# "Small Cell Fails To Save My Apiary" or



## odfrank (May 13, 2002)

"Is Small Cell the Biggest Hoax of Beekeeping This Decade?"

What ever has been causing the local Die Off for the last few years has crashed my small cell apiary hard this year.
Four overwintered hives. One of five dead last winter
Six new ones from swarms baited onto small cell combs.
Ample honey in dead hives. 
Ten hives at middle of summer produced 600+ lbs harvest primarily from the new spring caught bait hives. Two failed in fall, five more during winter. One Koehnen, six ferals.
The promise that small cell eliminates "secondary diseases" - Not.
The promise that ferals were "survivors" - Not.
The remaining three hives have tiny clusters and are unlikely to over winter. No sign of excessive moisture. The die off appears identical to the large cell hive die offs.
This has been an isolated SC apiary for fours year now.
After six years of following all the SC dogma, I still see no advantage.


----------



## Omie (Nov 10, 2009)

Frank,
I remember those awful photos (and a video too, if I recall?) of the _massive _bee die-offs you posted of your hives some time ago. Did you ever figure out just what killed all those thousands and thousands of bees in such a short period of time? It was terrible, whatever it was- I felt really bad for you at the time. Did you find out what caused all those bees to die at once?


----------



## odfrank (May 13, 2002)

Omie said:


> . Did you find out what caused all those bees to die at once?


No, slower die off this year but might add up to similar percentages. Other local beekeepers also reporting some 100% losses. The 20% loss at the small cell apiary made for hope last year, but it is up to 70% there this year. And if somebody suggests starvation. they have to come help extract the dead brood chambers.


----------



## heaflaw (Feb 26, 2007)

Were they treated for diseases?

How sure are you that the "ferals" are actually feral and not from a neighbor's hives who regularly has to treat while you didn't?


----------



## WI-beek (Jul 14, 2009)

Its not mites? Mites will weaken and destroy colonies by destroying all brood or weakening them to die off from disease.


----------



## jrbbees (Apr 4, 2010)

Omie said:


> Frank,
> Did you ever figure out just what killed all those thousands and thousands of bees in such a short period of time? Did you find out what caused all those bees to die at once?


No cell size will save your bees until you can answer the above. I am sorry but that is the key.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

heaflaw said:


> How sure are you that the "ferals" are actually feral and not from a neighbor's hives who regularly has to treat while you didn't?


Define feral please.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

odfrank said:


> *"Small Cell Fails To Save My Apiary" or* "Is Small Cell the Biggest Hoax of Beekeeping This Decade?"


I doubt it. Apparently your LC has not saved your apiary either! Or those around you as well. Look beyond cell size for what is happening.


----------



## AmericasBeekeeper (Jan 24, 2010)

Resistant bees and small cell is better - that is two assumptions. It does not matter if it is small cell or natural cell the bees are better on current foundation sizes. There are several first year or new beekeepers around the country looking for magic cures. Small cell regression is just one. 
Small-cell comb foundation does not impede Varroa mite population growth in honey bee colonies. Varroa recognize and prefer drone comb for the longer gestation. Stimulating the queen to lay drones and destroying those cells before maturity works. Dr. Amanda Ellis is Dr. Jamie Ellis’ wife and just as involved with bees. Jerry Hayes is the Chief Bee Inspector for Florida. If you notice the researchers are from multiple state colleges.

A. M. Ellis1 , G. W. Hayes1 and J. D. Ellis2
(1) 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
(2) Honey Bee Research and Extension Laboratory, Department of Entomology and Nematology, University of Florida, Bldg. 970 Natural Area Dr., Gainesville, FL 32611-0620, USA
Received: 3 October 2008 Accepted: 10 November 2008 Published online: 6 December 2008 
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 cm2 brood. To summarize our results, we found that the use of small cell foundation did not significantly affect cm2 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. 

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.
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.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Yes, we are well aware of all the studies surrounding SC. Your current foundation size suggestion still requires treatments. It did for me the last time I used it. Studies are only one part of the whole picture. My personal experience, as well as everyone else's experience with SC have greater weight. So far, the lion share of SC falls on the side of success, not failure. People who have used it for more than a couple of years. Look through the archives, these studies have already been discussed at length and exposed for what they are, limited controlled studies that prove limited controlled results.

http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=240489
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=231795
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=231356
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=224000
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=228387
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=215123
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=240953


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Barry said:


> everyone else's experience with SC have greater weight.


Not quite everyone.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Sure, everyone's. odfrank's experience as well. He is still in the minority and from what information he has given us, there appears to be something else going on that is not related to cell size.


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi Guys

Small cell was a step in the right direction. And it worked for most of my beekeeping problems a decade ago.

But this is a new decade. And with it comes a new round of bee problems. This new round is unlike anything I've experienced in the past. It has affected my bees and apparently most of the wild bees around here as well.

Randy Oliver has been describing it in his "Sick Bees" articles in the ABJ. Might want to check it out.

Regards - Dennis Murrell


----------



## kwest (May 16, 2009)

i only have a few years of experience but i am really happy with my natural cell bees and foundationless frames. i have not treated my bees with anything at all. i have lost a few hives of bees but they have all been due to starvation or two small of #'s to make it. i have only put dry sugar or sugar water in the hives to feed them a little as they are drawing comb. i do know that i recieved two nucs of small cell bees from the fat bee man last spring and they are doing really good. I am looking for them to be my strongest hives from here on out. have you tried getting some nucs from someone like him who has generations of small cell untreated bees. just a thought.
i also have a hive of small black bees that i got as a swarm last summer. they have steadily grown and look to be doing well. i started with bees from koehans and they have done okay. one hive is really strong the other dwindled and failed over time. may have been my fault or the bees  for not requeening. I just refuse to treat my bees and natural cell is cheaper because i dont have to buy foundation.


----------



## heaflaw (Feb 26, 2007)

sqkcrk said:


> Define feral please.


That's a great question. My stab at it would be a colony that has been healthy at least 2 years without beekeeper intervention. Since such a colony would presumably swarm at least once every year, there would be a number of them in a geographical area and they would trade genetics back and forth with beekeeper's colonies in that area.


----------



## rrussell6870 (May 14, 2009)

Just had a pretty lengthy discussion about this topic in the tread titled "Natural Comb, Drones, and Mites??" under the disease and pests forums.

may be helpful... here is a link...

http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=249223


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Well from reading a lot of threads the word I've had on small cell is that it's easier than using foundation, cheaper, and you never have to treat. This from several chat site experts.

So, I decided to start up a small cell hive, and said so on the forum. The result was that I got pm and emails from people who have tried it in some cases for years, and it didn't work out, they warned me away.

I suggested to these people that if what they say is true they should post it on the forum for all to read. But the interesting thing was that in every case, they did not want to go public. So I think the small cell crowd may not be quite as happy as some may imagine.

As a result of all this advise, I decided not to bother with small cell, but 24 hours later re-thought & I'll do one hive. In fact I just put 3 empty frames into a hive today & I'll gradually swap the other frames out. As per advice from the small cell experts I'll use no treatment. I'll probably start a thread on the experiment, with photos.


----------



## BeeCurious (Aug 7, 2007)

Oldtimer said:


> Well from reading a lot of threads the word I've had on small cell is that it's easier than using foundation.


Oldtimer,

You seem to be talking about "natural cell"... and not small cell.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

Oldtimer said:


> As a result of all this advise, I decided not to bother with small cell, but 24 hours later re-thought & I'll do one hive. In fact I just put 3 empty frames into a hive today & I'll gradually swap the other frames out. As per advice from the small cell experts I'll use no treatment. I'll probably start a thread on the experiment, with photos.


oldtimer,
i'm not sure what your experiment is. with that said, if you are going to follow "advice from the small cell experts", it would be helpful to clarify a bit what that advice is, who it came from, and how your own procedures differ from the advice.

based on my own experience, i don't think that adding a few empty frames at a time will result in sufficiently small comb (when we've shaken packages onto foundationless, we've gotten 5.1-5.2mm cells), and i wouldn't expect 1 colony (especially if it is in the midst of a number of LC colonies) to prove (or even demonstrate) anything.

i certainly recommend not treating...but there are so many other management details that need to be considered. simply pulling a few frames and discontinuing treatment will likely "prove" problematic in my experience.

michael bush has had better luck with "regressing onto foundationless" than we have...but his method is more detailed than "gradually swapping out frames".

deknow


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Oldtimer said:


> As a result of all this advise, I decided not to bother with small cell, but 24 hours later re-thought & I'll do one hive. In fact I just put 3 empty frames into a hive today & I'll gradually swap the other frames out.


I see a train wreck coming. Sorta like taking the shoe and sock off and sticking the big toe in and saying "I went swimming." The very first thing Ed and Dee told me years ago when I started out was "you can't do it halfway." I suggest the 3 frame approach will do nothing desirable.

Regarding all those that had bad experience with SC, their silence can equally be taken that it has nothing to do with SC per se, but a lack of following protocol on their part and not wanting to have the open discussion that would follow. We won't know unless they speak up and be transparent.


----------



## odfrank (May 13, 2002)

When I years back first indicated that small cell was not working for me, the SC'ers also told me my problem was that I had not gone 100%, I had to develope a 100% small cell apiary remote from my LC bees. So that the LC problems could jump not over to my SC hives. I did just that, built it up to ten hives all lured onto small cell combs, indicating to me that they were happy SC bees. 
I started this thread, when after years of following their advice, this apiary has crashed 70% to date. Maybe SC can help reduce mite counts, but it clearly can not help with the virus, fungus, bacteria or whatever has killed my bees the last four winters.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Barry said:


> We won't know unless they speak up and be transparent.


I've been 'transparent' on a number of occasions. My guess (and I know of several examples) is that a number of new beekeepers jumped on the SC bandwagon and had their hives fail. In their cases it may well be less about being transparent and more about leaving the hobby. And I don't plan to beat this dead horse again.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

BeeCurious said:


> You seem to be talking about "natural cell"... and not small cell.


Correct, it will be natural cell, which according to M Bush, IS small cell. But to clarify, I won't be using foundation it will be natural comb.






deknow said:


> i'm not sure what your experiment is. with that said, if you are going to follow "advice from the small cell experts", it would be helpful to clarify a bit what that advice is, who it came from, and how your own procedures differ from the advice.


 Well there's a few small cell / natural cell experts on the site and I've been following them all. However they all disagree over various points so I'll be following primarily M Bush. When I was reading M Bush yesterday he said that when he started to switch over he stopped treating from the outset. I'll also be taking input from any other people on the site willing to give it. Might not use ALL input because obviously it will not all be compatable.





deknow said:


> based on my own experience, i don't think that adding a few empty frames at a time will result in sufficiently small comb (when we've shaken packages onto foundationless, we've gotten 5.1-5.2mm cells), and i wouldn't expect 1 colony (especially if it is in the midst of a number of LC colonies) to prove (or even demonstrate) anything.


 OK well that's the sort of advice I'll be needing. For now, the frames have gone between other frames simply to get them straight. Soon as they're done I'll be removing more frames to replace with empty frames. 
I know this will not give sc immediately, in fact the first 3 may be drone comb. So as per M Bush, the first nc combs to get built will get swapped out also soon as possible, to get me further down the track of regression.





Barry said:


> I see a train wreck coming. Sorta like taking the shoe and sock off and sticking the big toe in and saying "I went swimming."


 Gimme a break. 

Some folks getting their knickers in a twist already.


As previously said I'll be starting a thread on this so everything will be totally transparent, and there will be input from anybody willing to guide me along the way.
Yes, the hive will be among other non sc hives however mite drift will not be an issue I manage the other hives and don't let mites build up.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

odfrank said:


> I started this thread, when after years of following their advice, this apiary has crashed 70% to date. Maybe SC can help reduce mite counts, but it clearly can not help with the virus, fungus, bacteria or whatever has killed my bees the last four winters.


Never has been said that SC will keep bees from dying. Might want to figure out what is causing your bee die off.


----------



## rrussell6870 (May 14, 2009)

We have hundreds of hives that are on truly natural comb... they were started by placing cut-out comb from pre-mite feral colonies in frames and letting the feral colony build up on its own and draw all of the frames that it wants to... no foundation, no large bee, no regression needed... 

When mites arrived we lost almost all of them... and they were no where near other colonies, other than feral ones that were being killed as well... No viral, fungal, or other disease issues... just mites...

We didn't see any lower losses from the natural comb, then the foundation started combs...

We have restocked those 400 natural comb hives, and although the bees that are in them now are varroa resistant, they still get varroa... still see no difference with the natural comb... Just my experience with natural comb... and it was certainly "100%"...

I would be very interested in seeing what Oldtimer finds... About that, could he use HSC throughout the whole hive and start it with a package, since there are not many "small cell colonies" in his area to start out with small bees? Would that be the fastest way to get him to full regression and all "small cell"?


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

rrussell6870 said:


> We have hundreds of hives that are on truly natural comb... they were started by placing cut-out comb from pre-mite feral colonies
> We have restocked those 400 natural comb hives,


You are still using brood comb from pre-mite days?


----------



## rrussell6870 (May 14, 2009)

Of course not... frames are pulled and replaced with empties before a flow to cycle out old comb... just like with our foundation comb.


----------



## odfrank (May 13, 2002)

Barry said:


> Never has been said that SC will keep bees from dying. Might want to figure out what is causing your bee die off.


Dee Lusby has stated repeatedly that SC bees are resistant to secondary diseases. I have been reading her Yahoo Organic Group since she spun it off from the Biological Group.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Oldtimer said:


> As a result of all this advise, I decided not to bother with small cell, but 24 hours later re-thought & I'll do one hive. In fact I just put 3 empty frames into a hive today & I'll gradually swap the other frames out. As per advice from the small cell experts I'll use no treatment. I'll probably start a thread on the experiment, with photos.


Here's the thread :-


http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?p=606206#post606206


----------



## fafrd (Aug 22, 2009)

rrussell6870 said:


> could he use HSC throughout the whole hive and start it with a package, since there are not many "small cell colonies" in his area to start out with small bees? Would that be the fastest way to get him to full regression and all "small cell"?


This is what I did and it works well. It is a little more expensive but more direct and gets to full SC regression in a single step.

-fafrd


----------



## wmgysi (Feb 14, 2009)

Thanks for this information. I have used a holistic approach (no chemicals or treatments but management) to beekeeping for 30 years using Langstroth boxes with Hoffman frames and with good results. I found a method to control the mite at a sustainable level. I call it Sustainable Mite Control (SMC) and posted the management.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

odfrank said:


> Dee Lusby has stated repeatedly that SC bees are resistant to secondary diseases.


Yes, she has said that, but to date, you have been asked by several here what is the cause of your die-offs and you haven't said.

BTW, I didn't say resistant to secondary diseases, I said "keep bees from dying."


----------



## odfrank (May 13, 2002)

Barry said:


> Yes, she has said that, but to date, you have been asked by several here what is the cause of your die-offs and you haven't said."


If I knew that, I would be a millionaire because I would know the cause and solution for the massive die off that has challenged many of us country and worldwide for the last few years.

The loss is now 100% at that site, 10/10. Substantial honey reserves left in most brood chambers. Tiny clusters of dead bees left clinging to honey reserves unable to maintain cluster warmth. Few mites found on the bottom boards.


----------



## Omie (Nov 10, 2009)

odfrank said:


> If I knew that, I would be a millionaire because I would know the cause and solution for the massive die off that has challenged many of us country and worldwide for the last few years.
> The loss is now 100% at that site, 10/10. Substantial honey reserves left in most brood chambers. Tiny clusters of dead bees left clinging to honey reserves unable to maintain cluster warmth. Few mites found on the bottom boards.


But didn't your losses include the tons and tons of dead and dying bees piling up by the thousands around your hives, that you took pictures and video of last year? You described how you swept up the dead, only to have the entire ground covered with dead and dying crawlers just hours later again?
It seems as though you are saying above that your die-offs are the same as CCD effecting the rest of the world? But in CCD there are not thousands of dead and dying/crawling bees piling up around the hives.
Are you having two entirely different sets of die-off symptoms?- one with massive dead bees and the other with all mysteriously disappeared bees? I'm a bit confused.

But I also feel those initial die off symptoms you described and photographed last year seemed to suggest a poisoning of some sort. If poisoning did turn out to be the case there, then I doubt that having small cell could miraculously keep poisoned bees from dying. Just a thought.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Do SC bees handle the cold as well?


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

Oldtimer said:


> Do SC bees handle the cold as well?


In my experience, cold survival is correlated with to where the bees are acclimated. I have trouble keeping Georgia bees alive in the winter here in Arkansas. Small cell then, small cell now.

However, I think Dee Lusby would say yes. She mentioned it in the POV section if memory serves.


----------



## StevenG (Mar 27, 2009)

hmmm The Russian bees I bought in Mississippi do the winters here in SE Missouri just fine, but Russians are supposed to survive winter well.
On the other hand, the B. Weaver bees I bought from Navasota, Texas (a tad outside Houston), all survive the winters here just fine. They're not Russian, but Weaver's breed. I wonder if there is more to winter survival rates than just the breed of bees?
Regards,
Steven


----------



## WI-beek (Jul 14, 2009)

Do small cell bees have trachea to small for the trachea mite? I listened to a program on the internet and two different guys stated that small cell bees eliminated trachea mite problems because their trachea tube was smaller. 

So being there are so many SC beeks out there who have no mite problems, why cant research show any evidence or proof of it at all? If SC bees solved the mite problem, would SC not be taking over the industry by now?

SC makes the worker brood less appealing right? So the mites seek out drone brood and breed even faster then? Studies showed no difference in worker brood infestation. Why not? 

I think anyone who has gone treatment free and SC that is having good results is not having luck with small cell but that they are getting results with survivor stock or that the mites are evolving to coexist with the bee. If SC had real advantages, it would have to at least show some evidence in study but there is none, nil, nada. Come on. Where is the pudding.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Yes since starting a small cell hive myself I have found at least one discrepancy in the writings of small cell folks.

During my research I found stated on a number of web sites that it's wrong to have bees on 5.5 mm foundation because bees, if left to their own devices, will revert to 4.9 mm cell size. Then on several sites it is stated that small cell bees don't get tracheal mites.

If both are true, how come tracheal mites exist we've only had foundation recently in the scheme of things?

However I get annoyed reading all the debates but not having personal experience, so I've gone to the dark side and started a small cell hive! We shall see what transpires.


----------



## rrussell6870 (May 14, 2009)

We have many sizes of bees and our 5.5 bees have not had issues with tracheal mites for over ten years... parasites have the ability to adapt much quicker than their hosts do... if 4.9 bees had too small of a trachea for the mites, the mites would quickly adapt and become smaller themselves... much like the regression of bees from 5.5 to 4.9, the mites would simply adjust to meet their needs for survival.

Tracheal mites are pretty much a thing of the past for most operations in the US... Although they are certainly still around, the bees cope with them quite well... there has been some discussion about the possibility that the original wave of destruction that these mites had caused was more due to a lacking internal defenses after decades of poor breeding practices which led to mass inbreeding.

The mechanics of sc preventing Tracheal mites does sound logical, but the biology of the mites would suggest that it would be more of a "hurdle" than a "mountain", and that maybe its not actually a resistance that had to be developed as much as a management caused weakness that had to be corrected.

As to what size bees should be... location (climate), predation, food source, altitude, and strain genetics are the largest factors in determining the size, color, markings, hair, and many behavioral aspects of bees... for someone in one location with one set of circumstances to say that their bees naturally draw ?? Size cells, thus every bee in the world should be regressed or increased to that size would have people creating unnatural bees all over. Best to do like oldtimer and go in both directions... allow them to naturally regress from 5.5 AND naturally increase from 4.9... then see where they end up... IF cell size is that important to you... but as I have said before... I have seen no difference in survival or health between sc, nc, or standard foundation.


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

For me, it's come down to: I know what I've read, and and what I do seems to work. I've read the scientific studies, and I know there are large cell untreated survivor bees out there doing fine. I believe small cell helps, but hygenic genetics helps more. In the end, they will adapt, survivors will reproduce, and in the grand scheme of things, human practices are probably more of a hindrance to natural selection than a help. But we need to make our honey, and we can speed up natural selection by breeding from good hives, and it get's complicated by trying to make gentle bees as well.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

rrussell6870 said:


> for someone in one location with one set of circumstances to say that their bees naturally draw ?? Size cells, thus every bee in the world should be regressed or increased to that size would have people creating unnatural bees all over.


I'm not aware of anyone saying this, are you?


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>If both are true, how come tracheal mites exist we've only had foundation recently in the scheme of things?

Pretty much the scientists are all in agreement that tracheal mites (Acarapis woodi) are either Acarapis dorsalis or Acarapis externus that made a jump from living on the outside of the bees to the inside of the bees (interestingly enough, about the time that large cell foundation get popular...). Before that time Acarapis woodi is thought to not have existed.


----------



## WI-beek (Jul 14, 2009)

Or did they come from and isolated honeybee population and get transported.
I also find it hard to believe they would make such a big jump to go from outside to inside the bee. Why the need to do so? Can they still live on the outside of the bee? If they dont get in the trachea do they die or fail to reproduce?


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Michael I've never heard of that. Can you link me something by one of the scientists?


----------



## odfrank (May 13, 2002)

I found another dead one today, same symptoms, in a redwood forest one hour drive from aforementioned site. This hive (LC) was a spectacularly strong bait swarm, slowly declined this winter same way as did the others.

>>Are you having two entirely different sets of die-off symptoms?- one with massive dead bees and the other with all mysteriously disappeared bees? I'm a bit confused.But I also feel those initial die off symptoms you described and photographed last year seemed to suggest a poisoning of some sort. If poisoning did turn out to be the case there, then I doubt that having small cell could miraculously keep poisoned bees from dying. Just a thought. 

I don't suspect poisoning in any of my losses, certainly not in a redwood forest. This years die off was a slow decline of the populations, not the huge pile ups in moist and cold weather like last year.


----------



## rrussell6870 (May 14, 2009)

Barry said:


> I'm not aware of anyone saying this, are you?


Not you. But it seems to be the common idea that is gathered by searching info on SC/NC vs Foundation. Its another one of those "heated" debates, and maybe my wording was a bit too direct... 

As Oldtimer said """During my research I found stated on a number of web sites that* it's wrong to have bees on 5.5 mm foundation **because bees, if left to their own devices, will revert to 4.9 mm cell size*. Then on several sites it is stated that *small cell bees don't get tracheal mites*."""

And WI-Beek said """ I listened to a program on the internet and two different guys stated that *small cell bees eliminated trachea mite problems *because their trachea tube was smaller."""

There is a lot of "silver bullet" talk about small cell and natural cell... I for one enjoy allowing bees to regress or increase to their natural state just to see what they will get to, but I have not seen any real health benefits through cell size, so I couldnt recommend regression or increase to anyone unless its just for interest... For those who depend on the health of their bees to provide for their families, I feel that SC/NC would be an expensive, lengthy approach that may bring minimal (if any) benefits... For those people I would suggest putting that time, effort, and expense to better use. Thats my opinion...


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

I think one needs to be a bit more discriminating about all the sc info that is out there. Dee has clearly stated that the size is dependent on geographical area. There is a range.

"I for one enjoy allowing bees to regress or increase to their natural state just to see what they will get to, but I have not seen any real health benefits through cell size,"

What exactly are the cell sizes you have kept bees on? I don't mean a cell here or there, but the core brood area as a whole.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Odfrank I'm sure you've probably been all through this so apologies in advance but I just want to ask, - have you definately ruled out varroa as a cause?


----------



## rrussell6870 (May 14, 2009)

Barry said:


> I think one needs to be a bit more discriminating about all the sc info that is out there. Dee has clearly stated that the size is dependent on geographical area. There is a range.


Thank you... thats all I am saying as well.

As to which cell sizes we have kept...

We have been keeping bees in large commercial numbers for well over 100 years... well before foundation was ever even thought of. Although little attention was given to cell size back then, it was still pre-increase days, so the cells were ALL natural cell size... When foundation was first introduced my father looked at it as another "gimmick" and shunned the idea of using it for a very long time... 

Currently we have hundreds of SC 4.9, hundreds of NC 5.1-5.3, and thousands of foundation colonies. Through working with so many different strains, I have noted that each strain has a natural size that was originally influenced by its native environment... this is also effected by current geographical location, predation, food supply, etc... not just temperature ranges... so in time a breed that is commonly 4.95 in its native environment may adapt to 5.1 in a different environment... In the wild this adaptation happens via many generations of swarms that create new comb in new locations each season and address the demands of the enviroment around them when doing so...

It may also be important to point out that ALL strains adapt to address stresses through time... so ALL strains will develop a resistance to a threat if they are allowed to survive the threat long enough to adapt... Some people think that you have to breed a strain of resistant bees with a strain of non-resistant bees in order to add resistance to the non-resistant strain... this isnt true, and the fact that all stocks that have been exposed to mites have been building (or re-building) their own resistances to mites since their exposure...

That said, breeding practices are also to blaim for the drop in the adaptability of bees. The practice of producing queens from one colony and requeen the entire apiary each season with sister (or half sister) queens... the practice of purchasing queens from breeders that in turn were shipping all sisters (or half sisters)... and more recently, the practice of importing "pure" stock from an entirely different environment which creates an extreme stress on the breed (and stress is the trigger to their adaptation), thus during this adaptation period (from 10-200 years) they are weakened to other attackers... Then this instability is bred into the local strains that were already suited for the current environment...

Not to mention all of the stresses from the overwhelming amount of new strains of viruses, fungi, bacteria, pests, etc.. that bees are introduced to each season via importation of foreign plant species, fruits, vegies, lumber, etc... 

My point is that there are many reasons that bees are failing to stresses, and it seems more likely that its the cumulative effect of all of this stress that causes the weaknesses... Proper breeding practices to stop inbreeding, proper care, and long term planning for apiaries is the most practicle approach to bee keeping in todays environments... Its the long way, but the long way is usually the best way... 

It also seems that most turn to "overnight cures" and "silver bullets" to fix these problems... I want them fixed just as much as the next guy, I just think that the bees are the best ones to decide how to fix them... and we should simply do our best to take care of them while they try to adjust to the stresses that we put them through.

Hope this helps.


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

Dee's work has never been about silver bullets, ever.

I've been following her methods loosely for eight years. Small cell is only the first part. Included is breeding, unlimited broodnest management, pyramiding, selecting for size, color, and phenotype, letting weak hives die, using five deep hives, leaving supers on year round, feeding only honey, thoeletoky (sp), Housel positioning, and more stuff I can't remember.

I have rarely if ever seen anyone practicing all these things. There is some combination of these thing that makes her successful. SC is not a silver bullet.


----------



## odfrank (May 13, 2002)

Oldtimer said:


> Odfrank I'm sure you've probably been all through this so apologies in advance but I just want to ask, - have you definately ruled out varroa as a cause?


I have kept bees for 40 years so i have a good idea of what the standard disposition is. What I have seen the last few years is something completely new. We have had varroa here since the mid '90's. When it first came we would find dead hives at the end of summer with a full crop on them. I used apistan for two years but my losses of treated and untreated colonies were equal. Then it quite working completely. I went no treatment. This was followed by years of new hives surving and two year old hives dieing, mites I guess. 

I would think the current problems I am having are indirectly caused by varroa, virus's etc. During the quick collapse last winter (see YOUTUBE videos, search Jollyollie8), I saw paralyzed shivering bees in big piles...IAPV maybe? I keep some bees on enclosed trailers parked on paving, so the dying bees are very visible and trackable. Where I keep them in fields or forests, I can't track the dying bees so they just seem to Collapse. This winter the dieoff was slower, lots of early DWV crawlers continuing to today even with the surviving colonies. Also, dying drones all summer long. Big populations in October gone by December and January. Lots of brand new bait swarm hives collapsing, mites?, I doubt it; and some older ones surviving. I see only a few mites on the bottom boards of the dead hives, and rarely on the bees. I have one very strong hive that had die offs also during cold wet weather, but is still booming. 

My common sense tells me my bees are dieing from something like a bee flu, pneumonia, hepatitis, nosema. They have mites, but I doubt it is a mite infection directly that has caused these mass die offs.


----------



## Michael Palmer (Dec 29, 2006)

rrussell6870 said:


> Then on several sites it is stated that *small cell bees don't get tracheal mites*."""
> 
> I listened to a program on the internet and two different guys stated that *small cell bees eliminated trachea mite problems *because their trachea tube was smaller


Why are my LC bees resistant to tracheal mite? 

After years of selection for low TM counts, the Ontario Tech Transfer can't find enough tracheal mites to bother counting anymore. All LC bees. Why?

If SC bees are resistant to tracheal mites because their spiracles are too small to allow a microscopic mite entry to the trachea...how do they breathe?


----------



## Michael Palmer (Dec 29, 2006)

WiredForStereo said:


> I've been following her methods loosely for eight years. Small cell is only the first part. Included is....Housel positioning...


I don't usually get involved in SC discussions. To each their own, and who am I to disagree. But...
Housel positioning is one of my peeves. Do you know the Housel positioning theory?

According to the theory, and according to what I've heard Dee say...there is a right way and a wrong way to install foundation. The theory says that there is a central comb in the broodnest...different than all others in the broodnest. OK, but that's another story. I've yet to see one or a picture of one, but whatever.

Combs on each side of that center comb are oriented differently than the combs on the other side. If you look through foundation, you can see Ys....with the Y pointing up, or down. Yes, it's true. You can. Turn the foundation 180 deg and the Y's will be pointing the other way. Again, true.

According to the theory, the Ys on the side of the foundation facing the center comb should be facing down. This is because the Y forms a shelf facing up, upon which the queen lays her egg. When an egg is layed on this shelf, everything proceeds as it should, egg hatches, larva grows, etc. But, if you were to install the foundation with the Y facing up, then the shelf faces down, and the egg hangs, and the bees supercede. Interesting theory.

I have two questions for the Housel Position theorists.

If the Ys are facing down on one side of the foundation, are they not facing up on the other? If so, won't the shelf face down and cause the bees to supercede? Or will bees only grow supercedure cells on one side of the comb?

I have grafted many thousands of larvae in my cell building. All the cells I've grafted from have concave cell bottoms, and I have never seen a shelf of any kind. Where is the shelf, and could you please post a picture of said shelf?

It is my belief that the Ys are formed where 3 cells meet...on the other side of the foundation from the side you are looking through, and have nothing to do with that side.


----------



## Omie (Nov 10, 2009)

Michael Palmer said:


> I don't usually get involved in SC discussions. To each their own, and who am I to disagree. But...
> Housel positioning is one of my peeves. Do you know the Housel positioning theory?


I read THIS about Housel positioning and found it pretty interesting. I too found it to be somewhat a matter of perception when looking at the comb, regardless of shelves/no shelves.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Good article Omie, another myth busted.

He made interesting comments on the way the human mind works, we look for order, cause and effect, etc, and sometimes think we've found them when we haven't. I think that's the reason for a lot of the dissagreements not only in beekeeping but probably just about everything.

The author is obviously a beesource member, do you know who it is?


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Dennis? He's an outstanding beekeeper. We got connected back in 1999 when our paths crossed over Dee's initial SC writings hitting the airway. I started an email List called Biobees where we discussed much of the SC theory over the next 5 years. He's a very astute and probing man, but most of all a great friend. One who has put the time in and has now decided to simply enjoy beekeeping and let others prove/disprove stuff. I'm there as well.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Are you the Barry he mentioned? You keep bees alongside each other?


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

I guess I am.  I had to go read it, as I wasn't aware I was mentioned. We have gone through the SC process together and have always shared our insights and results with each other. The HP never did make sense to me. When I studied feral combs, I had the same experience Dennis had. Took pictures, shared them online, studied them, didn't line up with what Dee and Mr. H were saying.

No, we live states apart, but have shared a lot of information back and forth as we went through all this the first time.


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

Michael Palmer said:


> Housel positioning is one of my peeves. Do you know the Housel positioning theory?...I have two questions for the Housel Position theorists.


Yes I do, I wouldn't have mentioned it if I didn't.

I'm not anyone's defense attorney. Not Dee Lusby, not Michael Housel, not Michael Bush. I use Housel positioning, but I'm not a theorist. So, I guess you're asking the wrong guy.

But here's a question. If it doesn't work, what's the matter with it? According to your interpretation, it can't get any worse correct? If ordered is no better than random, what's wrong with either?

You're not gonna see me on here talking about "If you do this that and the other thing, everything will be alright." I'm merely trying to point out the facts. Firstly, the innovators (the Lusbys) never said small cell itself was a panacea. Their methods are quite complex. And secondly, there is no secondly, it's just more forceful when you have a list.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>I have two questions for the Housel Position theorists.

That wouldn't be me, but I'll I'll give my take anyway.

>If the Ys are facing down on one side of the foundation, are they not facing up on the other?

Exactly the point of the theory.

> If so, won't the shelf face down and cause the bees to supercede? Or will bees only grow supercedure cells on one side of the comb?

I don't know anything about how that relates to supersedure.

>I have grafted many thousands of larvae in my cell building. All the cells I've grafted from have concave cell bottoms, and I have never seen a shelf of any kind. Where is the shelf, and could you please post a picture of said shelf?

I never followed the "shelf" thing. Ian Rumsey has done a bit of observation and writing on the subject and how it affects things. It is probably still on here, it used to be... I think it was titled "betwix and between".

>It is my belief that the Ys are formed where 3 cells meet...on the other side of the foundation from the side you are looking through, and have nothing to do with that side.

Of course it is where they meet on the other side, but the walls on one side also make up the lines on the rhomoids on the bottom of the opposite side.

My problem isn't so much the theory as the reality. I tried to observe it on natural comb and could not find any pattern other than USUALLY (but not always) the primary comb is sideways from what foundation is:
http://www.bushfarms.com/images/TypicalPrimaryComb.JPG

You can see the "Y" is sideways not up or down. This is typical of the first comb and appears to be a noticeable pattern.

But occasionally you see this for a first comb:
http://www.bushfarms.com/images/ConfusedPrimaryComb.JPG

You can see the "Y" on the "lobe" on the left side is right side up while the "Y" on the right side is up side down.

But other than the primary comb, I could never find a pattern at all that I could pin down. Maybe if I get more time I'll look some more, but my conclusion was that the only comb that has any pattern you could not do with foundation unless you turn it 90 degrees, cut it and piece it together.

But I have noticed occasionally a comb with new foundation they don't want to draw or don't want to draw right and you flip it and they do fine. But that is more an exception than a rule. It only happens now and again.

I have noticed the last Pierco I bought had instructions on how to Housel it...


----------



## franktrujillo (Jan 22, 2009)

well, as far a poison goes 2009 captured a hive that was sprayed begaining in may.place captured remaining bees in new hive with 2 frames of honey.They seemed fine built up nicely, went thru winter but after winter they filled the deep so added another deep.then population started to dwindle no more bees........


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

The actual swarm was sprayed? If so, what with?


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Michael I've never heard of that. Can you link me something by one of the scientists? 

I have those links somewhere at home, which is not where I am. Try a search on:

Acarapis dorsalis externus woodi evolution

To see real papers you often need to have a subscription to them.


----------

