rules" are a joke


I would have sworn that this thread was started in one of the general forums. Has it been moved or am I badly mistaken?


----------



## squarepeg

the unique forum rules should be deleted.

not that i think it should be open season on anyone prescribing to methods that may not be mainstream.

(unless of course, those methods pose a risk to nearby managed and feral colonies, and i am not alone on this. see post 241 in http://www.beesource.com/forums/sho...ee-beekeeping-the-risks/page7&highlight=risks)

if the purpose of this public forum is for the exhange of ideas and information, for the advancement of learning and the betterment of beekeeping,

and unless those who prescribe to these methods have something to hide, or are unable or unwilling to defend their practices,

and if the discussion is kept civil and focused on the subject at hand,

then why should inquiring voices be silenced?

how is it possible to discuss the reasons for not using treatments without discussing the treatments?

if there has been a history of animosity here, well that is unfortunate indeed.

if the rest of you feel as i do, and are interested in advancing our understanding, then let's move forward, and work together to get to the bottom of all this stuff.

(unless of course you are satisfied that you already have).

by the way, my name is kevin.


----------



## d.frizzell

Kevin,
With all due respect, that would definitely be a different set of rules, and a new name for the forum. The problem with these discussions is that they go around in circles, at least that is what I am seeing here. There is tons of information, and I repeat tons! about treatments on other forums. I guess I can only speak for myself but I have made a committment to myself and my bees to not use dopes and sugar syrups. I have already educated myself on the treatments and I know I am not interested. Doesn't mean I will stop keeping informed about them. I want to hear how beekeepers are doing without treatment, I want to hear about their failures and successes so that I can maybe avoid their mistakes. I fully understand this is a long term goal and it will not be easy and I know it is not a one size fits all, but one thing I am sure off is that I don't want to use dopes, and I don't want to hear all the agruments for using them, especially when it is the same few posters all the time, going back and forth...it just gets old real fast. I don't need to discuss the definition of success, I know what my goals are. I guess I just don't belong here. I will stick around for a while to see if anything changes. I just hope new beekeepers don't lose sight of their treatment free goals from reading here. 
Donna
46N


----------



## jim lyon

I have only chosen to respond to one facet of this discussion and that is the notion that only treatment free bees can produce pure chemical free honey. I know that it can be said elsewhere but it really needs to be pointed out on the treatment free forum since I would assume it is a big reason many choose to be treatment free. I appreciate Barry for allowing that exchange I think it is important and I made every effort to be respectful about my sentiments. 
I make no pretense on being knowledgable about small cell, I read it with interest and try to pick up some ideas that I might well incorporate into my operation. So far I haven't seen anything absolute or persuasive to make me want to try to figure out how to incorporate it into a larger operation. Would I like to see the results of a trial similar to what Dean suggests? Absolutely but the results will only be meaningful if he can come up with a diverse group of people to also be involved and frankly it needs to include someone like a Michael Palmer and at least one person with a lot of letters after his or her name. This isn't to say that Dean dosent have integrity, I have no doubt that he just wants honest results but lets be realistic, the results would most likely be presented thusly by many: "Leading treatment free advocate proves small cell works". Yup, not exactly a stop the presses byline. Sign some folks up Dean and I will make a nice contribution.


----------



## squarepeg

understood donna, and thanks for taking the time to reply.

i hope you will continue to contribute to the discussion, and share what your real experiences are.

do you really think that new beekeepers might lose sight of their treatment free goals from reading here?

i haven't lost sight of that goal for myself, and i believe that not having to use treatments would be a goal for all beekeepers.

i think the discussion deteriorates when we arbitrarily divide ourselves into 'us' and 'them', as the unique forum rules do.

the reality is that there is a range of approaches, with those on either extreme, and the rest of us finding ourselves somewhere in between.


----------



## deknow

squarepeg said:


> ...and i am doubtful that the other references you suggested would convince me in the way that you are convinced of those detrimental effects.


...and you will figure this out by telling me what will not be found in the references....without reading them? Without even looking at them? The following is published in 2012...note that the references on harmful effects of formic acid on brood goes back to 1991.



> Organic Acid Pesticides:
> 
> Two organic acids, formic acid and oxalic acid, are attractive options as varroacides because both are naturally present in honey (Bogdanov, 2006;Rademacher and Harz, 2006). Formic acid is registered with Section 3 approval in the United States under teh trade name "MiteAway II" (NOD, 2009). MiteAway II is a fumigant varroacide that is packaged in a slow release pad. Formic acid likely kills Varroa by inhibiting electron transport in the mitochondria through binding of cytochrome c oxidase, thereby inhibiting energy metabolism (Keyhani and Keyhani, 1980) and may produce a neuroexitory effect on arthropod neuorons (Song and Scharf, 2008). Fromic acid can harm honey bees by reducing worker longevity (Underwood and Currie, 2003) and harming brood survival (Fries, 1991)





> ...Repeated treatment of colonies with oxalic acid can result in higher queen mortality and a reduction in the amount of sealed brood (Higes et al., 1999). The midguts of honey bees fed oxalic acid in sugar water exhibited an elevated level of cell death (Gregorc and Smodisskerl, 2007....



Honey Bee Colony Health: Challenges and Sustainable Solutions

Chapter 14 "Pesticides and Honey Bee Toxicity in the United States

Reed Johnson, Marion D. Ellis, Christopher A. Mullin, and Maryann Frazier (These are all top notch folks)

Page 151, 152


----------



## squarepeg

thanks dean, looks like a great resource.

i'll be asking santa for one. 

again, there are those words 'may' and 'can', and what looks like extrapolation of lab results to the field.

also, some would suggest that temporarily reducing worker longevity and harming brood survival might be the lesser of the evils as compared to collapse by varroasis.

i look forward to reading this book, i retract my 'doubtful', and pledge to proceed without prejudice.


----------



## deknow

...from the same book, page 214:

"...Not only do fungicides have suppressive effects on fungi, but miticides and high fructose corn syrup feding similarly have negative effects on bee colony fungal growth, particularly aspergillus spp. and penicillium spp. (Yoder et al. 2008, 2011) Other supplements such as antibottics, could also have a negative effect (Yoder et al., 2011, chapter 16, this edition). Consistent with the defense function that is conveyed by these fungi, bee colonies that have a history of repeated and excesive miticide (formic acid, oxalic acid) and high fructose corn syrup use typically show a high incidence of chalkbrood.....Our evidence only shows a casual link betwen use of fungicde, miticides and high fructose corn syrup, and a higher frequency of chalkbrood in such colonies exposed to these compounds."


Chapter 17 "Fungicides Reduce Symbiotic Fungi in Be Bread and the Beneficial Fungi in Colonies"

Jay A. Yoder, Drrick J. Heydinger, Brian Z. Hedges, Diana Sammataro, Jennifer Finely, Gloria Degrandi-Hoffman, Travis J. Croxall, and Brady S. Christense


----------



## deknow

squarepeg said:


> i retract my 'doubtful', and pledge to proceed without prejudice.


What the heck do I care? You will either decide that you want to learn more, and will spend some effort doing so (yes, the book is spendy....but I've also given you the references for well over 100 published studies that are worth reading and they are free), or you will insist on only accepting what you are spoon fed or what you assume.


deknow


----------



## Acebird

jim lyon said:


> I have only chosen to respond to one facet of this discussion and that is the notion that only treatment free bees can produce pure chemical free honey.


I don't think there is such a thing as pure chemical free honey but it stands to reason if the environment was not doused with man made chemicals there would be a lot less not only in honey but every food item we eat.
How does one treat their hives with chemicals and end up with pure chemical free honey? Doesn't make sense. How does one treat their hives with chemicals and end up with less chemicals in the honey? It is assumed that these hives would have the same environment with the exception of the chemicals added to the hive.


----------



## squarepeg

i think by now that anyone who has read my posts knows that i don't accept 'spoon fed' anything, and i have just reinforced my view that i 'assume' nothing.

i'll say again, i am not trying to prove anything, nor do i think that i already know the answers are, nor do i have an agenda for what i want the answers to be. 

i guess we are both falling victim to reading more into each other's words than what was meant.

i only suggest that there can be honest disagreement as to what any scientific paper proves or disproves, and honest disagreement as to what any results may mean when applied to practice.

"bee colonies that have a history of repeated and excesive miticide (formic acid, oxalic acid) and high fructose corn syrup use typically show a high incidence of chalkbrood....."

were the parantheses around 'formic acid, oxalic acid' the author's, or your own?


----------



## deknow

squarepeg said:


> i only suggest that there can be honest disagreement as to what any scientific paper proves or disproves, and honest disagreement as to what any results may mean when applied to practice.


Sure they can...but there are a couple of preconditions for this to work:

1. All parties discussing the paper have to actually have read it....not just the abstract.

2. Discussion must be honest...that means that quotes from papers, references, other sources, and other participants in the discussion must be qualified as to whether they are actaully quotes, or merely a paraphrase. Quotes have to be taken in context and in good faith. 

For Instance, in post 225, if you look at where/when those quotes came from r _carefully_, you will see that:

A. It was stated that I was making claims that TF honey was "superior"

B. When I stated that I had never said any such thing and asked for a source of that statement, there was none forthcoming...it was at this point a specific challenge was presented to me to state yes or no, if I thought TF honey was "superior'.

C. My response was to question, "Superior in what way"? It could mean nutrition, color, texture, attractiveness to squirrels, purity, long term sustainability of the practice, in preserving the microbial culture, etc. 

A laundry detergent can be "superior" in t's stain fighting ability, its effects on whites, its "green" packaging, its smell, etc.....to ask in what way is not a snarky cop out....superiority means nothing without context.

D. The answer I was provided was, "In any way"....so be it, I posted an answer that I feel was appropriate. When I was asked in what way I meant something I said, I responded with the same idiotic answer I had been given from someone that was trying to put me "on the spot" for something I had never said or claimed in the first place..."In any way".

E. After all of this, I reference the fact that I had been accused of claiming superiority when I hadn't...which was true (See A and B above), I hadn't made any such claims, so it was _then_ demanded of me that I take some kind of stand.

The result? dan posts a bunch of quotes in an effort to make it look like I've been lying. It is a dishonest fabrication that he presents...this is not an environment in which one can have a productive discussion about anything....let alone an honest debate about what goes on in a study.

We have not had an honest discussion here for several reasons. First and foremost, you have to preset things honestly. If you are going to quote from a study on formic acid to support your view that formic is harmless, you've got to address the conclusions of the study, which includes:



> When formic acid treatment is used in spring, it should be taken into account that formic acid residue could effect the taste of the honey.


...kind of contradicts your "take home message"...yet you take no pains to explain why the study was valid enough to arrive at your take away, yet flawed enough to question the conclusions.


This is all long winded and cumbersome....but clearly there are more reading than posting, and I hope the references, the analysis, and the demonstration of how difficult it is to have an honest conversation about these topics in most circles....how quickly research will be hailed (Peter Borst was touting the Seeley paper for a year and a half before it was published...he's made no specific objections to my critique, but denies it has any relevance)...and how thoroughly it can be misrepresented....and how thoroughly it can be ignored....by people that have plenty of time to write, but little apparent time to read critically.

I've given a few talks called "the people's homework", that is focused on the how and why _people_ (not just scientists) have to read and study the research themselves if they want to be empowered by science. I believe in this strongly.



> "bee colonies that have a history of repeated and excesive miticide (formic acid, oxalic acid) and high fructose corn syrup use typically show a high incidence of chalkbrood....."
> were the parantheses around 'formic acid, oxalic acid' the author's, or your own?


I typed directly from the volume. If they were my own comments, I would put them in [square brackets]


----------



## squarepeg

dean, i was able to view page 214 on amazon. "(formic acid, oxalic acid)" do not appear in the text.

can you check your copy again?


----------



## squarepeg

"...kind of contradicts your "take home message"...yet you take no pains to explain why the study was valid enough to arrive at your take away, yet flawed enough to question the conclusions."

i never said this study was flawed.

and, seeing how only the taste of the honey on only _one _ of the treated hives exceeded taste threshold in no way contradicts but rather supports my take home message.

on page 138 of your book, even you state not much concern for formic ending up in the honey.


----------



## squarepeg

deknow said:


> Sure they can...but there are a couple of preconditions for this to work:
> 
> 2. Discussion must be honest...that means that quotes from papers, references, other sources, and other participants in the discussion must be qualified as to whether they are actaully quotes, or merely a paraphrase. Quotes have to be taken in context and in good faith.
> 
> 
> I typed directly from the volume. If they were my own comments, I would put them in [square brackets]


from your last.


----------



## squarepeg

for the record, and for what it is worth, this was not a set up. i had already posted the question, and was in the process of ordering the book, when i discovered i could view the pages.


----------



## squarepeg

wow. i feel pretty stupid now.

i went back to read more, and found the statement quoted by dean. there was another, almost identical statement that i saw at first that didn't include the formic and oxalic.

i feel like a total jerk dean. 

i see no other way to make this right other than to bow out of this (less than gracefully).

i'm done.


----------



## Oldtimer

Kinda wondering what the thread is actually about. Formic acids effects on mould? Small cell? Deans marketing tactics? Antibiotics? Tainted honey? What?

Think it's one of those threads where numerous opinions are expressed but concensus isn't reached as at least one person assumes himself is the final authority, the teacher. And the rest, the ungrateful students, kiddies.

Re me being referred to as an "armchair beekeeper" I got to ask, how many hives do you have, Dean? Anytime you want to consider your "success" rates aginst mine, in terms of per hive productivity, survivability, or whatever, just let me know. Let's see who is REALLY the armchair beekeeper. There are those who live off their bees, and those who can't, teach.


----------



## deknow

Oldtimer said:


> ...as at least one person assumes himself is the final authority, the teacher. And the rest, the ungrateful students, kiddies.


I can't really say anything to this except that the links to references I've given in the last few pages are probably the most complete listing of references relative to the microbiota of the honeybee to be found anywhere. I don't want to be your teacher...none of you seem willing to do homework. It was claimed that I was somehow dishonest because treated bees and honey are exactly the same....I've presented some of the historical and current research....would you rather I sit in the back of the class and make farting noises with my armpit while speculations and false statements are made in ignorance of the facts? I'm not making this stuff up...this is mainstream.



> Re me being referred to as an "armchair beekeeper" I got to ask, how many hives do you have, Dean? Anytime you want to consider your "success" rates aginst mine, in terms of per hive productivity, survivability, or whatever, just let me know. Let's see who is REALLY the armchair beekeeper. There are those who live off their bees, and those who can't, teach.


Oh please, I wasn't calling you an armchair beekeeper for your beekeeping....I was referring specifically to the practice of citing, quoting, and qualifying studies one has not read.


----------



## Oldtimer

Oh. I wasn't called an armchair beekeeper, for my beekeeping. interesting concept. Frankly, it looks to me like most of YOUR beekeeping is done, from an armchair.

Plus you ignored the thrust of my post. You didn't answer the question, or pick up the challenge.


----------



## deknow

Oldtimer said:


> Oh. I wasn't called an armchair beekeeper, for my beekeeping. interesting concept.


Yes...I'm making things up again 



> In any case have fun...I'm sure you can all make a great mess of things quoting abstracts and such....remember...ignorance is bliss....and armchair beekeeping no longer requires that you read the studies on the coffee table next to the armchair.


....it's almost like I was talking specifically about not reading the studies one is citing...isn't it?



> Frankly, it looks to me like most of YOUR beekeeping is done, from an armchair.


Well, we don't run as many colonies as we would like...our time is limited...but our work educates a lot of new beekeepers, helps beekeepers of all levels start to raise their own queens and breed their own bees, and helps to allow our suppliers to run their commercial operations without having to dicker with the packers to try and get a fair price. We all have our roles, and I could not be doing everything I am doing if I also was running very many more hives....although we are looking to restructure things a bit in the future so that we have more time for more bees.



> Plus you ignored the thrust of my post. You didn't answer the question, or pick up the challenge.


The whole point of treatment free beekeeping (at least from my perspective) is to keep bees more in line with nature and with natural systems. There are a variety of practical and philosophical reasons to do this, and a variety of practical and philosophical reasons not to. How you want to handle those things is up to you. 

Keeping chickens in a box is productive and efficient...but it's not very fun, and it doesn't offer much in the way of reward _except_ for the productivity and efficiency (not much appreciation for the bird or for nature). It's also a useless environment for selection of breeding stock, except for stock well suited to living in a box. ...and even on a planet where this is true, there is a reasonable premium market for eggs produced by chickens that are treated more naturally.



deknow


deknow


----------



## Oldtimer

deknow said:


> Yes...I'm making things up again
> 
> deknow


Your words.

The rest of your answer is fudge. Saying you "don't run as many colonies as we would like", doesn't either answer the question, or tell anyone what your real world experience is. What's the secret?

The blurb about Tf beekeeping, running chickens in a box etc. is just more fudge, to avoid meeting a challenge on real world, not armchair theory, results. Remember the challenge came from you Dean. Being called an armchair beekeeper, by someone like yourself, is begging for me to ask you to verify, isn't it?

I don't have chickens in a box. My bees though, are in boxes, same as yours. I'm keen to see how you armchair research translates to real world results.


----------



## Acebird

deknow said:


> I've given a few talks called "the people's homework", that is focused on the how and why _people_ (not just scientists) have to read and study the research themselves if they want to be empowered by science. I believe in this strongly.


Dean, you have to think of the average beekeeper who doesn't have a clue on what is being discussed in a research paper. We are just sitting here listening to those that might know what is in the paper and trying to make sense of it.


----------



## d.frizzell

squarepeg said:


> understood donna, and thanks for taking the time to reply.
> 
> i hope you will continue to contribute to the discussion, and share what your real experiences are.]
> 
> maybe
> 
> [do you really think that new beekeepers might lose sight of their treatment free goals from reading here?]
> 
> hope I am wrong about that
> 
> [i haven't lost sight of that goal for myself, and i believe that not having to use treatments would be a goal for all beekeepers.
> 
> i think the discussion deteriorates when we arbitrarily divide ourselves into 'us' and 'them', as the unique forum rules do.
> 
> the reality is that there is a range of approaches, with those on either extreme, and the rest of us finding ourselves somewhere in between.]
> 
> I would find it very difficult to be somewhere in between..that may be ok for some..the treatment treadmill is not for me, I can't even imagine standing in front of one of my hives and dumping dopes in and feeling like I am doing a good thing, the only thing I would be doing is funding another study for more doping..But that is me.


----------



## squarepeg

i respect you for that donna.

if i may ask, what do you do with a colony that is dying?


----------



## d.frizzell

squarepeg said:


> i respect you for that donna.
> 
> if i may ask, what do you do with a colony that is dying?


absolutely nothing


----------



## squarepeg

so much of the treatment free approach makes really good sense to me, except for that part.

but i believe the subject is worthy of a thread of its own. i think i'll start one.

thanks again for your replies.


----------



## Oldtimer

Acebird said:


> Dean, you have to think of the average beekeeper who doesn't have a clue on what is being discussed in a research paper. We are just sitting here listening to those that might know what is in the paper and trying to make sense of it.


Well it's that Ace, but also, when someone decides they are my teacher, and I an ungrateful student, I could be happy with that, if I knew their credentials.

So my question, as yet unanswered, was to start establishing credentials.

If I am to be taught by someone, I am interested in what they can do with bees. Not their googling skills.


----------



## Barry

Oldtimer said:


> So my question, as yet unanswered, was to start establishing credentials


Let's be careful how far down the road we go with this.


----------



## Oldtimer

Doesn't look like it's going any further, Deknow will not say how many hives he has, or discuss his results.

I'll base my judgement on what I know of him which is his googling skills and ability to find 100 references. But as I could do that also, if I had enough time, being referred to as kiddie and one of his students is a little patronising.

As an aside, I've been asked many times how many hives I have and other assorted questions about my results such as how many deadouts, etc. Never had a problem with any of that I think it's important.


----------



## Barry

There's been a lot of jabbing and poking back and forth. Let's try to get it heading the other direction.


----------



## Acebird

Oldtimer said:


> So my question, as yet unanswered, was to start establishing credentials.


Well Oldtimer if I was hung up on credentials I wouldn't have learned much in my line of work. People can have fantastic ideas without credentials. What is more important to me is a persons thought process not what title they hold.


----------



## deknow

Oldtimer said:


> Doesn't look like it's going any further, Deknow will not say how many hives he has, or discuss his results.


Seriously? I'm doing something besides answering to these asinine accusations for 3.5 hours, and again, it's claimed (and broadcast) that I'm refusing to talk.

I say asinine because about a week ago I posted about what I was busy doing:



> ...+ about 40 colonies of bees.


http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?276239-quot-the-complete-idiot-s&p=873691#post873691

...but don't tell anyone...I'm trying to keep it a secret.

I've been open about the size of our operation, our successes and losses consistantly in our postings, in our talks, with our customers...with everyone we have ever talked to.

I've been open (here, on other forums, in talks) about when we buy packages, when 2 years ago we were down to 5 survivor coloines to breed back from (3 of them were in a yard that we thought was dead). I can't say everything possible in every post and in every thread. About the bees we bought from Don Fatbeeman, about the influence of package genetics....about a yard so bad with chalkbrood that Chris Baldwin thought we should shake them out (in August). I have hives that die from mites (I'm not one that claims I don't lose bees to mites...I saw one obvious example this fall....a spring cutout that never quite took off despite requeening).

I'm hardly secretive, and I do my best to give the best answers to those that are seeking knowledge. If you are trying to attack me relentlessly, your answers will probably be at the end of the line.



> I'll base my judgement on what I know of him which is his googling skills and ability to find 100 references. But as I could do that also, if I had enough time, being referred to as kiddie and one of his students is a little patronising.


Yes, I can google, and I can find information fast...but that isn't relevent....it's reading and understanding the studies that is important..collecting them is for collectors. Those hundred references were collected over a number of years (most of them found by Ramona), and are not so easy to find...the Gilliam papers (which are really important) were two full days work for two people to scan them all so they could be made available. I've offered good analysis of both the Seeley study (which was claimed to be a "good study") and the Moran study....as well as lots of other bits from some of the other studies. ....but posters here want to tell me what is in them, how they can be improved, how qualified the authors are....all without even reading them. I hope I've been helpful to others that are trying to understand.



> As an aside, I've been asked many times how many hives I have and other assorted questions about my results such as how many deadouts, etc. Never had a problem with any of that I think it's important.


I've never had a problem with that either, and I've always been open and honest about such facts....even if you want to claim that I'm somehow being secretive.


----------



## Oldtimer

OK, sweet. 2 years ago you got as low as 5 hives, currently you have about 40. Presumably the survivors from the packages you mentioned buying. Wasn't that hard to say was it? 

Much as you think I should, I don't read every word you write, or everything in the hundreds of links you find in google. I was not aware of all this, and your previous posts seemed evasive.

There's more I'd like to know about how successful of a beekeeper you are, but i've wandered far enough from the thread topic, Barry's stepped in, so I won't.

I'll just have to read about it when I get your book.


----------



## d.frizzell

deknow said:


> I hope I've been helpful to others that are trying to understand..


You have! Thank You! 
Donna
46N


----------



## Daniel Y

deknow said:


> The whole point of treatment free beekeeping (at least from my perspective) is to keep bees more in line with nature and with natural systems. There are a variety of practical and philosophical reasons to do this, and a variety of practical and philosophical reasons not to. How you want to handle those things is up to you.
> 
> Keeping chickens in a box is productive and efficient...but it's not very fun, and it doesn't offer much in the way of reward _except_ for the productivity and efficiency *(not much appreciation for the bird or for nature)*. It's also a useless environment for selection of breeding stock, except for stock well suited to living in a box. ...and even on a planet where this is true, there is a reasonable premium market for eggs produced by chickens that are treated more naturally.
> 
> 
> 
> deknow
> 
> 
> deknow


In response to the first paragraph. The most convincing argument for treatment free For me has been the possible disruption of the ecology of the hive. I have seen the effect of this personally in aquariums that are cleaned to well. there is a complex process going on in that water. and it is necessary for the fish to even live. I can see the same may very well be true in a beehive. I have not seen any details as to the specifics of this system which then tends to make it an unfounded claim. I would actually like to know the specifics of this biological system if it exists.

As for the second paragraph. Chickens are not natural. they are bred by man from other birds. In fact there is some disagreement as to just what bird they come from. Not to long ago I could have given you a couple of the exact names of the ones in the running but they escape me at this moment. There are some attempts to track the chicken back to it's origins. they think they can do it again but better this time. Roughly they come from a couple of different Jungle Fowl.


----------



## Michael Palmer

Since this discussion has popped up on Bee-L, one more time, I thought I'd ask Dee how she would set up a small cell study. Her reply suggests her success is through breeding. She lost her operation twice from varroa, and re-built by walk away splits during the africanization of Arizona. A few years ago, she lost it again, Nosema this time. As an intelligent beekeeper would...she got through it through intelligent selection....

...."and also, no varrtoa problems, no trachael mite problems, no nosema problems that could not be bred thru that tried", .....

Sounds like a breeding program to me...selecting from survivors. Don't see where the small cell theory enters the picture...except in a faith based way. If it takes 10 years for the program to work, how can the success be linked to anything other than breeding?

*******************
Mike Palmer wrote:

Dee, from your reply, you seem to have put something together....couldn't you just share your idea of a small cell study, done correctly?

Reply;
Been done one non-stop now since 1997 and when looked at for 171 pesticides/chemicals not 1ppb found, also when looked at for artificial feeds none found, and now moran lab at Yale shows best digestive gut bacteria for good health...........and also, no varrtoa problems, no trachael mite problems, no nosema problems that could not be bred thru that tried, .........no SHB problems...............and still going.............for it's long term for doing and very sustainable..............and shown to others yearly..............but not hard for doing.

You simply put bees onto small cell foundation for drawing out no bigger then 4.9mm and then no treatments used, no aritifricial feeds used, only local ferals used,. also hives allowed to build up to adult size which is 4-5 deeps high, then all hives same in yards, and more then one yard used and in tandum for say 300hives minimum to control area for working in. Also, only local outmating done.................and then no quickie doing........it has be to long term like 10 plus years or more...................and more is better to see changes as weather patterns change and how the bees change with them.

and the one started in 1997 now going on 16 straight years........................

Dee A. Lusby
p.s. this was one Erickson stuck to me saying prove it works!!!! bit.............by the way!!!


----------



## BeeCurious

> also hives allowed to build up to adult size which is 4-5 deeps high




4 to 5 deeps high!

Does Dee wear a pressurized bee suit to work at that altitude?


----------



## Cleo C. Hogan Jr

Daniel Y said:


> There are some attempts to track the chicken back to it's origins.
> 
> If you want to trace the chicken back to it's orgin, start with the egg.
> 
> Won't it be nice when Spring gets here, and people get back to looking after their bees, rather than looking for an argument.
> 
> cchoganjr


----------



## Barry

Michael Palmer said:


> A few years ago, she lost it again, Nosema this time.


Lost it as in 100's of hives? what year was this?


----------



## jim lyon

I gleaned something else out of the Bee-L discussion regarding small cell. "if it really were so simple why wouldn't everyone be doing it"? 
Seems to me that lots of different people have tried lots of different things. "New idea du jour" is how I refer to it. Why hasn't this one caught fire on a huge scale? I know how it works in the commercial business. Everyone anxiously looking over their shoulder at the other operations fearing the other guy has cracked the code for perfect beekeeping methods and they might miss out. Pssssst you know what they say he is doing dontcha? Small cell????? Call Mann Lake! Gimmie 100,000 sheets.....stat!


----------



## deknow

Michael Palmer said:


> She [Dee] lost her operation twice from varroa, and re-built by walk away splits during the Africanization of Arizona.


I can't offer any insights here beyond her own words, but Dee has written quite a bit about it...try googling for more details. I will say that according to Dr. Eric Erikson (the then director of the Tucson Bee Lab), feral bees in arizona were small cell _before_ AHB (and he had a lot of incentive to find AHB in Arizona as early as possible...it meant more funding for the lab).



> A few years ago, she lost it again, Nosema this time. As an intelligent beekeeper would...she got through it through intelligent selection....


This I can help clarify a bit....what you state here is not accurate, and is missing some important details.

1. She did not "lose" her operation...there was one general area with 300 hives...in which she lost 200 one fall. I believe her observations while it was happening was bees dragging pollen out of the hives...again, she has written about this, so you should just be able to google it....in addition to these hives, she had another 400 that were unaffected.

2. Dr. Gerry Loper took samples that were sent to Jerry Bromenshenk. There was some "interesting drama" regarding the results...some of this happened publicly on Bee-l. When the results were finally sent to Dee (as an excel spreadsheet attachment), Dee was unable to read the file, so she sent it to me. The results from Jerry's analysis was that there was nosema c. in most of the samples. I have the spreadsheet (and Michael, I'd be happy to show it to you...but I won't send it around the internet). What is interesting is that despite the fact that in order to do this analysis something like 40,000 data points have to be collected and examined, that the DATE LISTED ON THE TEST RESULTS WERE FROM THE WRONG YEAR. Certainly errors like that can happen (and I think Jerry placed the blame on an assistant and the fact that they were sent out when he was not present). We have no way to know where or how the error happened...or if they were even the correct samples to start with. When Dr. Bromenshenk came up with the nosema/irridovirus theory, he was asked if he could test Dee's samples for the virus...the answer was that they were stored i freezer that didn't have an alarm on it, the freezer failed, and the samples lost.

3. In the spring following the die off, Ramona and I spent a couple of weeks with Dee. One of our tasks was to make up the deadouts from the survivors...we split 100 survivors into 300 hives...in April...all walk away splits. I asked over on Bee-L how long it would take for those splits to crash from the nosema ceranae...I think Juanse answered with 18 months at the outside....no crash of any kind occurred there since (I've seen most of these bees at least once every year since). I have video footage of what these yards looked like when we got there, splitting, and footage of the same yards in many of the years since...they are recovered, they are doing fine, they are producing honey.

Hardly a "lost operation". If it was nosema c., then has Dee demonstrated that it can be bred through? We know that specifically treatment for nosema (fumidil) actually causes nosema c. spore production as the concentration of fumidil decreases over time....a bona fid treatment treadmill. ...but who is even suggesting that nosema c. can simply be bred through by not treating? Any of the researchers? This is a fairly large sample size for any kind of bee research....300 hives that _must_ be resistant to nosema c?

I did hear Jamie Ellis a few weeks ago, he said that in 3 separate trials that nosema isn't working in Florida...I suppose that is because they use it sparingly and that nosema won't develop resistance...RIGHT?



> ...."and also, no varrtoa problems, no trachael mite problems, no nosema problems that could not be bred thru that tried",
> 
> Sounds like a breeding program to me...selecting from survivors. Don't see where the small cell theory enters the picture...except in a faith based way. If it takes 10 years for the program to work, how can the success be linked to anything other than breeding?


This is a really important point. I don't think (and never have) that small cell is a binary switch...turn it on and the mites disappear.

What we see in all kinds of populations is that small changes in efficiency lead to big evolutionary changes. I can't think of a more apt example than the blind cave fishes. Many populations of fish (not all closely related) have found themselves in dark environments for long periods of time (caves, deep swamps, etc). These populations have displayed "convergent evolution"...they all came up with the same evolutionary solution to the same environmental problem...all independently.

They lost their eyes (to a greater or lessor extent). _Not_ having eyes doesn't give you a direct advantage in the dark...but having eyes comes at a cost. They have to be developed during the embryonic development, their brains have to have a place to process visual information, there is some energy cost required to maintain an eye....but if it is dark all the time, all of this "investment" goes to waste.....there is no ROI.

What does not having an eye save a fish over it's lifetime? What portion of the brain, of the energy, of the mass is wasted by having eyes? Probably not very much...but this is the point....nature is like business. When you are talking about long periods of time and stressful selection pressures, small savings equate to a big evolutionary advantage...at least enough to consistently (and in several populations independently), that those without eyes (rare as they may be in the original population) are the ones that prosper a little bit more over time...and become dominant in the population.

So, back to small cell. It may be that it only give 0.25% advantage (hard to measure), but even that little bit may be enough. Our own experience is that without treating, we didn't have bees alive in the spring...until we went to small cell. It's easy to "see" the difference big things make, but it's the small things, the little savings, the little advantages that make all the difference.

This is the same concept as what I've been talking about in the Moran paper....the bacterial communities that have antibiotic resistance pay for that trait energetically. Sure, they need that trait if they are exposed to antibiotics every year...but if they aren't, antibiotic resistance is a burden, one that has a definite cost to the population. It's like adding an extra car payment to your budget...if you need the car to make money it might pay for itself...but if you buy the car that doesn't have a role in your making money, all of a sudden you are eating baloney instead of steak to cover the payments.

deknow


----------



## deknow

Oldtimer said:


> ... currently you have about 40. Presumably the survivors from the packages you mentioned buying.


Most of the package bees were requeened with our own stock (we graft, but deal with virgins and don't use "mating nucs"), but generally not the best looking of the packages. It's a bit of a toss up...the brood pattern looks good, but you have no data on any of the overwintering characteristics.....I generally make a point of keeping the best one or two around for drones and to see if they overwinter. There is always going to be some influence from other stock (well, except on one location that is isolated), so it might as well be the best of the package stock making drones.

deknow


----------



## deknow

We have a talk that Ramona gave in 2010 online, that might be worth a watch if you want to know a bit more about the microbes. Please note that this was before any of the new data had started to come in....I think everything we had access to at the time had been studied using culturing techniques, which have the problem of being biased towards organisms that culture well...even if they are only incidental...but for 2010, this was state of the science.


----------



## jim lyon

deknow said:


> So, back to small cell. It may be that it only give 0.25% advantage (hard to measure), but even that little bit may be enough. Our own experience is that without treating, we didn't have bees alive in the spring...until we went to small cell. It's easy to "see" the difference big things make, but it's the small things, the little savings, the little advantages that make all the difference.


Given the difficulties and costs associated with making a changeover to small cell this seems to me a pretty gloomy assessment. Would a .25% (and I am aware its just a number you threw out there as an example) advantage really constitute proof that small cell works? Considering all the other variables that we know affect hive health is that the one that gives us the best "bang for the buck"? I have been under the impression that the criteria for deciding if small cell works is if it is actually a viable way to keep varroa counts so low that no treatments would ever be necessary. I know I have a whole different perspective than you on this but if you really want to make a difference in this industry give us an example, suggest a blueprint if you will for how this works on a large scale because that is how you really make a difference. Should I make a large investment doing this, would you? How would a 1/4 of 1% improvement make the bee industry as a whole a better one?


----------



## Riskybizz

I assume that Dee doesn't participate in any forums here anymore and that’s too bad as I would be interested in having her expound upon her sc activities as opposed to reading about it via a self appointed spokesman. I just get the feeling that something is missing in the translation. I have always thought that there are many well educated beekeepers who have gained the majority of their beekeeping experience through actual filed work and years of practical experience. That is the part of beekeeping that interests me the most. Then there are the researches who spend most of their time on the internet and websites in search of something to substantiate their particular beliefs (nothing wrong with that either). But I have always liked getting my hands dirty under the top so to speak, like a good mechanic. Spend more time observing and watching the bees and listening to those who have many years of similar experience under their belts. So Oldtimer I hope you have been following the recent posts here, because ya never know, you might be asked to take a test here sometime (smiles).


----------



## deknow

well..you could call dee on the phone and ask her. you could simply believe Mike Palmer's word and accept that she "lost her operation" (I don't believe Mike to be dishonest in any way...I'm sure this was his understanding)....but of course 200 out of 7 or 800 isn't losing one's operation, is it?

it seems rather demanding to expect someone to come to the forum of your choice, in the thread of your choice, at the time of your choice to explain what is incorrect about what has been incorrectly claimed about her operation by others. She runs the organic list, she has a phone, she runs a conference every year that isn't too far from you, she speaks in Massachusetts every summer as well. She has extensive writings hosted here on beesource...have you read them?

how available are people expected to be?

FWIW, none of this is new information, it's all been posted on beesource and/or bee-l (which has freely searchable archives) before...by Dee. So get out your google or pick up the phone.


----------



## Riskybizz

“it seems rather demanding to expect someone to come to the forum of your choice, in the thread of your choice”…

I don’t recall demanding that anyone participate in a forum. What I said was (and you might care to re-read my post) “that it would be interesting to hear first hand about someone’s sc management practices.” 

It appears that your defensive demeanor precedes any worthwhile knowledge that you could actually share with others in an open exchange of ideas. At some point I think that I would enjoy a conversation with Dee. You know, beekeeper to beekeeper.


----------



## deknow

Have you ever tried to call her, email her, join her yahoogroup, or attend an event when Rte e she is speaking? Are you waiting for her to call you up for a chat?
She has no answering machine, so you have to get her when she is home. She deals with a lot of email, so a good subject line helps get her to notice an email. She is taking registrations for her conference in Oracle.

Deknow


----------



## Barry

Riskybizz said:


> I assume that Dee doesn't participate in any forums here anymore and that’s too bad as I would be interested in having her expound upon her sc activities as opposed to reading about it via a self appointed spokesman.


That you would have to do on her terms, at her group. She gave up participating here because I would not hold to the strict terms she wanted, you know, no mention of "drugs, chemicals, essential oils, herbs, FGMO, acids, fungicides, bacterial/viral inhibitants, micro-organism stimuli, and artificial feeds". I have always felt that there needs to be room for those who are transitioning off treatments and allow discussion for that. Dee is pretty much cold turkey approach with no room for much else.


----------



## Riskybizz

Thanks Barry. And deknow behave or we'll have to put you on a leash.....


----------



## Acebird

jim lyon said:


> suggest a blueprint if you will for how this works on a large scale because that is how you really make a difference.


Well maybe to you it would make a difference but to a lot of other people it makes a difference right now. If nothing else it can keep the small guy going and not have to buy into the chemical warfare game that some people absolutely don't want.
I don't think varroa is going to kill the american beekeeping industry as we know it. I think China is going to kill it because it is so labor intensive.


----------



## deknow

I dunno...I offered accurate details for an event that was misrepresented (by someone who would would not want a 25% loss of his operation in one incident characterized as "he lost his operation"). ...details that I was privy to by being on site first in February before rebuilding those yards, in April helping to rebuild those yards, seen those yards (most of them) every year since, and have a copy of the original report that came back from Jerry's lab.

So, I'm not supposed to "google" anything, I'm not supposed to offer well considered (not off the cuff) analysis of studies that I've actually read in detail, and I'm not supposed to correct false information when it is presented in error, even if I have first hand knowledge (as well as both photo and video footage of the incident in question). 

What do you want to discuss? The fact that Dee "lost her operation" a few years ago....when in fact it was about a 25% loss? Why would you not want to have a discussion based on the most accurate information available?

deknow


----------



## deknow

jim lyon said:


> Would a .25% (and I am aware its just a number you threw out there as an example) advantage really constitute proof that small cell works?


I'm not sure Michael thinks this is as funny as I do, but I suggest that such questions are best asked to our in-house artifical intelegence...The Virtual Michael Bush [email protected]
....more later, I'm working on some other things at the moment.

deknow


----------



## jim lyon

No, the point I am making is that if you really want to make a difference in this industry you have got to come up with a blueprint for how to change the beekeeping practices employed on the 99% not on the 1% of the hives. If someone makes an environmentally friendly car that gets 200 mpg but isnt practical for the average American to afford or to drive then you havent really accomplished much. If you are truly buying into the assertion that treatment free honey is a better product then the "small guy" that we should be concerned about more is the 99% of the honey consumers that cant afford to pay the high prices charged at specialty shops and end up consuming what many feel is an unfit product.


----------



## deknow

Hey, the honey from the "organic farm" that we found to be 30% beet sugar was selling for $11/lb. The particular store is located within a few miles of several universities, including MIT and Harvard (no, this is not the honey store in harvard square). Some of the most educated people in the world were buying this stuff, and paying plenty for it. So, unless you think honey should contain 30% beet sugar, you've got people who _can_ afford the specialty shop prices, who are paying them, and they are still getting an unfit product.

deknow


----------



## Barry

Again, you missed Jim's point. How does your TF regime work for all the commercial beekeepers who produce the lion share of the honey sold?


----------



## Ramona

Am selling at market so will have to be brief but not all folks who buy treatment free honey are wealthy...many of our customers do not have great financial means but value the honey we sell. Many are from cultures that use honey daily as medicine, preventive and otherwise, and are very concerned about sugar in beekeeping...they come to me asking for honey from bees that are not fed sugar.


----------



## Riskybizz

Jim "If you are truly buying into the assertion that treatment free honey is a better product"...

The problem I have with "some" individuals professing to be selling only treatment free honey is not the treatment free aspect so much as how they actually handle their treatment free honey. Not using treatments in your hive (approved or otherwise) is one thing, but I have personally witnessed extracting and bottling setups by the hippy-dippy crowd (no offense dean) that leaves a lot to be desired. Garage setups, contaminants stored close by, non-approved storage vessels, and downright un-sanitary conditions are quite common. In that case, I’ll take my chances with the bigger guy.


----------



## Acebird

I keep saying it doesn't. I haven't seen anything in Deans post that says it does. Have you? If everyone was producing a product like Dean does don't you think his prices would drop like a rock. Same why with organic vegetables.


----------



## deknow

I don't want to characterize Jim's product...I'm sure it is well above average.

In a previous life, I made very, very high end orchestral piccolos. I would spend 4 days (sometimes 5 if I was slow) making the keywork and mechanism from stock, and from raw castings. Grinding, filing, fitting, soldering, sanding, polishing, cleaning sterling silver, and sometimes 14 carat gold.

When I was in school, and thought I wanted to go into the instrument making field, I had had summer jobs in high end shops like the ones I worked in later, but I took the train to Elkhart Indiana, where band instruments have traditionally been made in this country.

There were crappy instruments that came out of those shops, and some nice ones. All of them were "mass produced" rather than "hand made". I'd make the keywork for an instrument from scratch, and fit it precisely to the imperfections of the body (for this, customers paid between 4 and 7k...in the 90s). In Elkhart, even the higher end instrument keys were made in batches...100 G#'s, 100 thumb keys, etc. Final fitting was done by bending. polishing was done with big machines that work fast and automatic, but remove too much material to leave sharp bevels and details...the hallmark of quality metal work of this kind. there were some very good instruments being made this way...but our customers wanted an instrument that was made in the way they thought an instrument should be made...by a single maker or small shop, with years experience and skilled handwork....and we had a 4 year waiting list, with about half the instruments going to Korea and Japan to players and collectors (duties were about 100% on these things as well).

Spending months perfecting wheel skills, or working on soldering at low enough temperatures so that copper doesn't migrate to the surface of silver is a waste of time if you are going to make the keys out of nickle silver by machine....spending time obtaining those skills won't help the worker on the factory floor where they are not valued or needed.

Commercial beekeeping has a lot of baseline practices that fill in the gaps between what bees need, and what they get. Feeding of sugar and/or pollen patties, medications for disease, moving them for a perpetual bloom, rotating out comb before it becomes too contaminated, requeening every year to prevent swarming, etc. This is the sledge hammer approach.

If you take these crutches away, you are left naked in front of mother nature with an incomplete system. If you take the automation away from the factory workers, you are left with workers that lack the skills and knowledge to build an instrument by hand. So, how do you fix such a system once you've taken the crutches away? The best way I know how is to see how someone else is doing it. We have mother nature, Dee Lusby, Kirk Webster, Bob Brachman...all with very different approaches, all without treatments, and all producing a commmercial crop, and all getting a premium for being treatment free.

One can certainly make a living building instruments in Elkhart (or at least one could 10 years ago...I don't know what is going on there now,but I bet it isn't pretty), but it isn't how I wanted to spend my time. I was lucky, I got to feel close with the instruments I was making, their owners, and the music they produced. When I'm managing bees without feeding, without treatments, I feel like I am closer to them...less like a factory where sugar and drugs go in, and honey and bees comes out.

Again, I'm not comparing Jim's honey to mediocre band instruments...I'm poniting out that doing things different ways requires different things and results in a different outcome.

deknow


----------



## deknow

The reason our customers trust us is because we are trustworthy. I have seen Dee's, Kirk's and Bob's extraction setups. We maintain an approved and inspected wholesale food facility so that we can do what we are doing legally.

Honey (at least in the U.S.) changes hands as a commodity. I would bet that most packers and beekeepers have not seen the extracting setup used for the honey they are bottling. The "big guys" are the most likely to buy the most honey they can get for a bargain...not necessarily honey from 'clean' extraction rooms.

deknow


----------



## Riskybizz

"We maintain an approved and inspected wholesale food facility so that we can do what we are doing legally."

I have no doubt that you do, but you are but a few apples on the tree in the big picture of selling treatment free honey. If we are talking about specific practices of treatment free honey in general, then we should probably expand the scope of the conversation to others engaged in that practice, and not just the few that you seem to have imbedded in your keyboard.


----------



## deknow

I know other treatment free beekeepers for sure, but we do business with the three I've been mentioning...we report to the state health department where we get all of our ingredients and honey.

If we are going to look at unsanitary practices of treatment free beekeepers, is there an implication that beekeepers that use treatments are immune from such practices? Should we look at some of the offlabel uses of treatments to characterize "treatment beekeeping"? Should we look at sugar adulteration in some honey from some beekeepers who feed to characterize all beekeepers that feed?

What am I supposed to be responsible for? What are you responsible for?


----------



## Adam Foster Collins

Once again, a lot of intelligent people countering each other.

Unfortunately, if one is coming here to help them decide which way to go in their beekeeping practices, it leaves your head spinning. You just have to pick a direction and try it.

For myself, it has left me somewhere between Mike Palmer and Mike Bush - keeping in mind that they both are drawing from the ideas of others, mixed with working experience over many years. 

As it all relates to the OP on small cell foundation, I find that I'm trying a mix of smaller cell (5.1) foundation mixed with foundationless in what I have this year. I've got a bunch of 5.4mm foundation as well, so I think I will likely use that as starter strips to some degree - unless I find foundationless to go pretty smoothy - without a ton of messy combs.

To deal with mites, I've come to this: _(and I admit that my lack of experience necessitates me making some decisions based on faith to some degree. That means that years of reading (while beekeeping) has lead me to feeling that some of the writers are more 'trustworthy' than others - and that really just means that what they say 'rings true' with my own way of looking at the world.)_

*• Narrow frames in the broodnest*- because I've seen the bees create that spacing on their own in the tbh.
*• 8 frames*- easier lifting/tighter space which I feel could help in wintering and efficient use of stores.
*• No foundation in the brood nest or very little of it* - allowing the bees to do their thing on cell size and minimizing wax from unknown sources.
*• Managing nucs as a majority of my colonies* - maximum colony numbers on minimal gear, and making nuc management the core - knowing that the young and small colonies will require less mite control effort.
*• Honey for bees first* - feeding only when their stores would not be sufficient and taking honey for myself that is truly surplus to wintering needs.

So it's a mix of approaches offered here by people I believe to be competent beekeepers, who make a regular practice of readily answering questions from people like myself. "Cyber mentors" I guess.

It still leaves me taking it all to the workshop and bee yards to actually see how it all works in practice in my own hands, with my own bees, in my own region.

You come looking for answers, but you really get a selection of them. Then it leaves you making your own choices - and playing them out - in order to find your own 'proof' of what works and what doesn't.

Adam


----------



## Riskybizz

"If we are going to look at unsanitary practices of treatment free beekeepers, is there an implication that beekeepers that use treatments are immune from such practices?"

Certainly not. I have seen some real nasty commercial honey houses as well. My point is simply this: One cannot just automatically assume that because they are purchasing honey from someone who happens to have a trendy treatment free marketing scheme, that they are trustworthy and that their honey warrants the classification of a "better product”, because sometimes it doesn't. I'm sure you and the others you mentioned do a credible job.


----------



## deknow

...weren't people getting on my case for pointing out that _some_ honey is adulterated? Aren't you just saying that _some_ honey isn't processed in a sanitary way? Why does this have anything more to do with "treatment free honey" than it does "USDA Grade A Honey", "Pure Honey", "Local Honey", "Beekeeper Honey", "Raw Honey", "Pasteurized Honey", "Filtered Honey", "Bee Honey", "Farmers Market Honey", "Home Made Honey" or even "Mass Produced Imported Honey"...whatever.

deknow


----------



## Barry

deknow said:


> So, how do you fix such a system once you've taken the crutches away? The best way I know how is to see how someone else is doing it. We have mother nature, Dee Lusby, Kirk Webster, Bob Brachman...all with very different approaches, all without treatments, and all producing a commmercial crop, and all getting a premium for being treatment free.


But you know this doesn't give the full picture. They may be "getting a premium for being treatment free", but that doesn't automatically transfer over to someone like Jim. The truth is, until one of those successful commercial beekeepers you listed put real numbers on the table, it's just an impressive statement. You have to take the profit Jim makes now, factor in the immense cost (we get some idea of this by knowing Dee's history) to make the switch, and then hope he could get a higher price for his honey from then on. If I was in Jim's shoes, I'd continue doing what I'm doing.

Do you consider the three you listed to have lifestyles that reflect most other commercial beekeepers?


----------



## deknow

No, I don't...and you will note that I've never been one to say that everyone (or even anyone) should change their operation. The best decisions for Jim to make are those made by Jim.

As it has been pointed out, if everyone was suddenly treatment free, I'd be out of business in an hour. More people work at Mcdonalds than at independent burger joints. More food is made at mcdonalds than at independent burger joints. Would the market support all of the mcdonalds locations going independent...with the additional overhead, costs, responsibility for quality, decisions, etc? Of course not.

I like Jim, I like talking to Jim, and I care that he understands what I am trying to say...but I don't really care if he goes "treatment free"....I don't care if he shakes out his bees and starts with packages every year (I'm not implying that you do).

What Jim gets for his honey is between him and the person buying it...I have no control over his price unless I'm the one buying it, and at this point, we are only buying treatment free honey....but someone else is welcome to value his honey equivalently to how we value Dee, Kirk, and Bob's honey...he is free to demand whatever price he wishes.

I will say (and I've said it before), we got into this business _because_ we saw Dee's operation, and realized that her honey was being sold to big packers at a low commodity price. We felt it was more valuable than that, so we took a risk of starting a business in Massachusetts selling (at the time, only) treatment free honey from Arizona. This was no small risk, this was less than an obvious thing to do. It didn't just happen.

deknow


----------



## deknow

"real numbers" must include costs (labor, equipment, vehicles, supplies, gas, transportation, etc), feed, treatments, time etc...and certainly must include what price the honey (or the bees, or the queens) are selling for.

it is generally not in anyone's best interest to be quite this open in public...can we see the numbers for Beesource? Hosting costs, staffing costs, time, donations advertising revenue, etc...profit? I didn't think so.....this is essentially what you are asking for, and there are too many good reasons not to be truthful about _everything_ _all the time_ that one shouldn't really expect such things to be posted on a public forum.

deknow


----------



## Oldtimer

deknow said:


> So, I'm not supposed to "google" anything
> 
> deknow


Not at all Dean, in fact I congratulated you on your amazing google skills!
Take a chill pill, be that "pretty laid back guy" you said you are, the discussion will be smoother. I'll fess up, in this thread anyway, the main reason you and I have banged heads, is simply, you leave yourself so wide open, it's hard to resist.

Relax, and the world will change.


----------



## Barry

And because of that, we need to be very careful making statements that can't be backed up with real numbers. Saying someone is a successful commercial TF beekeeper can mean a lot of different things. Unless all the numbers were laid out, there's no real way of defining that term. One successful beekeeper may own a couple houses, take routine vacations, own up-to-date equipment, and live quite well, while another successful beekeeper may live very spartan, can't afford to travel, has older equipment, etc. I think if your living is made from bees, money is at the core to defining success.

Regarding Beesource, I'm not trying to convince Google or Facebook that I run a better, more profitable website, so there is no need to get into the numbers.


----------



## Riskybizz

There are quite a few people who post on here that in the back of my mind I say to myself, wow, wouldn't it be great to know them, or meet them in the beeyard and pick their brains a little. Their persona is indeed generally laid back, and not prone to verbal confrontation. There are others who for some reason or another feel as if the world is out to get them or rain on their parade, whatever it might be. They are quite defensive and often prone to reduntant statements perhaps in order to continuously justify their current positions. So Oldtimer if I am ever in your part of the world, I might look you up. Same goes for Mike Palmer and a few others. Mike Bush stayed at my place this July and we worked a yard of my bees. Other than him trying to tell me how to pry my frames apart when inspecting my deeps it was quite a hoot. I got a kick out of him saying that. He even played his guitar for the bees..now hows that for laid back. Oldtimer your picture thread on here regarding no-grafting for queens is worth its weight in gold.


----------



## deknow

Is beesource.com a successful website/business? Will you prove it to me either way by lining up all the numbers? Do you think John and Phil will line their numbers (for their forums) up against yours?

Unless we are willing to post notarized P&L statements prepared by independent auditors, it is difficult to imagine having this kind of comparison be accurate.

I've edited enough bee talk footage (both for "the natural crowd" and for our mainstream county bee club with 700 members) that it won't implicate anyone in particular to say that more than once, the only edit I've performed is to blank out the part where the beekeeper talks about their scheme to not paying taxes on the honey they sell (it usually involves packing in mason jars that can be bought with cash). I've never heard any claim like this from any of the beekeepers we work with directly, but I can't be the only person to hear people talk about this (usually the audience laughs and applauds). If someone were doing this, would they report an accurate number to a public forum when it would contradict with what is on their tax return? For the record, we only pack honey in glass classic honey jars, and our chocolate in pint and half pint jars. All are purchased new by the pallet. Oh, we also use 1/2 gallon mason jars for honey and chocolate, and buy them new at the hardware store.

deknow


----------



## Barry

I never claimed it was or wasn't a successful site. Until I do that, you have no argument/case.

On the other hand, you have claimed that there are those who are successful commercial TF beekeepers. How do you expect any other commercial beekeeper to put any weight in that statement unless you ,or the three the mentioned, are willing to define it in ways another commercial beekeeper could compare with? I've always said TF can work for the guy who doesn't have to make a living from bees, but I just don't see how a case can be made, from what I know, that it works financially for other commercial beekeepers.


----------



## Oldtimer

Riskybizz said:


> Oldtimer if I am ever in your part of the world, I might look you up.


Cheers, and you or anyone else on Beesource would be MOST WELCOME. You would of course be expected to tour some of my bees, get lectured about sc / lc, bee breeding, etc, and if up to it help me do some work.

Anybody coming this way, Dean even, drop me a pm, i am NOT KIDDING.


----------



## deknow

Oldtimer...I know..and you know the reverse is true as well.  ...I imagine a great evening of wine, women, and song....followed by a great drunken brawl over the girl singer 

deknow


----------



## d.frizzell

Barry said:


> That you would have to do on her terms, at her group. She gave up participating here because I would not hold to the strict terms she wanted, you know, no mention of "drugs, chemicals, essential oils, herbs, FGMO, acids, fungicides, bacterial/viral inhibitants, micro-organism stimuli, and artificial feeds". I have always felt that there needs to be room for those who are transitioning off treatments and allow discussion for that. Dee is pretty much cold turkey approach with no room for much else.


Riskybiss,
Dee's forum is great, I highly recommend. You get top notch no nonsense info from Dee, no excuses for using dopes and artificial feeding. Sometimes you have to read the posts a few times to get message but it is worth it. Less talking and whining and more doing....I like it!!
Donna
46N


----------



## jim lyon

Bee work? Drunken brawls? I dont need no 20 hour flight to New Zealand for that.  Wait a minute thats a double negative isnt it?


----------



## squarepeg

i'm in! you'll recognize me as the one walking aroung doing armpit farts and wearing the t-shirt that says 'i'm sorry dean'.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

jim lyon said:


> Drunken brawls? I dont need no 20 hour flight to New Zealand for that.


Well, you will probably have to go somewhere *other *than Herrick to have that kind of fun! According to the census, Herrick has 105 people. :lookout: And the _hotspot _of the town is a grain elevator that you can sleep in!









http://www.herrickelevator.com

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herrick,_South_Dakota

Just funning you ...


----------



## jim lyon

You gonna try to pigeonhole us Herrick folk by teasing us about the elevator? There is a whole lot more to Herrick than that. Read on in Wikipedia and don't miss the part about the annual Squeal meal complete with hog calling contest and they fail to even mention the frog jumping contest that my hired man puts on for the kids. As Jeff Foxworthy would say, "if yer towns claim to fame is a frog jumping contest......."


----------



## deknow

Jim...the problem isn't an elevator ...the problem is that it is referred to as _"the"_ elevator 

deknow


----------



## Daniel Y

deknow said:


> ....but posters here want to tell me what is in them, how they can be improved, how qualified the authors are....all without even reading them.


I would disagree at the level of deciding if something is worth reading at all. that would be like saying you have to read a book before you can decide if you will like it or not.

Any paper must first qualify in order to be chosen for reading.


----------



## BeeCurious

Daniel Y said:


> I would disagree at the level of deciding if something is worth reading at all. that would be like saying you have to read a book before you can decide if you will like it or not.


Yes, can't we just judge them by their covers?


----------



## Roland

Barry said:

I've always said TF can work for the guy who doesn't have to make a living from bees, but I just don't see how a case can be made, from what I know, that it works financially for other commercial beekeepers. 

Dean - With respect - Send me a PM with a price and Quantity of TF honey you would be willing to buy in a season. I can answer if it would work financially for a commercial beekeeper. This would be Wisconsin Certified Honey, under license WCH-0001.

Crazy Roland


----------



## Oldtimer

Hmm... That would be interesting. Don't want any personal info obviously, but after you've done the math Roland please share in broad details how it would work. After the initial analysis, you could also extrapolate in some other stuff like cost of hive losses, the fact treatments wouldn't have to be paid for, etc. Would we be talking a static operation, or one also doing pollination etc.


----------



## Daniel Y

BeeCurious said:


> Yes, can't we just judge them by their covers?


You can if that is how you choose to do it. You can also look into something enough to then make the decision it is no longer worth looking into.

I for example know I do not tend to like romance novels. I know because I have read some of them and have never found one I like. About two years ago or so A friend of mine was having some relationship problems. At that time the book Eat, Love, Pray was popular. My friend read that book and then started talking about it like it was the relationship bible. I read it, not because I wanted to read it but because I wanted to know what my friend was reading. I did not like the book. I did not need to read the book to know I was probably not going to like it. I did that long ago.


----------



## Barry

. . . except for Crazy Roland, whom I forgot about.


----------



## Barry

deknow said:


> I don't want to characterize Jim's product...I'm sure it is well above average.


Why are you sure of that?



> Again, I'm not comparing Jim's honey to mediocre band instruments...I'm poniting out that doing things different ways requires different things and results in a different outcome.


OK then, instead, compare Jim's honey to your honey. What's the different outcome?

Jim said: "if you really want to make a difference in this industry give us an example, suggest a blueprint if you will for how this works on a large scale because that is how you really make a difference."

I look forward to hearing your reply.


----------



## jim lyon

What Barry may not be aware of, and what Dean may feel isn't his place to reveal, is that I shared honey test results of our 2011 crop honey with Dean earlier this year. The results showed 0 ppb's Aamitraz, Fluvalinate, Coumaphous, fumagillan, tetracycline and no indication of any adulteration. 3 of the 10 samples showed low singles digit readings for Tylosin (what can I say) the other 7 were negative. I havent spoken of this on here much but given Barry's post I figured why not. I am aware that the whole treatment free thing is about more than just test results from someone on "the other side". Choose your own reasons for being TF there are certainly other considerations but I also think its important to demonstrate to everyone what can be accomplished with treatments replied responsibly since providing as pure a product to the consumer is really our ultimate goal.


----------



## Acebird

jim lyon said:


> I am aware that the whole treatment free thing is about more than just test results from someone on "the other side".


Would you like to share with us how you treated with these chemicals and they didn't show up in this honey sample. You may be on to something big.


----------



## jim lyon

OK Brian here it is one more time and it aint that complicated. A late summer application of thymol (after the honey supers are removed though I am not sure this is critical), perhaps MAQS or Hopguard would suffice here as well. I dont know, I havent tried them. Then a single oxalic dribble in October after the bees have gone broodless. In the spring we kill all our queens and replace with a ripe queen cell. At this point one can choose to do a hopguard or an oxalic treatment at the 20 day mark if it appears there are many mites but that may well not be necessary, we have chosen not to do so for the past two years and it seems are bees are the better for it. Thats it, no other spring or summer treatments. Of course results may vary and I am aware that this program wont work for everyone because not everyone migrates, has similar beestock or has similar brood rearing seasons.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

Acebird said:


> Would you like to share with us how you *treated with these chemicals* and they didn't show up in this honey sample.


Read Jim's post #318 again. He did _not say_ he *treated *with any of the chemicals referred to. Jim simply sad the honey test showed zero (except for Tylosin.)


----------



## Acebird

jim lyon said:


> In the spring we kill all our queens and replace with a ripe queen cell.


This looks very close to just starting with packages every spring. Would you say what your are doing is very common for commercial beekeepers of your size?


----------



## jim lyon

I can see how my wording could be open to misunderstanding. In the interest of full disclosure we havent used any of those listed miticides in years and in the case of Amitraz, never. I have used fumidil on occasion, the most recent was 4 years ago. We have used tetracycline and tylosin in recent years but never closer than 2 and a half months prior to the main honeyflow. I doubt if I will use tylosin again though. I have heard they are more apt to move and store it and my results bear that out though the residue was truly miniscule.


----------



## squarepeg

jim, were those few parts per billion of tylosin acceptable for the packing house?


----------



## jim lyon

Acebird said:


> This looks very close to just starting with packages every spring. Would you say what your are doing is very common for commercial beekeepers of your size?


I wouldnt say its common, I do hear from some that are considering it. In the commercial world things can be a bit of a mystery at times. Not everyone exchanges information as freely as I have on here. I dont want to be looked at as some kind of guru with all the answers. I dont want people to scream a year from now "I tried it and my bees are all dead, whats going on I thought you said......" I'm not a data guy just a typical beekeeper trying different things and gauging the results by my own observations. Maybe our bees will tank through the winter and I will be over on the other thread wondering what the heck happened. I dont know. I can only say our bees have done well in recent years and continue to do well. Maybe I'm just lucky, maybe I'm on to something I try to temper my expectations.


----------



## Acebird

jim lyon said:


> I can only say our bees have done well in recent years and continue to do well.


It stands to reason why you would want to keep doing what you are doing. I really don't believe you would change if Dean gave you exactly what you asked for because of your success.
I am not a chemist but I do know that chemicals will combine with other chemicals and become something different so if you use a chemical in your hive it is possible you should test for something else to find residuals. I also know that there isn't one pill made that people take internally that doesn't have side effects so my line of thinking is anything that you treat a hive with chemically will have side effects whether you know what it is or you can successfully test for. So chemicals are out in my book.


> In the commercial world things can be a bit of a mystery at times.


So why is there such a fuss if one commercial guy promotes TF and another doesn't? There really doesn't appear to be a "Commercial Beekeepers Manual" any more than there is a hobbyist manual.


----------



## jim lyon

Acebird said:


> So why is there such a fuss if one commercial guy promotes TF and another doesn't? There really doesn't appear to be a "Commercial Beekeepers Manual" any more than there is a hobbyist manual.


Who is making a fuss? I have never been ridiculed by another commercial when I tell them what I am doing. Let me emphasize, the bee industry is wide and varied. Different season, different climates, different floral sources, the list goes on and on. What works for me might be a disaster for a guy in California or Florida. I would have no idea until someone tries it and gives us a report on his experiences.


----------



## Ramona

Daniel Y said:


> You can if that is how you choose to do it. You can also look into something enough to then make the decision it is no longer worth looking into.
> 
> I for example know I do not tend to like romance novels. I know because I have read some of them and have never found one I like. About two years ago or so A friend of mine was having some relationship problems. At that time the book Eat, Love, Pray was popular. My friend read that book and then started talking about it like it was the relationship bible. I read it, not because I wanted to read it but because I wanted to know what my friend was reading. I did not like the book. I did not need to read the book to know I was probably not going to like it. I did that long ago.




Are you sure you didn't just see the movie version?


----------



## Barry

Acebird said:


> I do know that chemicals will combine with other chemicals and become something different so if you use a chemical in your hive it is possible you should test for something else to find residuals. I also know that there isn't one pill made that people take internally that doesn't have side effects so my line of thinking is anything that you treat a hive with chemically will have side effects whether you know what it is or you can successfully test for.


From another thread:



Acebird said:


> Don't make me laugh BeeGhost. Are your frames food grade. Is anything in your hives food grade. Do you sterilize your honey after processing. Food grade is a joke for honey.


Radar, you're slow this morning!


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

Barry said:


> Radar, you're slow this morning!


Its nice out today, after a bunch of rain ... so I had things to do outside.


----------



## Acebird

Jim, I came across this today.
http://www.kirkwebster.com/index.php/my-apology-to-eas-march-2012



> Most of the work and expense of maintaining a healthy, untreated apiary lies in propagating up and selecting down each generation--not in obtaining the initial breeding stock.


I would enjoy visiting this guy. Would you not want to know how this guy does it. Seams to me you would if you were serious about treatment free and making a living on it.


----------



## deknow

1. What we pay is between us and our suppliers, as it should be. A "price" arrived upon between someone that doesn't have the product and someone that doesn't need the product (we are well supplied for our needs at the moment) isn't relevant to anything. 

No, I will not tell someone (anyone) my private business details in order to settle some internet forum fight...get real people. I know that many of us are making our livelihoods here (and therefore this isn't some kind of virtual argument on a newspaper comment forum), and although there are probably many that would be happy to post "their numbers", I'm afraid such revelations would be unverifyable, and those reporting would be skewed towards those that feel good about their current numbers...that's just human nature. In any case, you can all stop asking me what we pay....when/if you have treatment free honey to sell AND I need some, we can talk business.

2. The beekeepers we work with (as I posted before) all do things differently, all get very different results....and none of them went "treatment free" because it was, or did bring extra money. 

Chris Baldwin (who is as treatment free has he can be...he migrates and sometimes almonds with no mite treatments) has said to me several times that after he stopped using mite treatments, he tried to figure out what why he had done it, what had convinced him that it was the right path for _his_ beekeeping....the answer he came up with was, "Because it was the right thing to do."

3. I've "introduced" Mike Palmer a few times (he has spoken at our conference twice), and I've discussed his methods in talks many times...what I always say about him is roughly, "if everyone used treatments the way Mike Palmer does, we wouldn't be having this conversation". 

Every time I've brought up our adulteration test results I've mentioned the local "sideliner" who does feed, but is very conscientious about it, and his honey came back 100% pure. 

I've always fully recognized in every talk I've given (including some comments at a showing of "vanishing of the bees" at a small, publicly run organic farm in a wealthy town), that the way we grow food in this country requires migratory commercial beekeeping as one of its components. To change this would be to change agriculture...and I can't imagine that those kinds of changes are peaceful and smooth. I talked quite a bit about this at the first organic conference in Oracle in 2008, and it's the kind of things I talk to my customers about regularly.

The assumption here is that I'm not being fair....by what? By what you all assume I say to my customers? By the fact that I talk about "treatment free"? Would I be implying that other honey has antibiotics in it if I stated that ours was tested and found free of them? Wouldn't that imply that some honey has antibiotics in it?

4. If you are looking for studies that show that honey from untreated, unfed bees is different than honey from treated, fed bees, you will have to wait a bit...the first modern study to consider untreated and unfed bees as something that may have to be studied in contrast with how bees are generally kept by beekeepers and bee researchers has just been published...the Moran study shows a 25+ year effect on the genetic makeup of gut microbe populations when antibiotics are used (rather definitively). 

Tobias Olofson and Alejandra Vasquez (a married research couple from Sweden) have shown microbial fermentation to be part of what makes dried nectar into "honey" (but don't expect much more public research out of them, they are in the probiotic business now), the Sammataro/Yoder paper saw in vitro effects of even HFCS (never mind formic acid) on the essential fungi for producing bee bread, and Martha Gilliam showed that yeasts, bacteria, and fungi (and their relative balance in the bee/colony/hive) are all affected by feeding, by confining, by fumidil, by TM, and by 24D....and I've provided links to most of this research.

If you are looking for more concrete data, you will have to be patient like the rest of us...but as I said, just now, for the first time, a researcher has considered that the gut microbes of untreated bees might be different than those of treated bees (something one would think bee scientists would be on top of), and the findings are significant....things don't just "go back" to their original state after treatment with antibiotics....not in more than 25 years at least.

...with all that said, I think I can state (without oversimplifying) that it is generally understood and accepted by anyone studying complex microbial systems, that changing what goes into such a system (food, treatments) changes the nature of that culture. If we change the nature of the culture, we are changing the nature of the bees, and if the culture has any influence on honey production (I think it is safe to say that it does even though the details are just starting to become apparent), then it is unlikely in the extreme that honey isn't effected. It is simply not a reasonable assumption that messing with the inputs doesn't affect the outputs.

As far as providing a blueprint as to how this can work for others...well, Dee did this years ago (hosted here on beesource), and I've provided quite a bit of information...I try my best to help people avoid easy to commit pitfalls (it is much more fun to make "interesting" mistakes than dumb ones), and I do what I can to answer questions...especially from folks that are genuinely interested.

But I'm not being paid to "change the industry", and at the moment, I'm not in a position to setup a business model that would allow me to get enough return on the investment to make that goal my priority....I'm busy running a business and helping those that want my help. Roland and Jim (and everyone else) is left in the uncomfortable position all thinking people are left in...what is the best thing for them, with their sensibilities, their resources, and their goals. This is a gift and a curse.

deknow


----------



## deknow

Daniel Y said:


> I would disagree at the level of deciding if something is worth reading at all. that would be like saying you have to read a book before you can decide if you will like it or not.
> Any paper must first qualify in order to be chosen for reading.


Um...OK...but if one wishes to evaluate the paper, review the paper, discuss the paper, or offer suggestions of how to avoid mistakes made in the paper for future research, one must read the paper. 
...I could say that I don't like your pens....that would be an uninformed opinion.
...I could say that your pens are lousy...that would be both uninformed, and dishonest...I have no way of knowing, as I've never examined one of your pens.

deknow


----------



## Oldtimer

Things is, is being a walking encyclodeadia of bee gut micro fauna, worth anything? Can a person with this knowlededge run a beehive any better. I know some beekeepers who have probably never heard of bee gut micro fauna. But they understand bees, watching them work a hive is beautiful, and I would not be so brave as to challenge them who could get better results from a hive I'd likely end with my tail between my legs.

I guess what I'm saying is academia is fine. Is it nessecary for someone to read all sorts of studies on peripheral issues? No, and in some cases they'd be better without it. I think we are talking in this thread about two distinct disciplines. One, academia, and one, real beekeeping.


----------



## Andrew Dewey

Thank you Dean for your thoughts. I found them a good reminder that our knowledge about bees will continue to grow and the best we can do right now in some areas is to speculate based on our current understandings. An especial thank you for your (and Ramona's) work with gut microbes.

It is hard to speculate on what a healthy environment looks like to everyone. Just down the road from me a commercial blueberry grower is expanding some fields, clear cutting new growth woody trees (mostly birch and alders), and collecting rocks and leveling the ground so that mechanical harvesters can do their thing. It looks nice, but I know it represents a change from the status quo. First, native pollinators that reside in the bridge area between woods and open fields are going to have to move, evolve or die. Second, mechanical harvesting means less manual labor picking jobs, jobs the companies say they have trouble filling, with local labor anyway. Third, I presume these fields will be managed as most fields around here are, relying on controlling plant & insect pests and disease with agricultural chemicals. I could go on but I'll trust my point is made: the "improvements" to the field are being done to embrace cutting edge best practices. The knowledge that goes in to those practices is evolving, changing as research dictates.

I'm disappointed that my question on Bee-L regarding elements that should be included in a Small Cell study brought only opinions. I hoped for better, hoping that there was curiosity about practices embraced by the TF community as epitomized by Dee, that have a positive impact on bees, and, may be transferable to other climates.


----------



## deknow

...many fields of human medicine were "successful" without taking human gut microbes into consideration...the most interesting things, and the most promising treatments are now coming from our growing knowledge of human gut microbes. 95% cure rate for C. Difficil (even in cases where the patient was expected to be in diapers the rest of their life) by inoculating the patient's digestive system with poop from a healthy subject. Several autoimmune diseases are being successfully treated with pig whipworms, "probiotics" are all the rage, and even doctors now recommend eating probiotics of some kind if you are on antibiotics.....even our moods and psychology are now, we know, somewhat regulated by our gut microbes:
http://www.apa.org/monitor/2012/09/gut-feeling.aspx

These are concrete, practical reasons to care about the microbiota in humans (ones that we were all ignorant of not so long ago)....and it would be silly to think that it would be different for bees (after all, we are all "of" this microbial world). ....but no one is forcing you to consider this stuff important. But after all, if we accept that nosema, EFB (and probably AFB) organisms are present in most hives and not causing a problem, then how can we see nosema, EFB, and AFB as something other than an unbalance of the gut microbes?

deknow


----------



## BeeGhost

Oldtimer, that's the kind of thinking I agree with. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to work bees at all. Some people like myself like to do things the simple way, some like to get in depth on everything, either way is fine!

I don't get into the scientific aspect of beekeeping because it just doesn't interest me and when I do attempt to read scientific studies I end up just losing interest and find something else to read that is more in layman terms.


----------



## deknow

Andrew, I am not posting on Bee-L these days, but I think the discussion there would benefit from mentioning the Moran study (which has not been brought up on Bee-L). I give permission to post my analysis along with the link to the study over there..paste the text from our website rather than what I've posted here....it is more complete and better edited 

http://www.beeuntoothers.com/index....tibiotic-resistant-gut-microbes-in-honey-bees

deknow


----------



## Oldtimer

Oh don't get me wrong i DO see it as important, very much so. Do remember though, bees are not people. Arguments comparing bees to people are normally anthromorphistic. Whatever happens in people does not prove one way or another if bees carrying microfauna that's resistant to some antibiotic, matters a jot. 
But my survival has been based on results, that's what I've lived by. Now I'm helping out lots of new beeks, and what's been quite apparent of recent times is the amount of "stuff" they can know, or think you have to know, or weird theories they may hold. But their actual beekeeping is so bad they will fail, in part, because all their efforts are going into barking up the wrong trees.

I almost have to "re-indoctrinate" some of these folks, before they are freed up enough and enabled to keep their bees successfully.

EDIT - Posted before I saw your post BeeGhost, good comments.


----------



## squarepeg

in my field, and when i was a student thirty years ago, there were investigations into things that at the time were considered academic, that are now being applied in practice.

there are other things, that were being investigated back then, that are either still academic, or have been abandoned as the investigations ran into dead ends.

i think that it is already generally recognized that nutrition and gut physiology is fundamentally important to the health of the colony/superorgansim, and i would like to learn more about it.

this is worthy of a thread of it's own.


----------



## deknow

Certainly agreed that we have to be careful not to anthropomorphize, but when we are talking about gut microbes, we are talking about a common mechanism that operates in pretty much anyone large enough to have a hole through the middle of them...and pretty much everyone else as well. It's almost as basic and common as talking about cellular structure.

If we were talking about changing the nature of the fermenting culture of beer, wine, cheese, sourdough, etc, there would be no question that we are changing the nature of the end product.

deknow


----------



## Barry

So is this something you will be testing for on the bees from which the honey you sell comes from? Will this be some new standard that your suppliers will have to pass?


----------



## Oldtimer

"No Question". You see, from my perspective that's rather a bold statement.

Agreed, antibiotics change bee gut microfauna. Does it matter? Well the answer to that is less clear.

But the main thrust of my last few posts is not actually that. Internet knowledge exchange is both good, and bad. Over here I am surrounded by new beeks, who think they have to know a whole lot of stuff, that they don't, and this can be an impediment to them learning, what they actually would be better off to know. 

When they see my eye's start to glaze over after a few minutes of them lecturing me on something of no real value to them, they dismiss me as an old fart who must be pretty ignorant and lose interest in anything I might be able to help them with.

What I see as the best plan for a beginner is to forget overly academic sides of stuff, find someone who gets good results with bees, and copy them. AFTER they can keep bees, then they can pursue academia intelligently, being in a better position to judge it's value.


----------



## Barry

deknow said:


> ...the consumer and retailer that relies on the honesty and integrity of Dee Lusby, Kirk Webster, and Bob Brachman as well as the integrity of Ramona and me, is in very good hands.


Jim as well, now that he shed some light on his own tested honey. I'm having to take a step back after Jim shared his results and rethink my position on these matters. It's very easy to paint the commercial crowd with a broad brush and assume their honey is not on par with 'your' honey. Sure, there will be those with tainted honey, but I think it's a disservice to give the perception to consumers that "they bad, we good" message simply on the grounds of treatments. I have been guilty of this myself, but I must now be honest with the facts and approach this differently. Thank you Jim for sharing your results.


----------



## deejaycee

Oldtimer said:


> When they see my eye's start to glaze over after a few minutes of them lecturing me on something of no real value to them, they dismiss me as an old fart who must be pretty ignorant and lose interest in anything I might be able to help them with.



and unfortunately, that is often either inspired or reinforced by the dogma of some 'newer' or 'alternate' methodologies.

actually, inspired is far too soft. they are explicitly told so. 

fab discussion, btw... from the comfort of my armchair.


----------



## deknow

Oldtimer said:


> "No Question". You see, from my perspective that's rather a bold statement.


Please don't take my words out of context. "No question" was referring microbes that produce beer, wine, cheese, sourdough...and there is no question...the characteristics of fermented foods is largely dependent on who (microbially) is doing the fermenting.

It is difficult for me to imagine that somehow it's different in the case of honey...but at this point, as I've said, there has only ever been one study that compared untreated bees to treated bees...and the folks doing that research have NSF funding for basic research...nothing they are doing (or plan to do) has anything with producing a commercial product, or even solutions for beekeepers. There is "no question" that the microbes are impacted, but at the present time, we have nothing specific to point to on the end product...but then again, no one has been looking. I did not say (or imply) that there was "no question" about treatment vs. treatment free honey. 

There is "no question" that when you are not feeding it is difficult for your feed to get in the honey (I would submit that one is much more likely to get their own feed in their honey than someone elses), and if one is not treating it is difficult for your treatments to get into the honey (which is how most of the pesticides that are found in honey get there). Eliminating feeds and treatments is eliminating the "low hanging fruit", and is akin to safety measures that prevent one from exposing themselves to risk...."if your hand isn't near the blade, there is no need to be extra careful when your hand is near the blade".

deknow


----------



## squarepeg

i'm too new to know, but what kind of contaminants show up when honey is analyzed for herbicides and pesticides that may have come in from the environment, i.e. from nearby agriculture, vegatable and flower gardens, ect?


----------



## deknow

Barry said:


> So is this something you will be testing for...


Is _what_ something I will be testing for?



> It's very easy to paint the commercial crowd with a broad brush and assume their honey is not on par with 'your' honey.


I've never painted the commercial crowd with a broad brush. Just like any population, there are good guys and bad guys. We know that some use unimaginable "shop towel" treatments, some feed HFCS with honey supers on, some sell adulterated honey to other beekeepers to sell as their own, some sell "pure honey" that is only 70% honey.

There are good hotels and bad hotels. Some hotels are listed in guides that tell you which is which. Just because a hotel isn't in one (or any) of those guides doesn't mean that it is a bad hotel...and it is hard to imagine that anyone would consider the AAA travel guide as denigrating every hotel that it does not list. They have their standards and their procedures they use to assure quality, and I have mine. Such results are not measured by those excluded from the criteria, but by the consistent quality displayed by what does fit the criteria.

If one believes that the microbial symbionts that the bees rely on should remain as undamaged as possible (for long term practical reasons), why should one not buy honey that is produced with that as an outcome of the beekeepers practice? Certainly no one disputes the added value of produce that is cultivated in a way that preserves the soil.

deknow


----------



## deknow

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0009754


----------



## squarepeg

thanks dean, they were sampling pollen, beebread, and wax. i was wondering about honey that gets to market.


----------



## Oldtimer

deknow said:


> Please don't take my words out of context. "No question" was referring microbes that produce beer, wine, cheese, sourdough...and there is no question...the characteristics of fermented foods is largely dependent on who (microbially) is doing the fermenting.
> 
> deknow


 Problem was Dean, what you were saying implied, to a casual reader, that there is "no question", the same applies to honey. Even though you didn't specifically say that. So I just clarified, saying the answer to that is less clear. If you were not trying to imply that, why did you have a problem with me picking up on it?

You see, wine beer cheese etc. is cultured, more accurately than fermented, in a controlled environment of laboratory hygiene. Honey, which for starters is a very different product and not even in the same catagory, is produced in a beehive. Fermentation (which implies by bacteria), is not a major part of the process, plus honey is exposed to multiple organisms, that the balance of some of them may have been altered in some way has not been shown to be of any consequence.

That nobody feels this is important enough to study or release any commercial products to deal with it, might also give you a clue.


----------



## Adam Foster Collins

deknow said:


> ...I think I can state ...that changing what goes into such a system (food, treatments) changes the nature of that culture. If we change the nature of the culture, we are changing the nature of the bees...


I agree with this. This is why I'm trying to go treatment free - basically because I have no hope of understanding the full scope of the effect any treatment is going to have on the bee. The whole system is just too complex. With that in mind, I have to try to be as minimalist as I can be.

Now... hmmm... just how minimalist is that? 

Adam


----------



## squarepeg

as minimalist as is practical?


----------



## Oldtimer

Isn't proof in the pudding, not theory land? 

I am happy to supply samples of honey from my treated hives. If it can be shown how they are different from honey from non treated hives, THEN this stuff can be presnted like it's a fact. Till then, it's a theory, and shouldn't be presented as a fact, cos it isn't. My opinon? There would be sweet ** difference.


----------



## Acebird

Adam Foster Collins said:


> Now... hmmm... just how minimalist is that?
> 
> Adam


Practice non-intervention beekeeping?


----------



## deknow

Oldtimer said:


> Problem was Dean, what you were saying implied, to a casual reader, that there is "no question", the same applies to honey. Even though you didn't specifically say that. So I just clarified, saying the answer to that is less clear. If you were not trying to imply that, why did you have a problem with me picking up on it?


Why do I have a problem with you "clarifying" my statements by changing their meaning? I can't imagine. 

No, you cannot pretend i said something I never said and call it a "clarification". I said what I meant, and I meant what I said. This is classic "straw man", and it has been a major theme of this thread.



> You see, wine beer cheese etc. is cultured, more accurately than fermented, in a controlled environment of laboratory hygiene. Honey, which for starters is a very different product and not even in the same catagory, is produced in a beehive. Fermentation (which implies by bacteria), is not a major part of the process, plus honey is exposed to multiple organisms, that the balance of some of them may have been altered in some way has not been shown to be of any consequence.


Sorry...most of the above is factually inaccurate.
1. I'm not sure what you mean by "cultured" specifically, but fermented foods are often (in modern times) inoculated with a concentrated specific microbial culture (often after trying to kill or limit other microbes that might be present), but this is not necessary to make fermented foods. Many fermented foods still are fermented with the already present microbes, and historically, all fermented foods were. No lab grade hygiene is needed to ferment foods, and most fermented food made in the world is done with naturally occurring microbes. If you are interested, "Wild Fermentation" by Sandor Elix Katz is a great introduction to fermented foods.

2. Fermentation is by definition, accomplished by enzymes...often microbial (not always bacterial), but enzymes in your stomach are also fermenting...the term refers to enzymes, not bacteria.

3. Unless you can describe how honey is produced, you cannot really tell me how it isn't produced. There is published research that shows good evidence (and it claims) that honey is a fermented food. "...honey stomach LAB flora appears to be essential in the transformation of nectar into honey"...from an article by Tobias and Alejandra in ABJ, 2009.

4. "...that the balance of some of them [microbes in bee hives] may have been altered in some way has not been shown to be of any consequence"
...the issue here is that no one has even looked. If we accept the possibility that honey is, at least in part, a fermented food, it would seem contrary to assume that changing the makeup of the complex fermentation culture would cause no change in the honey.

In any case, it's hard to take criticisms of citing too much "academic work" from someone that makes that many factual misstatements in a single paragraph. You don't have to know this stuff, but you _really_ don't need to give the impression that you do.


deknow


----------



## Oldtimer

deknow said:


> Why do I have a problem with you "clarifying" my statements by changing their meaning? I can't imagine.
> 
> deknow


I can't imagine either. Paranoid? You did have a problem though because you accused me of taking your words out of context. Not warranted.

Now you're accusing me of making factual mistatements, in relation to, of all things, cheese.  As someone who once worked in a cheese factory I can say not everything you have said is factual, or is at the least presented in a misleading way. You are now not only telling me you are my beekeeping teacher, but also a cheesemaking expert? I doubt you know crap about making cheese.

What is the subject of the thread Dean? Way I've been reading the last few pages, seems you've been leading the discussion one way, then another, in what looks like an attempt to move towards finding something to say that other honey is not as good as your honey. Plus to try and make it look like there is a study that supports that. There is'n't.

Please clarify the subject.


----------



## squarepeg

http://www.bee-hexagon.net/files/file/fileE/BeeProducts/ContaminationApidologie2006.pdf

found this one, gave it a quick once over.

not much contamination found in _honey_ from the environment, mostly introduced by beekeeping practices, and mostly antibiotics.

this review concluded the organic acids were not a concern when used properly in regards to honey contamination.

but your point dean, i believe, is that there should be as much or more concern over alterations to the microflora in the bee gut.

my first thought about the analogy of soil conserving measures and bee microflora conserving measures, was that messing up the soil would seem to have potentially and vastly farther reaching consequences.

does altering bee gut microflora have any farther reaching consequences than (potentially) for the honey or the bee?

obviously you feel that they should be a significant concern, why?

are any investigators on track to provide us with the answers as to what these observations might mean from a practical sense?


----------



## deknow

From Merriam Webster: www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fermentation


> Definition of FERMENTATION
> 1
> a : a chemical change with effervescence
> b : an enzymatically controlled anaerobic breakdown of an energy-rich compound (as a carbohydrate to carbon dioxide and alcohol or to an organic acid); broadly : an enzymatically controlled transformation of an organic compound





> Medical Definition of FERMENTATION
> 1
> : a chemical change with effervescence
> 2
> : an enzymatically controlled anaerobic breakdown of an energy-rich compound (as a carbohydrate to carbon dioxide and alcohol or to an organic acid); broadly : an enzymatically controlled transformation of an organic compound


...not to mention that yeast (as used in making beer, wine, bread) is not a bacteria....it is a yeast!

Note that I don't have to "paraphrase" you to make it look like you said: "Fermentation (which implies by bacteria),..." because I can actually quote you.


----------



## Oldtimer

Dean I refer you to the question asked in my last post.

You seem to want to have a bun fight about anything.

Please first, clarify the subject.


----------



## Colleen O.

Oldtimer said:


> You see, wine beer cheese etc. is cultured, more accurately than fermented, in a controlled environment of laboratory hygiene. Honey, which for starters is a very different product and not even in the same catagory, is produced in a beehive. Fermentation (which implies by bacteria), is not a major part of the process, plus honey is exposed to multiple organisms, that the balance of some of them may have been altered in some way has not been shown to be of any consequence.


I have a crock in which I make sauerkraut and dill pickles. It is a very nice polish Fermentation Crock. It capitalizes on the bacteria present in the cabbage or cucumbers for the process. I also have made Kefir and regularly make yogurt. Both yogurt and Kefir are generally considered cultured products, but in reality they depend on bacterial fermentation similar to the cabbage and cucumbers. All of these are considered super-foods due to their cancer-fighting and healthful properties. (Yogurt is fed to chemotherapy patients and to people who have been treated with antibiotics to repopulate their healthy intestinal bacteria.)

Honey has been found to have special healthy properties too and to me it wouldn't be too far of a stretch to see the enzymes that bees add contributing to that or causing it. If you accept that their addition adds to the healthful properties then can't you accept that if those bacteria in their mid-guts are reduced their contribution to a healthy product could be reduced?


----------



## Oldtimer

Yes it's possible.

I'm a guy who prefers facts though, to inuendo. There MIGHT be a difference in some of the honeys, related to this issue. To my knowledge though none has ever been found. So, how much of a problem is it?

What I dislike though, is somebody trying to prove something to suit his purposes, that hasn't been proved.


----------



## squarepeg

colleen, yes i can accept that on principle. but it means a lot more if that hypothesis is tested and proven.

it is also just as possible that the beneficial qualities in honey could be_ enhanced _if the altered microcrobial population resulted in a favorable outcome regarding those qualities.


----------



## deknow

> You see, wine beer cheese etc. is cultured, more accurately than fermented, in a controlled environment of laboratory hygiene.


Why is "cultured" more accurate than "fermented"?

http://winemakermag.com/stories/art...the-pros-and-cons-of-spontaneous-fermentation


> This brings us to the second source — wild yeast. Many winemakers who make wine from fresh juice or grapes add no yeast at all. If you buy juice, the retailer may suggest you simply take it home and let it sit until it starts fermenting on its own. And within a day or so, it will begin to bubble. How does that happen?


http://www.exploratorium.edu/cooking/bread/recipe-sourdough.html


> Out of yeast? Don’t worry: It’s not hard to find.
> 
> The feisty critters that make bread rise actually live all around us. In fact, the use of yeast in bread-making probably got its start accidentally, when “wild” yeast caused doughs meant for unleavened flatbreads to ferment.
> 
> To this day, many bakers still use “wild” yeast to make bread, especially in San Francisco, a city famous for its sourdough. To make sourdough, bakers use a “starter,” a piece of dough in which yeast is continually reproducing with the help of regular doses of flour from the baker. The yeast that gets the starter “started” usually comes from the air in the kitchen or bakery where the bread is made, but some starter recipes also use store-bought yeast.


----------



## Oldtimer

Dean I see you've skipped the questions asked of you in the last few posts.

However, to indulge your cheese issue, culture is the word normally used and there are reasons for that. With your googling skills, I'm sure you will be able to find them.

Do you want to argue about cheese? If so, what does that really tell everybody about your being a "laid back type of guy". Seem pretty wound up, to me.

Or, to repeat yet again, what is the subject?


----------



## Barry

I never knew small cell foundation covered all this!


----------



## squarepeg

it's a rich topic!


----------



## deknow

...best I can tell, the thread went from SC to treatment free here:
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?276421-small-cell-foundation&p=875327#post875327

...I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to who it came from.

What I would like (if I had a choice), is a conversation where others are not lying about what I've said or claimed, and that when someone posts something as 'fact', that they are willing to back it up, or admit that they made a mistake...it's not that difficult.

deknow


----------



## Oldtimer

Well I checked out your link Dean, and as I suspected, surprise surprise, it was one of MY posts. Now how would I have known you'd try to blame the whole thing on me LOL 
In fact, there was no problem at all with my post you linked and it certainly did not cause all the other crap you've brought up Dean.



deknow said:


> What I would like (if I had a choice), is a conversation where others are not lying about what I've said or claimed, and that when someone posts something as 'fact', that they are willing to back it up, or admit that they made a mistake...it's not that difficult.
> 
> deknow


Agreed. Please go ahead.


----------



## Colleen O.

squarepeg said:


> colleen, yes i can accept that on principle. but it means a lot more if that hypothesis is tested and proven.
> 
> it is also just as possible that the beneficial qualities in honey could be_ enhanced _if the altered microcrobial population resulted in a favorable result regarding those qualities.


Squarepeg, I can understand that, especially since you come across as a very analytical/science based person. You want something you can point at that is in black and white. Personally I find life is rarely that simple. To me, scientific studies are often biased toward what the researcher is trying to prove and many things worthy of investigation aren't investigated because there is no profit or not enough profit in it.

To me, sometimes we have to accept there are things better not meddled with and things that benefit more if MAN doesn't intervene. I can't prove it, but I accept it. 

And yes, you are probably correct, if we could unlock it we could capitalize on it. Maybe engineer it to be better but we must remember that nature has a balance and with every gain there is a commensurate loss.


----------



## squarepeg

i like that colleen, and with bees i have seen that proven out by how they would have been better off had i not meddled.

nothing wrong with adopting an approach based on a feeling or a philosophy.

there is room for both with beekeeping, but sometimes they are antagonistic, and this is an example.


----------



## Roland

Deknow - did I miss your PM on price and quantity of treatment free honey you could purchase from me? With you numbers I could calculate if the extra effort of treatment free is economical. Another gentleman that approached me about [purchasing TF honey has yet to put his money where his mouth is.

How did Mr. Lyon's honey taste(I bet good)? There is more to honey quality than what is not put in it.


Crazy forgettable Roland


----------



## Colleen O.

Barry said:


> I never knew small cell foundation covered all this!


you are correct, it doesn't. I'm sorry, I was responding to where the thread had gone, not where it was supposed to be. I will try to not get so carried away.


----------



## squarepeg

(sorry dean, remember the caddy shack 'gopher'?  and i admit, i made a mistake)

don't have a clue about cell size and fermentation, what are your thoughts?

with the posts coming in at light speed, did you have a chance to see #358?


----------



## Oldtimer

Agreed. Trying to argue and pull up google links over anything. Even cheese.

Thanks for bringing us back to the subject Roland. Long time no see!


----------



## deknow

Roland, please see: http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?276421-small-cell-foundation&p=876593#post876593


----------



## deknow

I've made any point I'm going to make here...we cannot have any kind of productive discussion when thoughts are "clarified" (in ways only George Orwell would appreciate) and faulty "facts" are presented in ignorance. I stand by anything I've said in this thread, and ask that I be quoted rather than "clarified".

deknow


----------



## squarepeg

o.k.


----------



## Oldtimer

Likewise I'd appreciate not being falsely accused of lying.

Less "i thinks", "maybes", and "mights", should also be used when trying to prove something. All those words prove is that there is no proof. Annoys me and I am often tempted to draw attention to it.


----------



## Oldtimer

Oh. Do I still get my book?


----------



## Adam Foster Collins

Acebird said:


> Practice non-intervention beekeeping?


That's a contradiction in terms - but would amount to the most minimal I suppose. If one didn't intervene - then they'd basically just leave the bees alone to do their thing in the wild. 

Squarepeg said "As minimal as is practical?" - That's just it, isn't it? Acebird's "non-intervention" would be too minimal to call it beekeeping, and on the other side of the spectrum, we add so much, and manipulate so much of the bee's environment (food, housing, defense against pests and disease, genetics, etc etc) That we don't know what's been a benefit and what's been a part of the problem.

So we try to find that "practical" breaking point. And that seems to be a different place for everyone.

Adam


----------



## jim lyon

Roland said:


> Deknow - did I miss your PM on price and quantity of treatment free honey you could purchase from me? With you numbers I could calculate if the extra effort of treatment free is economical. Another gentleman that approached me about [purchasing TF honey has yet to put his money where his mouth is.
> 
> How did Mr. Lyon's honey taste(I bet good)? There is more to honey quality than what is not put in it.
> 
> 
> Crazy forgettable Roland


Raising honey is like raising queens, everyone is positive that there's is the best.  I guess I am no exception. Perhaps there is something different about the honey we raise because the ancestors of the bees producing it were exposed to something the hive was treated with months earlier but it dosent strike me as terribly likely and if it was surely someone would have posted a link proving that honey fron treatment free hives is in some way different. Personally I would prefer to just dumb this discussion down a bit to the basics of what interests people in the treatment free forum. If you are here because of concern about the altering of microbial populations in the bee gut because of what you are putting in the hive than Deans the guy you want to be listening to, what he says on this subject is no doubt true, how much of a threat it is to our industry is no doubt an open ended argument though. If you got interested in treatment free beekeeping because you want to insure that the honey you are consuming or selling is as free from contaminants as possible then I am simply making the point that there may be any number of ways to achieve that goal. Let's not forget that Varroa is the nastiest most tenacious challenge that Apis mellifera has ever had to contend with. I don't know what chemical changes varroa may cause in a hive but make no mistake about it, they are responsible for the demise of countless hives. One need never have to apologize for choosing to fight them. If you formulated your opinion of mite control based on how things were done 15 to 20 years ago you might consider looking at some of today's options and methods for IPM. The times they are a changin.


----------



## Oldtimer

Yes, 'case anyone was wondering, I had no issues with what I read of the many studies Dean has linked, provided they are interpreted strictly as the writer intended. No doubt some of them are less than perfect although I didn't see that, but also didn't go looking for it.

They prove what they prove and show what they show. Further extropolations and assumptions others have based on these studies though, could have some of the authors spinning.


----------



## Oldtimer

Dean, to get back to business, please see my post #354. You never responded.


----------



## d.frizzell

Colleen O. said:


> Squarepeg, I can understand that, especially since you come across as a very analytical/science based person. You want something you can point at that is in black and white. Personally I find life is rarely that simple. To me, scientific studies are often biased toward what the researcher is trying to prove and many things worthy of investigation aren't investigated because there is no profit or not enough profit in it.
> 
> To me, sometimes we have to accept there are things better not meddled with and things that benefit more if MAN doesn't intervene. I can't prove it, but I accept it.
> 
> And yes, you are probably correct, if we could unlock it we could capitalize on it. Maybe engineer it to be better but we must remember that nature has a balance and with every gain there is a commensurate loss.


Colleen,
I just have to say "EXCELLENT POST" !!!
Donna
46N


----------



## Oldtimer

Dunno. If it was true we wouldn't be keeping bees would we?


----------



## squarepeg

jim lyon said:


> Let's not forget that Varroa is the nastiest most tenacious challenge that Apis mellifera has ever had to contend with. I don't know what chemical changes varroa may cause in a hive but make no mistake about it, they are responsible for the demise of countless hives. One need never have to apologize for choosing to fight them. If you formulated your opinion of mite control based on how things were done 15 to 20 years ago you might consider looking at some of today's options and methods for IPM. The times they are a changin.


jim, very good point. i don't think anyone has brought up the point so far as to what effect the pathogens that are vectored into the hive by varroa have on the 'normal' microflora in the hive.

short of collapse, there very well could be effects to the microflora on a smaller scale that are as bad or worse as the result of careful ipm practices. (back to the risk/benefit ratios of doing or not doing....)

the bees appear to be evolving, so must we.


----------



## deknow

Oldtimer said:


> They prove what they prove and show what they show. Further extropolations and assumptions others have based on these studies though, could have some of the authors spinning.


1. Without being specific about what what "further extrapolations and assumptions" are, it is difficult to assign any meaning to your statement....except some vague assumption that I (or others) have been misleading in analysis of the studies...I ask that you be specific.

2. WRT the Moran study, I ran my summary past the PI of the study asking if I had misstated or overstated anything....the draft I sent was a rough draft that was slightly revised from what I had posted here (_very slightly_ mostly grammar edits), and the response was that I got the science correct. I've revised this version a bit and turned it into an article on our website. 

I'm not sure how many more checks and balances are required before one can accept my summary/interpretation...I can't do much more than do the best job I can and ask the author on my end...unless someone else wants to read the study and try to pick out something specific that "might have some of the authors spinning", even if the authors agree with what I've said?

deknow


----------



## deknow

Sorry Oldtimer...I'm busy trying to put your expert advice into practice. What bacteria do you suggest I culture my wine, beer, and bread with?

deknow


----------



## Barry

Sounds like bee gut is the preferred choice.


----------



## jbeshearse

The discussions on this thread surrounding the study titled “Long-Term Exposure to Antibiotics Has Caused Accumulation of Resistance Determinants in the Gut Microbiota of Honeybees” have been extrapolated beyond anything reasonable and at this point are simply laughable. 

First and for-most, this study is not about the effects of antibiotics on bees, it is about ancillary effects on subpopulations that inhabit bees. The purpose of the study was to prove that antibiotic treatments affect more than the target species and provide a path for the intended pathogen to develop resistance to the antibiotic used. In summary, it set out to discover and prove how antibiotic resistance is achieved by the target species in some instances, specifically AFB resistance to tetracycline.

Second, it does not say that the “Microbiota” of honeybees has been damaged but that it shows resistance determinates. It actually indicates that the gut Microbiota in honeybees is tetracycline resistant. This means that continued treatments with tetracycline will have a lessening effect on the microbiota. 

In actuality, it says that the combination of microbiota populations within honeybees is essentially the same between those with long term exposure and those without.

This thread is a typical example of taking a study and trying to interpret it to mean something entirely outside of scope and contrary to its findings. Just how far is one willing to reach and obscure in trying to find support for a position?

There are plenty of reasons to be treatment free without descending into ludicrousness. This thread has only lead to lessening personal creditability of some involved. I guess sometimes ego gets in the way. I know that happens to me, so maybe I am just projecting…. 

Cheers.


----------



## deknow

jbeshearse said:


> The discussions on this thread surrounding the study titled “Long-Term Exposure to Antibiotics Has Caused Accumulation of Resistance Determinants in the Gut Microbiota of Honeybees” have been extrapolated beyond anything reasonable and at this point are simply laughable.


Um...ok...so let's examine your interpretation. 



> First and for-most, this study is not about the effects of antibiotics on bees, it is about ancillary effects on subpopulations that inhabit bees.


True...just as in humans and farm animals, antibiotics are used to modify the population of resident microbes. Is it your claim that changing the nature and composition of these "subpopulations" does not effect the bees?



> The purpose of the study was to prove that antibiotic treatments affect more than the target species and provide a path for the intended pathogen to develop resistance to the antibiotic used. In summary, it set out to discover and prove how antibiotic resistance is achieved by the target species in some instances, specifically AFB resistance to tetracycline.


The above is a gross misreading. "The purpose of this study" had nothing to do with AFB, except to note that AFB and EFB are the reasons behind the prolonged use of antibiotics in beehives. There is no discussion about AFB resistance, except to note that it is one of the reasons for antibiotic use, and that the resistant genes appear to be the same ones as found in the non-target species. This is a study looking at the most common gut microbes of bees, AFB is barely an afterthought, and certainly not what the research is focused on. None of the results, none of the actual lab work included AFB...there were no AFB samples involved at all.



> Antibiotic treatment can impact nontarget microbes, enriching the pool of resistance genes available to pathogens and altering community profiles of microbes beneficial to hosts. The gut microbiota of adult honeybees, a distinctive community dominated by eight bacterial species, provides an opportunity to examine evolutionary responses to long-term treatment with a single antibiotic.


...nothing about AFB. No AFB samples were used for anything here.



> Second, it does not say that the “Microbiota” of honeybees has been damaged but that it shows resistance determinates. It actually indicates that the gut Microbiota in honeybees is tetracycline resistant. This means that continued treatments with tetracycline will have a lessening effect on the microbiota.





> Prolonged exposure to a single broad-spectrum antibiotic imposes strong selective pressure on a microbial community that is expected to result in loss of strain diversity. It is possible that antibiotic perturbation may shift the gut microbiota to an alternative state that is broadly similar but different in critical aspects (4, 23). These shifts could affect host health: in the case of the distinctive gut bacteria of honeybees and bumblebees, metagenomic and experimental studies suggest beneficial roles in neutralization of dietary toxins, nutrition, and in defense against pathogens (13, 18


If you look at the chart (I'll paste it at the bottom of this post), you will see that there are some common antibiotic resistance genes that exist throught the genome...including bees that have never seen antibiotics, and bumble bees (blue and red on the chart...almost all samples in this study have both). This is not surprising, antibiotics exist in nature (but don't make the mistake of thinking that unnatural concentrations of natural substances is natural).

But

If you look at the bees from countries that never used antibiotics, you see that outside of the above mentioned "baseline" antibiotic resistant genes, there is no antibiotic resistance.

In contrast, look at the bees from the U.S. With the exception of Dee's bees and the Utah feral bees, they almost all have _6_ additional antibiotic resistant genes. The samples from Dee's bees and the Utah ferals only have 3 of these additional genes.

It is well understood and accepted that the selection mechanism that leads to this kind of antibiotic resistance also greatly reduces diversity. Some of these bacteria have already been demonstrated to have a diversity of genetic variations within the population AND that that diversity translates into a diversity of function.



> Gut Microbes [the name of the journal]
> Volume 4, Issue 1 January/February 2013
> Authors: Philipp Engel and Nancy A. Moran
> From the abstract: "...Gene contents could be linked to different symbiotic functions with the host. Further, we found a high degree of genetic diversity within each of these species. In the case of the gammaproteobacterial species Gilliamella apicola, we could experimentally show a link between genetic variation of isolates and functional differences suggesting that niche partitioning within this species has emerged during evolution with its bee hosts."


The repopulation that happens after the community is exposed to antibiotics results in a loss of the diversity, therefore the loss of specialized "niche partitioning"...kind of like if you go to a restaurant and managers are trying to wait on tables, run the bar, and cook the food. Such a system works better when people performing those functions are specialized for them.

You will also see that, over time, these populations do change. It is clear from the chart that the most recently exposed bees have the highest copy rates of antibiotic resistance...and therefore, when antibioics are removed from the equation, antibiotic resistance is selected _against_. This indicates, rather conclusively, that absent application of antibiotics, that, at least to some extent, antibiotic resistance is selected against.



> In actuality, it says that the combination of microbiota populations within honeybees is essentially the same between those with long term exposure and those without.


...from the discussion:


> The gut microbiota of honeybees in the United States provides an unusual example of a clearly defined microbial community subjected to a single broad-spectrum antibiotic for a prolonged period (19, 20, 22). These gut bacterial communities have accumulated an abundant and diverse set of tetracycline resistance genes, encompassing eight resistance loci that are found in diverse geographic localities.
> .....
> In contrast, the gut microbiota of SUI, CZ, and NZ honeybees contain only 2 or 3 resistance loci, each in very low copy number, as was also true for bumblebees caught in the wild. Since antibiotics have not been used in beekeeping in these two European countries or in New Zealand and since bumblebees, as a wild species, are not expected to encounter artificial antibiotic applications, the resistance loci in these samples are likely to be naturally occurring.


..they are "essentially" the same? Really? If that were the case, then the chart would show "essentially" the same thing for all samples...it doesn't.



> Prolonged exposure to a single broad-spectrum antibiotic imposes strong selective pressure on a microbial community that is expected to result in loss of strain diversity. It is possible that antibiotic perturbation may shift the gut microbiota to an alternative state that is broadly similar but different in critical aspects (4, 23). These shifts could affect host health: in the case of the distinctive gut bacteria of honeybees and bumblebees, metagenomic and experimental studies suggest beneficial roles in neutralization of dietary toxins, nutrition, and in defense against pathogens (13, 18


----------



## squarepeg

very well stated and reasonable, thanks jb.


----------



## Riskybizz

RiskyBizz> I will donate a minimum of $25.00 to any potential sc study that you happen to be involved with in the next 3 years.

Dean:

I must inform you at this time that I am rescinding my original offer of monetary support of any forthcoming sc research conducted by you personally. Originally I found this proposal positive, and had hoped that it would lead to a more comprehensive study of small cell beekeeping. However, in light of this threads current disposition I feel strongly that any contribution directed towards your personally would not be justified. So without hesitation my original post #77 is hereby retracted. Ones modus operandi often becomes clear in such debates. Your flippant, bellicose remarks directed towards me as well as towards others serve no useful purpose other than inflating one’s own ego. In short dean you come across as a verbal bully, and you don’t seem to know when to pull the plug in the interest of the common good. And for the record posts from knowledgeable individuals like Oldtimer, Jim Lyon and many others are quite appealing, while yours seem to continually fester. I certainly mean no disrespect towards you personally, but I am quite hesitant to indulge in much of your cool aid. A professional demeanor tends to go a long ways towards a positive discussion. Jim, congratulations on the test results of your honey. You should be extremely proud of your operation.


----------



## deknow

At this point, I'm writing for the folks that are reading and generally not posting. If "professional demeanor" is what is missing, I would suggest that things like, false paraphrasing (straw man), quoting out of context, and being unwilling to correct gross factual misstatements by others makes a true discussion impossible.

I've done my best to present what I know and what I've experienced...but over and over I've been told I said something I never did, I've been attacked for spending 2 hours away from the computer, I've been told what is in a study by people that have never done more than read the abstract, I've been instructed that beer and wine are produced with bacteria and not yeast (by a self proclaimed expert) and my statements have been "clarified" by others

I don't want anyone's money without a definitive plan (as I posted at the time...hold off on the donations), and I would never ask anyone to spend money in a way they didn't see fit. It's your money, and you can do what you want with it.

I've been honest, I've checked my facts, and I've been accurate. You are on your own.

deknow


----------



## jim lyon

Dean: Perhaps this discussion is about much more to you but to myself it has boiled down to a simple question. Does bee gut health in any verifiable way make a difference in the quality or purity of honey produced particularly when said honey is produced months later. If so cite such data. I hope you don't take that personally , it's not meant in such a way, I just think that's what is getting lost in the discussion and it's also probably what many if not most people following this thread really want to hear answered. There is another active thread about oxalic acid. Can you state to those folks that an oxalic application this past fall might affect the quality of their honey next year? Is that a fair example of what you are saying?


----------



## JRG13

This honey talk and gut flora sparked a question from me.... forage being equal, does honey come out dramatically different from hive to hive? Is that a trait that's selected for, not just quantity of honey produced by a hive but the taste and quality?


----------



## deknow

jim lyon;876921Does bee gut health in any verifiable way make a difference in the quality or purity of honey produced particularly when said honey is produced months later. If so cite such data.[/quote said:


> Jim, I'm not sure how many times I can say that in the history of modern beekeeping, there has been exactly one study that even considered that untreated bees _might_ show some difference in the gut microbes. The question, "is it verifiable" is quite a different question than "has it been verified". Note that no researchers in the USDA/PHD bee scientist world has even considered such a question (even when they are looking for funding for future research). I think it is verifiable....but who is going to pay for the work? The NHB? The USDA? As far as I know, we are the largest "treatment free packer" around....the rest of the "industry", from hobbyist on up is firmly committed to treating and feeding...they will not support research that quantifies a difference between honey from treated/fed and untreated/unfed bees. This is not a conspiracy theory....this is basic economics of funding.
> 
> I do hope that you read the Seeley study, and my critique (along with the funding reports I posted). _this_ is the quality of work coming from the best of them...and to say it was lacking is an understatement.
> 
> There have been a lot of accusations that our marketing is dishonest....a little food for thought:
> 
> 1. When you go to the drug store and buy aspirin, there is the Bayer brand, and the store brand at half price. No one has tested them to see what the differences are. No one even makes a claim that they are different (the ingredients are the same)....yet we don't see the marketing of name brand asprin as "dishonest" or "deceptive" or "misleading". There may be a significant difference, or they may have come off the same line on the same day. Is it dishonest for Bayer to sell aspirin?
> 
> This is brand marketing....our brand is based around selling honey from bees that are not treated and not fed. Not all honey is equal, and no one thus far has proposed a marketing scheme that would allow one to simply steer customers away from the bad stuff. I can't afford to test, and I don't believe that most tests can detect rice syrup, which is probably the most common "economic sugar adulterant" (meaning that it is added to stretch the amount of "honey" rather than incidental feed getting into the honey). I said earlier, everyone is welcome to market their product how they see fit....personally, if I were you, I'd take my test results (maybe have them done again on my dime so I would "own them"), and shop around for a better price. In our case, I'm not worried that feed or treatments might get into the honey....because the bees are not treated or fed.
> 
> 2. All kinds of honey is marketed with testing as part of the qualification...isn't it "worse" to imply that something might be in the honey (by testing to make sure _this jar_ doesn't) than to imply that other honey might (likely) be from bees that are treated?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you state to those folks that an oxalic application this past fall might affect the quality of their honey next year? Is that a fair example of what you are saying?
> 
> 
> 
> sure it is.
> 
> deknow
Click to expand...


----------



## squarepeg

'might', being the operative word.

at this point, 'might not' would be just as valid.

'don't know' would be most accurate.

likely to find out? doubtful without proper studies, which don't appear to be forthcoming.

(you have answered my questions posted on the symbionts thread, no need for further clarification)


----------



## jbeshearse

deknow said:


> Um...ok...so let's examine your interpretation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True...just as in humans and farm animals, antibiotics are used to modify the population of resident microbes. Is it your claim that changing the nature and composition of these "subpopulations" does not effect the bees?


My stance is that it does not necessarily affect the bees and the probabilities are against it doing so. It is unproven and untested. You are reaching and extrapolating beyond the scope. Further, that if it does by some long shot, it still is unlikely to have a detrimental effect on the survivability of the bees or the honey they make. There are studies looking into possibilities that gut microbe mutations contributed to the CCD problem. Can you cite any that have found proof of it, or are you simply waving the flag of possibility?



deknow said:


> The above is a gross misreading. "The purpose of this study" had nothing to do with AFB, except to note that AFB and EFB are the reasons behind the prolonged use of antibiotics in beehives. There is no discussion about AFB resistance, except to note that it is one of the reasons for antibiotic use, and that the resistant genes appear to be the same ones as found in the non-target species. This is a study looking at the most common gut microbes of bees, AFB is barely an afterthought, and certainly not what the research is focused on. None of the results, none of the actual lab work included AFB...there were no AFB samples involved at all.
> 
> …nothing about AFB. No AFB samples were used for anything here.


 You are right, it is a gross misreading, but it is yours not mine. First off I said the purpose of the study was and to quote: “The purpose of the study was to prove that antibiotic treatments affect more than the target species and provide a path for the intended pathogen to develop resistance to the antibiotic used. “

Then I went on to say: “Specifically AFB resistance to tetracycline”

I guess it is okay for you to misquote and “clarify”!

From the abstact “Antibiotic treatment can impact nontarget microbes, enriching the pool of resistance genes available to pathogens and altering community profiles of microbes beneficial to hosts.”

For this study, what are the nontarget microbes? Gut microbes. What is the pathogen? AFB

Also From the study : “The impact of antibiotics on the gut microbiota of animals is a particular concern, since gut communities may act as reservoirs for resistance genes that can be transferred to pathogens (1–3)”

Transferred to pathogens…. Once again what pathogen was being treated for? What was the reason for the study?

From the study: “Since the 1950s, the antibiotic oxytetracycline has been widely applied to colonies of bees in the United States to control larval foulbrood diseases caused by the bacteria Melissococcus pluton and Paenibacillus larvae” EFB & AFB

From the study” Following the emergence of resistance to oxytetracycline in P. larvae in 1996, alternative antibiotics were tested for its control” P. Larvae – once again AFB

Hmmm, what was the reason for the study?

Try reading for content not affirmation.



deknow said:


> If you look at the chart (I'll paste it at the bottom of this post), you will see that there are some common antibiotic resistance genes that exist throught the genome...including bees that have never seen antibiotics, and bumble bees (blue and red on the chart...almost all samples in this study have both). This is not surprising, antibiotics exist in nature (but don't make the mistake of thinking that unnatural concentrations of natural substances is natural).
> 
> But
> 
> If you look at the bees from countries that never used antibiotics, you see that outside of the above mentioned "baseline" antibiotic resistant genes, there is no antibiotic resistance.
> 
> In contrast, look at the bees from the U.S. With the exception of Dee's bees and the Utah feral bees, they almost all have _6_ additional antibiotic resistant genes. The samples from Dee's bees and the Utah ferals only have 3 of these additional genes.


Well, I guess you have me there. I will have to suppose that Dee’s bees are the Arizona bees you refer to and that the Utah ferals are the Utah bees referred to. Although I don’t know how they determined that the bees from Utah had not been exposed to tetracycline the past 25 years. But the results bear out that they have not,so I will assume they are correct. But understand these are assumptions on my part. 

More importantly though is that yes there are 3 loci in the non-treated populations and 8 in the treated. WOW. 5 extra loci.(yes 8-3 = 5 not 6) How many genes does each gut bacteria have? How many pairs in their DNA? How much of the dna are “waste dna”. Without reference 6 is a meaningless number? Is 5 a significantly statistical number?



deknow said:


> It is well understood and accepted that the selection mechanism that leads to this kind of antibiotic resistance also greatly reduces diversity. Some of these bacteria have already been demonstrated to have a diversity of genetic variations within the population AND that that diversity translates into a diversity of function.
> 
> The repopulation that happens after the community is exposed to antibiotics results in a loss of the diversity, therefore the loss of specialized "niche partitioning"...kind of like if you go to a restaurant and managers are trying to wait on tables, run the bar, and cook the food. Such a system works better when people performing those functions are specialized for them.
> 
> You will also see that, over time, these populations do change. It is clear from the chart that the most recently exposed bees have the highest copy rates of antibiotic resistance...and therefore, when antibioics are removed from the equation, antibiotic resistance is selected _against_. This indicates, rather conclusively, that absent application of antibiotics, that, at least to some extent, antibiotic eesistance is selected against.
> 
> ...from the discussion:
> 
> ..they are "essentially" the same? Really? If that were the case, then the chart would show "essentially" the same thing for all samples...it doesn't.


From the study: “The honeybee (Apis mellifera), a highly social insect and important agricultural pollinator, is associated with eight characteristic bacterial species that together comprise over 95% of the gut bacteria in adult worker bees (5–12). “ ….

Nowhere in the study was there any indication that any of these 8 characteristic bacterial species were absent in the treated bees verses the untreated bees. So where is this “loss of diversity? You are reading between the lines to reach a conclusion that is not supported by observation or the study. What I read is that there is a slight difference in the genes of the two. One has some tetracycline resistance and the others do not. Not earth shattering but well expected. Samples are not the complete organism, you know that. Even the gut microbes are essentially the same, much more so for the organism wee know as bees. You have taken a sample of a few genes from an unknown pool of genes in a small bacteria in an evolved larger organism and extrapolated it to indicate a significance that is not there. 



deknow said:


> True...just as in humans and farm animals, antibiotics are used to modify the population of resident microbes. Is it your claim that changing the nature and composition of these "subpopulations" does not effect the bees


Hmmm…. I have seen no proof of that having occurred in this study. Show me again where the “nature and composition” of these subpopulations has changed in a way that has affected the honeybee? What does that effect look like? Where is the proof?

I am not going to waste a lot of time in further response, I learned long ago there is a large difference in talking at someone and talking to them. All in all, I think this thread needs to return to its original intent, I think that was small cell beekeeping.


----------



## Acebird

deknow said:


> they may have come off the same line on the same day.


This is very unlikely because of regulation. But they could be exactly the same thing regardless of when they came off the line and likely are.


----------



## deknow

In case anyone thinks that "all beekeepers who treat treat responsibly", I'd suggest reading this....would you want to sell honey from these operations under your label?
http://consensus.fsu.edu/PRC/pdfs/Bee Kill_Investigation_PRC_2012.pdf

deknow


----------



## Oldtimer

deknow said:


> 2. WRT the Moran study, I ran my summary past the PI of the study asking if I had misstated or overstated anything....the draft I sent was a rough draft that was slightly revised from what I had posted here (_very slightly_ mostly grammar edits), and the response was that I got the science correct. I've revised this version a bit and turned it into an article on our website.


 You sent them a *rough draft*, that was *slightly revised*, and the response was you got the *science correct*. Send them the whole thread and see what happens.
Did anyone say you had your science wrong? I don't recall anybody saying that, it's your extrapolations.

To say your extrapolations did not go beyond the scope of the article is nonsense, it is quite clear what your end game is.

Even your pedantic argument about cheesemaking terminology showed 1 how wound up you are over the whole thing, 2 that you are happy to go WAY off track, and 3 you think you are an expert on EVERYTHING. I can quite imagine you walking into a cheese factory and telling them they are doing it all wrong and even the words they use are wrong. When they laugh, you would pull out your laptop and produce 100 google references to prove it. If your assumed expert status on cheese is as sound as your assumed expert status on bees, well, I got to wonder just how good your bees do.

What you are trying to assert (in a convoluted way) is that honey from untreated hives has been made differently than honey from treated hives. Where's the proof? All the argument in the world, is not proof. A study showing it would be close enough for most though.

And heck, we're not even saying it's not the case. We're saying it is unproven, and may or may not be the case. I'm amazed you have spent so much time arguing that. I too also have to withdraw my offer of financial assistance. Money on a research project run by someone with such a blatantly obvious bias, would be a waste.


----------



## jbeshearse

Just an FYI: the Brevard county fipronil bee kill was an intentional sabotage of this keepers bees. Someone poisoned his feed barrel that was in the back of his truck while he was out of town. 


http://m.tcpalm.com/news/2011/dec/12/massive-kill-honey-bees-south-brevard-insecticide/


----------



## squarepeg

interesting story:

a woman walks up to a honey stand run by a local beekeeper at the farmer's market. the beekeeper has a little sign on a stand, that gives a little explanation about his bee operation and describes what pure raw honey is.

after reading the little sign, the woman asks, "do you use any chemicals on your bees? i have heard that it is better to buy honey made by bees that have not been exposed to chemicals."

the man smiles and replies, "yes ma'am, there is a lot of talk these days about chemicals in honey, and there are some beekeepers that make it a point not to use any on their bees.

but i am sure that you have probably also heard that the bees are having a difficult time in recent years because of new diseases and pests, and that many of the bees are dying.

one of the most common reasons for the bees dying is because their box gets infested with little mites, which are actually little ticks. these ticks attach themselves to the bees and suck their blood, just like big ticks do to people. there can be hundreds, even thousands of these little ticks in one box. what is even worse, is that these little ticks carry very bad germs which they infect the bees with. these germs are passed around and sometimes the whole box of bees becomes sick.

we don't want your honey coming from a box of sick bees, so we believe that it is better to not let the bees get sick. to keep the bees from getting sick, it is sometimes necessary to help them by getting rid of the ticks. this can be done simply by using things that are naturally found in honey, and if done properly, the honey is not affected in any bad way at all.

we believe that it is wrong just to let the bees get sick and die, and we sure don't want your honey coming from sick bees, so yes ma'am, we do sometimes have to help the bees with these ticks. we do so in a very responsible way, and you can be sure that your honey is very clean and pure."

the woman replies, "thank you so much for taking the time to explain all that. i really had no idea so much was involved. i'll take three quarts please."


----------



## deknow

I'd like to take the time to reply to this, as you have obviously taken some time to read and understand the study in question.....that alone is basis for a productive discussion. I haven’t quoted everything you said in your last post…but I did try not to cut anything out that had substantive meaning to the discussion. If I missed something that you think is important, please let me know.



jbeshearse said:


> My stance is that it does not necessarily affect the bees and the probabilities are against it doing so.


I do not agree with the above...the statement "the probabilities are against it doing so" is, in of itself, "untested and unproven". On the contrary, we know that changes in gut microbiota affect organisms greatly. IMHO, the probabilities are that when you make any drastic change to an important component of a system, the system is affected. The fact that the data indicates that antibiotic resistance becomes less common after the use of antibiotics has ceased strongly supports the case that the antibiotic resistant populations are less fit for the environment of the honeybee gut than their non-resistant versions (unless of course, antibiotics are used).



> Further, that if it does by some long shot, it still is unlikely to have a detrimental effect on the survivability of the bees or the honey they make.


...again, "unproven and untested". It's also important to define what a "detrimental effect" on honey would be. Many would claim that 5% (or 30%) feed in honey isn't detrimental...heck, they might be eating it along side fake pancake syrup. 



> There are studies looking into possibilities that gut microbe mutations contributed to the CCD problem. Can you cite any that have found proof of it, or are you simply waving the flag of possibility?


I'm only aware of the Mattila study, and I haven't read it closely...but lack of a negative (especially when limited resources have been spent on the issue) hardly equates a positive (or the other way around...not sure which way I should phrase that in this case)….but I’ve never made any CCD claims.





> You are right, it is a gross misreading, but it is yours not mine. First off I said the purpose of the study was and to quote: “The purpose of the study was to prove that antibiotic treatments affect more than the target species and provide a path for the intended pathogen to develop resistance to the antibiotic used. “


You are close there...but there was no need to "prove" that non-target species are affected....it is a given, and it is given in the first sentence of the abstract. There is also no need to "prove" that antibiotic resistance is one of the effects.

What the study showed was that the effect includes the accumulation of resistance genes that occur in many populations (not just AFB, but also humans and farm animals)...note I did not say “originate in”.


> Thus, long-term antibiotic treatment has caused the bee gut microbiota to accumulate resistance genes, drawn from a widespread pool of highly mobile loci characterized from pathogens and agricultural sites.





> Then I went on to say: “Specifically AFB resistance to tetracycline”
> I guess it is okay for you to misquote and “clarify”!


hmmmm, but you said, "and provide a path for the intended pathogen to develop resistance to the antibiotic used".....but there is nothing here about the path that AFB [the intended pathogen] used to secure antibiotic resistance...in fact, they state clearly that they don't know if the resistant genes started in AFB [via mutation or selection], or transferred to AFB from some other bee gut microbe, human, or farm animal [microbes]
http://apisuk.com/Bees/2012/11/research-afb-resistance/
“Moran notes that beekeepers have long used oxytetracycline to control the bacterium that causes foulbrood, but the pathogen eventually acquired resistance to tetracycline itself. Of the foulbrood pathogens Melissococcus pluton and Paenibacillus larvae, Moran says, “They carry tetL, which is one of the eight resistance genes we found. It’s possible that the gene was transferred either from the gut bacteria to the pathogen or from the pathogen to the gut bacteria.””

..



> From the abstact “Antibiotic treatment can impact nontarget microbes, enriching the pool of resistance genes available to pathogens and altering community profiles of microbes beneficial to hosts.”
> 
> 
> 
> For this study, what are the nontarget microbes? Gut microbes. What is the pathogen? AFB
Click to expand...

...and what is the "path"? What direction does it go in? Is "jumping genes" without describing where they jump from and to describe a path? I'm not so sure it does....certainly the word "can" gets in the way of assuming they determined the path, no?



> Also From the study : “The impact of antibiotics on the gut microbiota of animals is a particular concern, since gut communities may act as reservoirs for resistance genes that can be transferred to pathogens (1–3)”
> Transferred to pathogens…. Once again what pathogen was being treated for? What was the reason for the study?


...but they clearly decline to state that the genes originated in AFB, or if they transferred to AFB...these communities _may_ transfer genes to pathogens...but the pathogens can also transfer these genes to the rest of the community.




> Hmmm, what was the reason for the study?


Well, according to the paper, “In this paper, we investigate antibiotic resistance in the honeybee gut microbiota using a variety of functional and sequence-based assays on bees from colonies in the United States and from countries in which antibiotics have not been used in beekeeping. We report an accumulation of resistance genes specifically in the gut microbiota of honeybees within the United States, where oxytetracycline has been used in beekeeping.”



> Well, I guess you have me there. I will have to suppose that Dee’s bees are the Arizona bees you refer to and that the Utah ferals are the Utah bees referred to. Although I don’t know how they determined that the bees from Utah had not been exposed to tetracycline the past 25 years. But the results bear out that they have not,so I will assume they are correct. But understand these are assumptions on my part.


Check your facts…the study claims the bees from Arizona had not been exposed to tetracycline in the past 25 years…the Utah bees were only qualified as being, “…and samples from long-established feral colonies in Utah, also expected to have no recent exposure.” I’m not getting on your case about this, but I think it’s worth clarifying. You will see D. Lusby thanked in the paper, and I know from talking to the researcher that those are her bees.



> More importantly though is that yes there are 3 loci in the non-treated populations and 8 in the treated. WOW. 5 extra loci.(yes 8-3 = 5 not 6) How many genes does each gut bacteria have? How many pairs in their DNA? How much of the dna are “waste dna”. Without reference 6 is a meaningless number? Is 5 a significantly statistical number?


I’m not sure why you think this is insignificant. There are two factors here…one is the number of loci (the number of “methods” that the bacteria resists antibiotics) and the copy number (the frequency that these genes are present). These are not theoretical resistance genes, they are already known protein sequences that confer antibiotic resistance. If they came at no cost to the community, they would not dissipate with time (as they appear to). The copy rate can be seen by looking at the bottom figure on the chart I posted.
If this were a boxing video game, “loci” would be the number of different punches you can use, and “copy rate” would be how many of these punches you can throw in a minute. When the loci number is high, you are agile and adaptable….when your copy rate is high, you are throwing a lot of punches. The exposure to antibiotics more than doubled the number of loci, and increased the copy rate by what, 20X, more? This is not a small effect.




> Nowhere in the study was there any indication that any of these 8 characteristic bacterial species were absent in the treated bees verses the untreated bees. So where is this “loss of diversity? You are reading between the lines to reach a conclusion that is not supported by observation or the study.


This is a good point, and certainly I make an assumption that hard selecting individuals in a microbial community for antibiotic resistance does not result in the same diversity of that population. But this is not just based on assumption: 
First, from the study, “Prolonged exposure to a single broad-spectrum antibiotic imposes strong selective pressure on a microbial community that is expected to result in loss of strain diversity.”
Secondly, From Gut Microbes: Volume 4, Issue 1 January/February 2013
Keywords: Gilliamella, Snodgrassella, gut microbiome, insects, pectin, symbionts
Authors: Philipp Engel and Nancy A. Moran
"...Gene contents could be linked to different symbiotic functions with the host. Further, we found a high degree of genetic diversity within each of these species. In the case of the gammaproteobacterial species Gilliamella apicola, we could experimentally show a link between genetic variation of isolates and functional differences suggesting that niche partitioning within this species has emerged during evolution with its bee hosts."
It would be hard (even if one were trying) to select from a diverse population and have the resulting population maintain that diversity. It would be rather unbelievable that exposure to antibiotics wouldn’t reduce the diversity of the population.






> What I read is that there is a slight difference in the genes of the two. One has some tetracycline resistance and the others do not.


What I read is that the first time anyone has looked at anything relating to the microbes in treated vs untreated bees that they found a significant difference exactly where they expected to find it. Antibiotic resistance _is_ metabolically expensive, and the data here supports that point. 


> You have taken a sample of a few genes from an unknown pool of genes in a small bacteria in an evolved larger organism and extrapolated it to indicate a significance that is not there.


I’m not sure that is a correct assessment, but I didn’t want to leave your comment out of my reply. The study looked specifically _for_ known antibiotic resistance genes, and found them. The real significance, I think, is that clearly the resistant versions are less fit than the non-resistant versions when antibiotics are not used. I think that is significant. 





> Hmmm…. I have seen no proof of that having occurred in this study. Show me again where the “nature and composition” of these subpopulations has changed in a way that has affected the honeybee? What does that effect look like? Where is the proof?


The question I asked here was, do YOU think that changing the nature of these “subpopulations” has no effect on the bee. I have no “proof” that it does, but then again, no one has ever looked. Is there any research out there that looks at what happens when you discontinue routine antibiotic use (besides AFB blooming).



> I am not going to waste a lot of time in further response, I learned long ago there is a large difference in talking at someone and talking to them. All in all, I think this thread needs to return to its original intent, I think that was small cell beekeeping.


Nothing would make me happier than to discuss the Seeley study with you…it would be productive.


----------



## Cleo C. Hogan Jr

Barry...After reading through the 406 responses on this thread, spread over 21 pages, can Beesource go ahead and present me with my PHD in Small Cell Beekeeping now, or do I have to keep reading?

cchoganjr


----------



## Riskybizz

Cleo 

As I commented to Oldtimer awhile ago we all need to pay close attention as there might be a test at the end of all this. Barry must have the patience of Job and I commend him.


----------



## deknow

Oldtimer said:


> You sent them a *rough draft*, that was *slightly revised*, and the response was you got the *science correct*.


Not only did I send a rough draft...I specifically noted that it was a rough draft, and I was specific about the response I got. Note the precision and CLARITY of my own words, that I said exactly what I meant.



> I can quite imagine you walking into a cheese factory and telling them they are doing it all wrong and even the words they use are wrong.


errrr, what knowledge of fermentation have you displayed?...and you claim to be a professional. Here's an interesting story...once upon a time, on a fourm (might have even been beesource), I claimed that fermentation was the result of microbial activity. When someone called me on it, I looked it up, and lo and behold...they were correct....fermentation is an enzymatic process regardless of the source of the enzymes or if there are microbes involved. I wasn't as mistaken as you (I knew there was bacterial, fungal, and yeast fermentation), but i was mistaken. I thanked the person who corrected my inaccurate statement, and I never made the same mistake again. hmmmmm



> What you are trying to assert (in a convoluted way) is that honey from untreated hives has been made differently than honey from treated hives.


Thank you for "clarifying"my statements again...but, no thank you. Feel free to quote me though and we can discuss it.




> And heck, we're not even saying it's not the case. We're saying it is unproven, and may or may not be the case. I'm amazed you have spent so much time arguing that.


I have spent time reviewing the research on gut microbes and a bit about how we think honey is produced...and the best information is that they are related, that the gut microbes have some influence on the production of honey. If you want to say I've claimed any more than that....again, quote me. I don't think that is too much to ask.

deknow


----------



## deknow

jbeshearse said:


> Just an FYI: the Brevard county fipronil bee kill was an intentional sabotage of this keepers bees. Someone poisoned his feed barrel that was in the back of his truck while he was out of town.
> http://m.tcpalm.com/news/2011/dec/12/massive-kill-honey-bees-south-brevard-insecticide/


yes, but the report I posted has much more interesting details as far as the beekeeping practices go...no?

deknow


----------



## Oldtimer

EDIT - Wrote this post before I saw your reply to mine, Deknow.


deknow said:


> True...just as in humans and farm animals, antibiotics are used to modify the population of resident microbes. Is it your claim that changing the nature and composition of these "subpopulations" does not effect the bees.





jbeshearse said:


> Hmmm…. I have seen no proof of that having occurred in this study. Show me again where the “nature and composition” of these subpopulations has changed in a way that has affected the honeybee? What does that effect look like? Where is the proof?
> .





deknow said:


> The question I asked here was, do YOU think that changing the nature of these “subpopulations” has no effect on the bee. I have no “proof” that it does, but then again, no one has ever looked. Is there any research out there that looks at what happens when you discontinue routine antibiotic use (besides AFB blooming)..


Deknow I'd like to answer all of the stuff in your post, but to do it completely and do it right, would take me a couple of days.

However I've pulled up the above 3 quotes, to try and show what's wrong with the way you argue, why this thread has gone the way it has, and why pretty much every thread goes the same way, if you join it.

You have definately been trying to get the message across that the use of antibiotics changes the composition and nature of BEES.

In response, Jbshearse, quite reasonably, asked for proof, or if there is any way you could show this. 

Now here comes the problem with the way you argue and the reason none of your threads go anywhere. Instead of giving a straight answer, you respond to the question, with another QUESTION. I see this theme being repeated over and over. 

The readers of this thread are not stupid. Trying to beguile people, when you have no proof of something, with insinuations and questions, that lead a particular way but never prove anything, will mislead maybe 1/2 the readers, as has happened in this thread. But the other 1/2, see straight through it. You then get people questioning you, and as you've done in this thread, respond by trying to bamboozle them with red herrings, discredit them or try to catch them out on something possibly non related, to make them look silly. Doesn't prove anything, and doesn't get you any friends. 

Most threads go the same once you join it, is this why you no longer post on B-Line?

You need to get past your own agendas, if they have no proof, accept that. What you are trying to plug in this thread, has no proof.

Continue arguing with all comers if you wish. But there is no proof for your hypothesis.


----------



## Oldtimer

deknow said:


> I wasn't as mistaken as you (I knew there was bacterial, fungal, and yeast fermentation), but i was mistaken.
> deknow


Oh spare us. I really can't let that one go I have grown weary of your false assumptions and simplistic thinking, along with attempts to belittle and discredit. Now, you are trying to imply I didn't know there was such a thing as bacterial, fungal, and yeast fermentation. You assume WAY to much. Think I'm an idiot. or what? Course I knew that and why would I at the time, have attempted to ascertain wether you were referring to bacterial fermentation if I didn't know that. Sorry, but you are a child.



deknow said:


> *but i was mistaken. * I thanked the person who corrected my inaccurate statement.
> 
> deknow


I knew that the whole time. But of course, there's NO WAY you are going to take it from me, so I told you to go google it.

I will though, give you 10 points for fessing up. But this is unfortunately countered by all the other crap and general bad behaviour.

I'll repeat. There is no proof for your hypothesis. Continuing to argue it does cast doubt on the validity of all the other stuff you argue.


----------



## deknow

errrr, if you look at the 3 quotes you posted (only two of them were mine), you claim, 


> "You have definately been trying to get the message across that the use of antibiotics changes the composition and nature of BEES.
> 
> In response, Jbshearse, quite reasonably, asked for proof, or if there is any way you could show this.
> 
> Now here comes the problem with the way you argue and the reason none of your threads go anywhere. Instead of giving a straight answer, you respond to the question, with another QUESTION. I see this theme being repeated over and over. "


Now, here's the rub....put things in context.

In response the the STATEMENT by jbshearse:

"First and for-most, this study is not about the effects of antibiotics on bees, it is about ancillary effects on subpopulations that inhabit bees. "

I asked a question...a reasonable one.

"True...just as in humans and farm animals, antibiotics are used to modify the population of resident microbes. Is it your claim that changing the nature and composition of these "subpopulations" does not effect the bees."

In response to my QUESTION, jbshearse didn't answer it...he/she (not making any transgender statements..I just don't know your gender) responded to my legitimate QUESTION with a QUESTION.

"Hmmm…. I have seen no proof of that having occurred in this study. Show me again where the “nature and composition” of these subpopulations has changed in a way that has affected the honeybee? What does that effect look like? Where is the proof?"

...at which point I reitterated my original, legitimate QUESTION
"The question I asked here was, do YOU think that changing the nature of these “subpopulations” has no effect on the bee. I have no “proof” that it does, but then again, no one has ever looked. Is there any research out there that looks at what happens when you discontinue routine antibiotic use (besides AFB blooming).."



> Instead of giving a straight answer, you respond to the question, with another QUESTION. I see this theme being repeated over and over.


Well, I haven't been paying attention to such things...but I see your point....except that I'm not the one that ANSWERED A QUESTION WITH A QUESTION in your example. It seems I am the "victim" of the "crime" you are pointing out, not the perpetrator.

deknow


----------



## deknow

I'm confused by this whole post....


Oldtimer said:


> Oh spare us. I really can't let that one go I have grown weary of your false assumptions and simplistic thinking, along with attempts to belittle and discredit. Now, you are trying to imply I didn't know there was such a thing as bacterial, fungal, and yeast fermentation. You assume WAY to much. Think I'm an idiot. or what?


In response to my statement: "...the characteristics of fermented foods is largely dependent on who (microbially) is doing the fermenting."

you replied (in part) with: "Fermentation (which implies by bacteria)..."

I'm not sure how to interpret that other than "fermentation implies by bacteria"...if you meant something else, please clarify what you meant...how could I get anything else from that statement? If I misunderstood, please explain what the heck you meant, and how I was supposed to understand what you meant based on what you said?



> I will though, give you 10 points for fessing up. But this is unfortunately countered by all the other crap and general bad behaviour.


Still, I don't understand....the story I related about being corrected happened years ago. The only fessing up I did was for a mistake (a wrong statement made out of ignorance) years ago. I still have no idea why you said that fermentation implied bacteria. Is it because the Moran study is only looking at bacteria? If so, how does that imply that yeasts and fungi aren't involved in the fermentation?

deknow


----------



## Oldtimer

If you want to see it that way.

As I said, I just don't have the time, or see the value for me, in going through the whole thing. The small example I used may be incomplete enough for you to pick some holes in it. In the end, that will be your problem, not mine.


----------



## deknow

You have consistently misrepresented what I have said. I legitimately asked for some quotes to back up the personal attacks....and when you finally put mind to actually quote me, it backfired on you because you misrepresented what I have said....consistently. There is nothing incomplete here except your analysis.

deknow


----------



## Oldtimer

OK, Yet again, I'll take the bait, as yet again you are using your favorite technique of trying to make someone look silly (me in this case).



deknow said:


> I'm confused by this whole post....
> In response to my statement: "...the characteristics of fermented foods is largely dependent on who (microbially) is doing the fermenting."
> you replied (in part) with: "Fermentation (which implies by bacteria)..."
> 
> deknow


 To many people, fermentation implies by bacteria. That it can be other things, is why I drew attention to that. 



deknow said:


> ..if you meant something else, please clarify what you meant...how could I get anything else from that statement? If I misunderstood, please explain what the heck you meant, and how I was supposed to understand what you meant based on what you said?
> deknow


 Well sorry you didn't understand. Looking at it perhaps my meaning wasn't clear. Although it still must be the most likely interpretation, unless someone already had an agenda.



deknow said:


> Still, I don't understand....the story I related about being corrected happened years ago. The only fessing up I did was for a mistake (a wrong statement made out of ignorance) years ago. I still have no idea why you said that fermentation implied bacteria. Is it because the Moran study is only looking at bacteria? If so, how does that imply that yeasts and fungi aren't involved in the fermentation?
> deknow


 Oh Ok well I'll have to apologise I got that one totally wrong. I thought you had been referring to this thread, specifically your argument about terminology related to cheese making. In my defence I'm hardly likely to know you are suddenly talking about something you said years ago, am I?


----------



## Barry

Riskybizz said:


> Barry must have the patience of Job and I commend him.


It's running out. I think it's time to close this thread. Everyone has till 6:00 for final postings. The test will be tomorrow, so study up.


----------



## Oldtimer

deknow said:


> You have consistently misrepresented what I have said. I legitimately asked for some quotes to back up the personal attacks....and when you finally put mind to actually quote me, it backfired on you because you misrepresented what I have said....consistently. There is nothing incomplete here except your analysis.
> 
> deknow


Rubbish. As per my last post, written before I even saw the post I've just quoted, I realised where I did not realise what you were talking about, (even though it was no fault of mine), and have even apologised for that. Something you could learn from.


----------



## deknow

To nobody that drinks beer does fermentation imply bacteria.

deknow


----------



## deknow

Barry, I ask that you leave the thread active, giving jbshearse time to comment. A lot of time went into those posts, and if there is going to be any discussion, it will at least be informed.

deknow


----------



## jim lyon

deknow said:


> yes, but the report I posted has much more interesting details as far as the beekeeping practices go...no?
> 
> deknow


It speaks to a number of things Dean, among them is the fact that any one of your suppliers could just as easily have been the victim of this crime. Given that you have no testing program in place what protects you and your customers when unforeseen circumstances taint their honey? Such an occurance directly demonstrates what I said a looooooong time ago in this thread and that is why not simply let testing be your criteria. You estimated a full honey profile could be had for something under $300. If one would use a blending of samples from, perhaps, a 10 drum lot that would amount to less than .05 per lb. in testing costs. If your supplier would agree to share the cost that would get you down to a little over .02 a lb. Seems like a pretty small cost to pay when you are marketing a premium product for top dollar. What cost piece of mind? What cost consumer safety?


----------



## Oldtimer

No it implies yeast. 

Sorry Barry, written before I saw your post.

Deknow, thanks for another brilliant thread. No doubt it will be a big help to my beekeeping, and with this knowledge, you might even be able to stop buying packages to replace all your bees every year.


----------



## jim lyon

I'm all done Barry. Now to print out these 400+ posts and start studying for the big test. Sure do hope the ink and paper supply holds out. Wonder if I could figure out a way to get a pie chart showing who did the most postings?:gh:Thought this would be a good graphic to leave as a reminder of all the good times. Hey Dean, as Bill O'Reilly would say (Im sure you love him) "I'll give you the final word" (could it be any other way?)


----------



## deknow

Is it time for the "yo momma" insults now? get a grip!

Jim, in this case, the crime was evident...the bees were dead/dying, no? All of our suppliers are observant and honest...if something like this was going on, they would notice, and they would take action.

there is always the possibility of something more subtle going on...but how many people/year are poisoned by honey in the U.S.? we are dealing directly with the producers who are well above average in their skills and their attention to detail. Given their practices and who they are (and the extent to which I feel like I can rest my business on their integrity and skill), I'm not very concerned...I'm much more paranoid about broken glass ending up in a jar.

But one thing is for sure....if they had an incident that needed someone to investigate, the investigators would not find amatraz (which was illegal at the time, and still is in fl, I think...but now there is a higher than zero limit in honey) or fipronol filled cd cases in the bottoms of the hive. I don't care who tests that stuff, I don't want it.

deknow


----------



## Riskybizz

I apologize but I simply can't resist pointing out the obvious. Here is an individual relying on "observant and honest" individuals whom he does business with buying untested honey that he professes to be superior that has challenged the beekeeping practices of a large scale honey producer (who actually controls 100% of his operation and has definitive independent testing results to show that it is some of the purest honey available) who wants us to follow his rhetoric and believe that the product he markets and sells (does not produce) is for whatever reason superior. Now pardon me for a second here while I scrape years of propolis off my brain, does this make sense to anyone?


----------



## Oldtimer

Sense? No there's certainly double standards involved as everybody elses honey is tested and held up for public scrutiny, but not his own. Or more accurately as he doesn't actually produce honey, what he buys from other beekeepers. What's to hide?

After reading the one eyed comments in these threads though, one eyed business practises hardly surprise me.

It's what happens when a person believes their own propaganda. Doing the testing, could be a risk. Better "don't know, can't say".


----------



## squarepeg

on the other hand, if none of us gave a crap, there wouldn't be all this bs. 

cheers.


----------



## Oldtimer

True. Guess being insulted, belittled and made to appear a liar is hard to resist attempting to refute, along with watching things being "proved", that aren't proved. But I'll have to try more self discipline, there's a lot of gear in my shed should have been made yesterday.


----------



## deknow

I offer an open invitation to anyone that has participated in this thread to choose any honey in our facility or off the shelf to test it by any of the standard methods, or via the Polarmetrics machine (I give this caveat because one time I was told our honey was being tested against other honey in the store, and it turned out it was "muscle testing".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applied_kinesiology

you think it should be done, you think i have something to hide, you pay for it. You better come pick it out yourself so I don't give you "one of the good batches" I only ask that it not be the only honey you test at the same time...test it along with your own, with honey from walmart, or honey from the health food store, or amazon.com for all i care.

deknow

deknow


----------

