# My (alternative) theory of the Bush Miracle



## TWall

It would be nice to truly find out why certain treatment free apiaries are successful. Genetics is certainly one explaination. Isolation would be another, along with brood breaks, etc.

I don't buy small cell as being the answer. If that were true Apis ceranae wouldn't have varroa.

Tom


----------



## HiveMind

I keep bees Bush style from the start 4 years ago. It has worked out well for me. I'm in an area populated with mainstream beekeepers. No bubble here. All my colonies are from feral colonies acquired from swarms and cutouts.


----------



## Fusion_power

I find it interesting that someone has to "explain" why his bees are thriving sans treatments.

Maybe you would like to explain why my bees are thriving treatment free.

But it would be more interesting if you could explain why you are still treating your bees knowing that you could also be treatment free.


----------



## rhaldridge

Fusion_power said:


> But it would be more interesting if you could explain why you are still treating your bees knowing that you could also be treatment free.


I don't think JWC believes it's possible. He regards those who do not treat as faith-based beekeepers. He's not in the right place, he has too many commercial beekeepers dropping hives in his area, he doesn't want to risk AHB genetics, selective breeding on a small scale can't really improve your stock, and so on and on.

I don't know. If it turns out that I can't keep bees without treatment, I'm just going to conclude that Michael Bush is just a much better beekeeper than I am, and I'll try to get better.

That might not be a palatable concept to some folks.


----------



## tommysnare

we dont treat....we are totally foundationless. we have ZERO 'gourmet' queens. and our colonies thrive. i am not against small cell per say....but, i am totally for not directing them towards any specific cell size. some of our colonies rear bees which are identifiably larger than others...naturally. i believe the success of a colony fighting pests...any pests is in which size bees they seem fit to raise. i am not against Michael bush or any other beekeeper but, i will say that if it were 'wrong' for humans to create a larger cell foundation to force them on, what would be the difference in forcing them to raise a smaller bee ? leave it up to them. they always know what they need better than we do. 
melt down that foundation and make candles because it is pointless and does no good. or...if u really enjoy buying it and love installing it,make ur own with no cells on it. has anyone ever done a study on foundation with no cells ? didnt think so !

no treatment
selectively rear from feral/local stock
give up the 'gourmet' queens with cute names and abbreviations
say no to foundation
split and rear queens as early as possible in the season
FEED !!


----------



## Barry Digman

I don't have much hope for a thread that starts out with such condescension. We can do better.


----------



## squarepeg

jwc, i'm in the same boat with bush and fusion with the exception of not having > 10 years running treatment free with no appreciable varroa losses. i only have 5 years but the fella i bought my bees from is now in year 18 treatment free and significantly better than the national average on losses. my five winter loss average is about 10%.

it's the combination of methods, and can be done on commercial cell and natural cell as long as the other requirements are met, which are in no special order of importance and i believe it takes all of these:

1. being located where there is enough quality natural forage so as not have to supplement with man made food.

2. allowing the bees to keep enough natural stores so that it doesn't become necessary to supplement their feed.

3. respecting the biochemistry within the hive for the complex ecosystem that it is and strive to not tamper with it by introducing chemicals in the hive. 

3a. a corrolary to 3 is inoculate weak colonies with frames of clean comb and brood from strong colonies to introduce beneficial organisms as well as boost the work force, as in the three cases of efb that deepsouth (who is also tf and no syrup) was able to remedy by combining a queen right nuc to.

4. make an effort to introduce locally adapted highly hybridized stock that has shown the ability to thrive unmanaged.

5. locate your apiary in a location where these 'supermutts' are thriving unmanaged in large expanses of woods.

if you ever find yourself in the southeastern u.s. jwc, say around atlanta, chattanooga, birmingham, or huntsville, al., give me a call and i'll take you around to show you living proof that these bees exist and that they can be kept this way.


----------



## squarepeg

Barry Digman said:


> I don't have much hope for a thread that starts out with such condescension. We can do better.


it's ok barry. i interpret what jwc and plb are saying is 'show me'. i'm saying there are those of us who can.

just because you haven't seen it or can't reproduce doesn't mean it's not possible. i think the hardest commidity to come by is being located in and amongst unmanaged ferals. they're not dense enough just everywhere, and some pockets of these ferals are likely ahead of others in the aquisition of varroa resistance.


----------



## Mike Gillmore

squarepeg said:


> 5. locate your apiary in a location where these 'supermutts' are thriving unmanaged in large expanses of woods.


For most who have been unable to go treatment free successfully, I think that is the deal killer.

In areas that are flooded every year with imported bees of inferior stock it doesn't take too long for those drones to corrupt the local gene pool. It's a losing battle.


----------



## squarepeg

yep. it's not likely to happen just anywhere.


----------



## DanielD

It's interesting lately to see the attempts to discount small cell comb here on BS. It seems that some are trying to portray the small cell user/advocate as though they are saying small cell is some sort of miracle cure all for resistant bees. I am no expert or even experienced, but as I read about this from others like Michael Bush, I read that it's one piece out of the whole that gives them an advantage. Like Tommy, Bush isn't forcing anything on the bees by using small cell, he's just letting them build what they naturally want to build. Sounds like a good idea to me.

Bush does talk about loosing hives to mites on his site before he began his treatment free program. Did he move to some remote Varroa free island before he started doing what he's doing? 

In most things, if you go against the mainstream, mainstream folks like to throw stones, especially when you succeed.


----------



## The Valley

DanielD said:


> In most things, if you go against the mainstream, mainstream folks like to throw stones, especially when you succeed.


:applause:


----------



## squarepeg

that's the beauty of being a squarepeg, i already don't care about mainstream.


----------



## Roland

I too am puzzle by Mr. Bush's unreproducible successes. My initial reaction is that if the mites can adapt faster than the bees, it was possible he bred a weaker mite more so than a stronger bee. That would support the hypothesis that an isolation island is necessary. 


One way to answer these questions is for Mr. Bush to put a few hives back on commercial sized foundation, and compare the two groups. This would be an added expense for him, and i would understand his reluctance.

Another way would be for him to sell a few queens to another individual willing to place them on SC comb.

We tried about 20 hives on SC , and saw no difference.

Crazy Roland


----------



## Mike Gillmore

Mainstream? ... in Beekeeping?

More like the Nile Delta.


----------



## Mike Gillmore

Until it's proven otherwise, I'm still convinced that the key to successful TF beekeeping is superior resistant stock, in a region that is more or less saturated with those genetics. Small cell comb may help, but it cannot do the job alone, IMHO.

If a successful TF beekeeper would move a few hives to a yard near one of mine for a couple of years, and they survive, then I would change my thinking. Guess I'm a "show me" kind of person too.


----------



## Barry Digman

I think the issue of locality is addressed here:

http://www.bushfarms.com/beeslocality.htm


----------



## squarepeg

zactly.

"I fully realized the great amount of apicultural meaning stored up in that one little word--locality." --W.Z. Hutchinson, Advanced Bee Culture "


----------



## squarepeg

my short list of places not to keep bees:

1. the north pole
2. the south pole
3. new york, new york


----------



## Riverderwent

As interesting as bees are, they are not nearly so interesting as beekeepers.


----------



## flatfootflukey

JWChesnut said:


> I think the time is ripe to consider an alternative theory that accounts for the Bush results..


ok how about: 
1 he is a wizard and uses the same spell on his hives that professor McGonagall used in the last harry potter movie to protect hog warts school and when the mites try to enter the hive they are disintegrated.

2 UFO's are abducting the varroa mites from his apiary and taking them back to their home planet for probing. 

3 its all part of a government plot to make everyone buy electric cars and we just haven't seen the "big picture" yet.
:lpf:



JWChesnut said:


> Oddly, Bush has never seen fit to perform this basic validation.
> ..


I cant speak for Mr Bush however I would bet if you would pony up a few million dollars for research he would do what ever test you would like.


----------



## bluegrass

His success is largely in the feral source of bees. Also 20% winter loss is pretty high and self reported, and may be reported optimistically. If a drunk tells you they drink one a week, they likely drink 4 a day. 

I think that if anybody did tests on the feral recaptures that occur around the country they would find an element of hygienic behavior or perhaps some other mite resistance not yet discovered. But The scientists do not believe ferals are out there so...


----------



## sqkcrk

squarepeg said:


> it's ok barry. i interpret what jwc and plb are saying is 'show me'.


Right, because if it works we'd all like to know how it's done so maybe the rest of us could do it too.


----------



## sqkcrk

Riverderwent said:


> How would you say that treatment is working for the industry?


The industry? Treatments are keeping the industry alive and growing. It's the treatment free part of the industry that is being discussed in this Thread.


----------



## beemandan

Thank you JW for continuing the good fight.


----------



## JakeDatc

I think it's sad that people on here are so adamant to bash people who are successful. do what works for you and stop trying to tear others down.


----------



## Mike Gillmore

When you have success, with whatever method you're using, you plant the flag and defend your ground. I've seen it go the other way too. Those who treat are made out to be evil vilains who are responsible for all of the ills in the beekeeping world. 

Bashing is not good whatever one's opinion might be, but civil discussion and debate can be very educational.


----------



## Saltybee

Myself, I think Michael Bush's hives that show on Google are just camouflage, same as the British did in WW2. Come to think of it, I am not sure Michael Bush is real. I've lived a few years and I've never met one.
Pretty sure he moved to area 51 too. Maybe it was 54?


----------



## Daniel Y

Fusion_power said:


> I find it interesting that someone has to "explain" why his bees are thriving sans treatments.
> 
> Maybe you would like to explain why my bees are thriving treatment free.
> 
> But it would be more interesting if you could explain why you are still treating your bees knowing that you could also be treatment free.


I see you put the emphasis on the wrong word. It is not the Explain that is as important is the "Why".

I readily admit I am a definite follower of Micheal. and yet I do not necessarily agree that small cell plays a significant roll in his results. So far I have had good results with no attention to cell size. I agree that promoting the cell size issue does not result in reliable repeatable results. and one thing required in developing a proven method is reliable repeatable results. I woudl rather see the time and energy devoted to small cell be applied to those factors that are in fact causing such results. 

The results are not being challenged. They are considered fact. They do happen they can be done. I don to necessary believe they are location dependent either. 

I do not agree that 20% losses are a strong selection pressure and certainly not one strong enough to produce rapid results. It is enough to do nothing but back slide at about 40 times the rate necessary to get nowhere. This serves to basically removed selection as any part of the equation. This is actually a promising factor. It indicates that any bees anywhere at any time can be kept with similar results if the proper How is used. And the How will be found by understanding the Why.

As far as I am concerned selection has no part in it. I also do not consider location has any part in it. this leaves us with the splits.

Just of the top of my head I think about how often I see people complain about loosing splits to mites. Not often. in fact I am not sure I have ever heard anyone mention mites being a problem in splits. In fact splits are promoted as one of the ways to address heavy mite loads.

Most of my hives are young and would still be considered in some form of build up as some various form of splitting. I also see no indication any of my colonies have mites. I have 11 hives that are about 1 year old or a younger and one that is 2 years old. 4 others that are bet wen 1 and 2 years old. none of them have mites as far as I know. Two of them have had them in the past when I first acquired them.

I see the focus needs to be on the effects of splits or colonies that are in some state of building up to full size colonies and it's effects on mite populations. I believe that splits and that period that colonies act like swarms is devastating to mites. I do not understand the mechanics but I do see the results.

I also see that a period of rapid expansion even in a full size established colony may have the same result. again I cannot say why.


----------



## Daniel Y

Mike Gillmore said:


> Until it's proven otherwise, I'm still convinced that the key to successful TF beekeeping is superior resistant stock, in a region that is more or less saturated with those genetics.


What evidence do you have that resistance does work? From what I can tell resistance is not working for the very people that are attempting to breed for it. Without more evidence than I currently have I read your comment as you require proof that something does not work in order to not believe in it even though you do not require the same proof that it does work to believe in it.


----------



## mac

JWChesnut said:


> How do we resolve this apparent contradiction? One way would be to implement a side-by-side controlled trial to isolate and test the elements of the method. Oddly, Bush has never seen fit to perform this basic validation.


 You need to do the test yourself. He's done his own tests and is satisfied with results 





JWChesnut said:


> A trial could be designed, quite easily, to test my alternative theory -- paired blocks of small cell and large cell hives could be located within the Bush "bubble" and at a selected Nebraska commercial site known for the presence of Varroa.


 Since it's your alternative theory the testing is on you. Why would anyone want to test your theory if you don't do it first ???


----------



## JWChesnut

Fusion_power said:


> But it would be more interesting if you could explain why you are still treating your bees knowing that you could also be treatment free.


Fusion Power, 
I have an experimental TF apiary. I have run this since returning from Costa Rica in 2002. It is located on an isolated clearing on the slope of a (low) coastal mountain bordering a 50,000 acre State Park. It is not completely isolated (I can see commercial drops in the valley below in the winter) and I have a Oxalic/Formic/Thymol treated yard about 1.5 miles away on a similar clearing. I stock it with wild swarms (and in the old days when they were available, the awesome Glenn VSH line). I will split the hives in April-May. Late splits are not really a viable option in my droughty coastal location.

My TF hives get mites. My TF hives (just like the T ones) have a distinct spike in mite-DWV-Nosema in September. If I observe the DWV disease, I will attempt to salvage the hive with one of the fumigant treatments, but I also move it out of the TF yard.

I attempt to validate my practices by experimenting. A huge criticism I have of TF purists is they make inductive leaps-of-faith. They believe "feral bees" must be resistant, and promote this theory. This is pure Aristotelian induction -- where is the experimental evidence? The Arnot forest bees contradicted the faith-based belief in Feral micro-evolution.

Admittedly, I can be intemperate, demissive, and impatient with Michael Bush's unvalidated (and difficult to implement successfully) system. That impatience is driven by the enormous waste I have observed being devoted to trying to accomplish the same results. I estimate more than a million dollars has been spent in my county alone by others trying to do what Bush claims is easy. This includes several $50-100,000 capital investments. If one can induce others to drop a million dollars on their story, it seems to me it behooves the promoter to actual subject the theory to hard tests. Otherwise, its just a confidence game.


----------



## Deepsouth

When I started beekeeping I decided to go treatment free because basically I just didn't want to learn another step.

I always said that if I start running into problems I wouldn't hesitate to start treating. Years later and and 50 colonies later I never ran into trouble being treatment free.

In my opinion I think treatment free is 75% genetics and 25% location.(just throwing those # out there). I live in a great area with lots of forage and only one Beekeeper within 20 Miles and he is treatment free also.

But I believe that the genetics is the key in my operation. All my bees are feral ( I know this because I live in a small town which had no beekeepers since I been alive). These bees are doing great. 
I believe its genetics because I buy queens from well known breeder just to try out and cant find many that can thrive treatment free on its second year.


----------



## Richard Cryberg

I see no reason at all to think Mr Bush is anything other than an honorable, truthful person. I am perfectly willing to accept that he maintains his bees treatment free and sees roughly a 10% colony death rate per year just as he says. I also think the evidence is clear that small cell does not eliminate varroa mites and probably does not even reduce the population. But, Mr Bush really does not run small cell. He runs natural cell, that is whatever his bees happen to build, as he does not provide foundation as a template for most of his brood nests.

I also wonder if varroa are the real cause of many hive deaths for anyone. Or are those hive deaths a result of viral and bacterial infections that are better transmitted in the presence of varroa? So, is it possible that the Bush cultural methods have simply given him bees that are more resistant to whatever bacterial or viral infections are the real problem and varroa has little to do with his success? I wonder this as I do not recall Mr Bush ever producing data by alcohol washes on his hives to document what his varroa infection rate is over the course of a summer. I am not being critical of him for not doing this experiment. He has a method that is working and cares little exactly why it works. All he cares is that it works. Not a thing wrong with that. Besides, why kill a bunch of bees to get data that is of no real interest to him?


----------



## lazy shooter

I agree with Salty Bee, I am 75 years old and I have traveled extensively in my work. I have never seen Michael Bush or interviewed anyone who has seen him. I think he is ghost writer and as Salty stated, he uses camouflage bee hives or takes pictures of other apiaries as he drives about.

To those among us that think there are no feral bees: A feral animal is one that has been domesticated and has then learned to live in the wild. There is a hive of bees under my neighbor's utility building that has been there for seven consecutive years. They are very docile. He has never been stung, and he just leaves them to their work.

From the get go, this thread was a slightly veiled personal attack on Michael Bush. I am treatment free, and I have Michael Bush's big book, but I am not knowledgeable enough to begin defending his positions. To me, he is an accomplished bee entomologist. He has a huge amount of common knowledge about bees in his noggin. 

I wish this thread hadn't been posted. That's just my opinion.


----------



## WLC

I do understand why Mike Bush is successful.

He flooded the area with good BeeWeaver genetics for decades, including some 'hot' bees that swarmed.

He has created his own resistant 'hybrid swarm', and they have the same small cell, reduced mite load characteristics, of other AHB stocks.


----------



## Mike Gillmore

Daniel Y said:


> Originally Posted by *Mike Gillmore*
> 
> Until it's proven otherwise, I'm still convinced that the key to successful TF beekeeping is superior resistant stock, in a region that is more or less saturated with those genetics.
> 
> 
> 
> What evidence do you have that resistance does work? From what I can tell resistance is not working for the very people that are attempting to breed for it. Without more evidence than I currently have I read your comment as you require proof that something does not work in order to not believe in it even though you do not require the same proof that it does work to believe in it.
Click to expand...

Guess I need another cup of coffee, I'm not really following you. 
All I am saying is that I personally would need proof to validate the idea that the combination of small cell, an uncontaminated internal hive environment, and resistant stock will provide successful TF beekeeping in any area one chooses to set up. If someone were to bring a few hives which met all of the above criteria to my area, I don't think they would last long due to the pressure of inferior stock in this area. JMHO based on what I see happening with most of the beekeepers in this area. 

I have no dog in this fight. Michael Bush does not either. What he is doing works for him, and what I am doing works for me. No one has any duty to 'show proof" that their methods work.


----------



## AstroBee

I am TF (my definition, not that found on the TF forum) for past 10 years ranging 20-50 hives all LC colonies (Mann Lake Ritecell). I run VSH (sorry for the "fancy" letters) and long-term survivors and breed from my top 5% colonies. In a previous post MB said: "I don't think anything under 100 hives is statistically relevant enough to draw any hard conclusions." This, at least to me, means that pretty much everyone posting SC success stories on beesource doesn't meet this criteria and therefore community success cannot be attributed to cell size. The big question is: does SC have negative effects? I don't know, but that should be looked at. In the other recent contentious thread, I posed the request to do some rigorous experiments and again it was shot down. It seems like MB could run some colonies on LC and simply monitor the results. We could even take up a collection to buy him equipment! I offered to buy some of MB queens and run them on LC and was told that was flawed too. So given all this, and the lack of statistically relevant SC data, my belief is that it is WAY more about the genetics and local mite pressures rather than any cell size that leads to success. I have as much experience (likely much more) and success as pretty much anyone posting here on the benefits of SC to tell me success can be achieved on 5.4 foundation. This is not an attack on MB, but simply a conjecture that there are very likely other effects at play, which I believe was the point of the opening thread by JWC.

And for the record:

I feed sugar water when needed 
I will sometimes, but not routinely, do cut-down splits 
I raise my own queens (lots)
I definitely import hygienic queens
If I have a colony with high mite counts, it is treated and requeened
I employ the MP method of splits the dinks and make nucs.


----------



## jmgi

Richard Cryberg said:


> But, Mr Bush really does not run small cell. He runs natural cell, that is whatever his bees happen to build, as he does not provide foundation as a template for most of his brood nests.


I may be incorrect, but I believe MB uses mostly small cell plastic in his brood nests, along with natural comb. I'm sure he will correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## Joseph Clemens

I too have been "treatment free", but forever. And soon after I realized that Varroa were here and that my bees had them, I wondered what all the fuss was about. It does seem disturbing to me that the Varroa are crawling about among my bees and their brood, vectoring viruses. In looking about for what "treatment free" beekeepers were doing to mitigate Varroa issues, I discovered Michael Bush and the Lusby's were promoting "small cell", so I tried it. Not because I was losing colonies to mites. I wasn't, and still haven't been losing colonies, other than the nucs I sometimes sell or trade. I tried small cell, and now "foundationless", because they seem like interesting permutations to add to my beekeeping world, and they are. Perhaps "small cell" is why my bees have continued to thrive, despite the absence of mite treatments, I wish I knew.

Despite the absence of a certainty that small cell is the reason for my own success, I plan to continue keeping bees, just as I have since I first began, about 1966. Doing just what is necessary to maintain successful hives and grow nucs and queens, and avoiding synthetic chemical compounds whenever possible. If, somehow, mites begin killing my colonies, I am sure that I will do what I can to reduce that experience. Hopefully I will never be faced with those circumstances.

Perhaps there is some merit in your theory.


----------



## bevy's honeybees

I went foundationless and treatment free after finding Michael's teachings. The first books I read on beekeeping, and what I learned from other beekeepers and inspectors, was treatments and foundation. Then I started reading Michael's online site, and in my second year of beekeeping I began to make the move to treatment free and foundationless. I still have losses, but what is interesting is that almost all of the hives I got from commercial sellers and treatment folks are gone. I purchased my first 3 hives from a local commercial treatment guy. All 3 gone within 2 years. My 4th hive from a sideliner did well until last year and it is my only loss to varroa. I got 2 more from a commercial guy early last year and lost one of them. They were supposed to have been treatment free but I found a mite strip in the dead out last fall. 

I can't prove anything with this. All I know is that I'm up to 29 hives, did a 3 hive trade in winter for some equipment, and out of the cut outs and swarm/bait hives, the percentage of loss is nothing like the commercial hives I bought. The queens I've bought from a reputable seller last one year if that. 

I also know I have saved quite a bit of money with treatment/foundationless beekeeping, and that many of my customers prefer treatment free honey. The cut outs I do where I don't use vacuum have done better than the ones I use the vacuum.

I have seen and heard Michael Bush at a conference in West Palm Beach, Fl, and he is not a ghost. He's a fantastic beekeeper and a good musician. I don't know where I'd be in my beekeeping experience if it were not for him. I'm sure, not nearly as happy with beekeeping as I am now. Definitely not as successful as I am right now. With tons and tons more to learn.


----------



## Riverderwent

JWC, how many colonies are you running in the TF apiary and how do losses compare with your treated apiary 1½ miles away? (Is there a forum thread where you talk about this?) Have you thought about letting the deformed wing virus colonies run their course in the TF yard? Do you think that the multiple genetic paternal lines available in that colony might sort themselves out for viral resistance given enough time? (I am new so I will apologize in advance if my questions are ignorant.)


----------



## Robndixie

i think it comes down to what works for one person in one area with one strain of bees probably can't be repeated by other people in other places with different strains of bees. a lot of beekeeping is not universal. 
i'd hate to be a beekeeper in california (close to almonds anyway), florida or certain parts of the midwest. bees from all over the country (most likely weakened from the stress of frequent shipping) are grouped together where they can drift and expose each other to various pests and diseases from different regions. they also expose the locals to all those problems. 
i've decided that michael bush and michael palmer are the beatles and the stones of modern beekeeping. they both have sustainable apiaries and they both have different methods. 
i use some of both of their methods but i adapt what i do for deep south beekeeping. i also have a neighbor that has about 20 hives that he hasn't managed for about 9 or 10 years right down the road. he says he started with italians but they've gone back to wild (black) bees. there is a feral population around me but i certainly believe there are parts of the country where that isn't the case. 
my background is 70-80's commercial beekeeping. you dumped antibiotics in every hive every fall and you burned if you found afb, mites weren't a problem. i'm using brood breaks now and i'm in my third year back in (this is supposed to be the year i crash).
i don't know about small cell and frankly, it doesn't matter. what ever works is what each of us should be doing. i suspect that mr. chestnut's practices won't work for a lot of other beekeepers. 
michael bush doesn't have to prove anything to me, i believe that what he does works for him and some other people. 20 percent loss doesn't sound any worse than the numbers i hear from a lot of beekeepers that treat. it sounds like it's working as well as anything else, why do people on this thread feel they have to attack what doesn't work for them?


----------



## shannonswyatt

I'm not sure why MB would want to run LC hives as some sort of ersatz "control". If I understanding of his history he used to run LC and had bad results. Moved to SC had good results. 

I don't need to continually hit myself upside the head to know that do so causes pain. 

If MB ran 100 LC hives and they all failed would that prove the LC doesn't work?

I have the luxury of not having to earn my living from bees, so I can suffer losses and low honey yields and what not knowing that the bank isn't going to take my home. If I were a commercial beek and have everything on the line I would probably be pouring everything there was in the hives as a hedge.


----------



## JWChesnut

Riverderwent said:


> Have you thought about letting the deformed wing virus colonies run their course in the TF yard?


In my experience DWV in the fall is terminal. It is an very easily observed proxy for mite loading and other virii. It predates Varroa in Western Honeybees, so resistance is not out-of-the-question, but in practice and in the fall it is not going to just "go away". DWV has documented alternative routes of transmission, but again it is a proxy for all the other meanies in the nest (such as devastating BQCV -- Black Queen Cell Virus)


----------



## Daniel Y

shannonswyatt said:


> If MB ran 100 LC hives and they all failed would that prove the LC doesn't work?


Maybe, But then with 20% losses he will loose all of his SC colonies as well, it is just a matter of time. so does it prove the same thing?

The interest would be a side by side comparison in the interest of understanding just exactly what affects his success and to what degree. If it cannot be repeated it is just random chance, luck or illusion.


----------



## Saltybee

I do not picture MB in a long flowing robe. I do not read his stuff as teachings, I read them as observations, well written.
Like Beemandan, apparently JW, and probably MB that bothers me. Just view people as being responsible for their own choices.

As far are testing, the logical process would be detailed studies of multiple TF systems and seeing how they are similar and how they differ. Begin at the beginning rather studying the end. Not sure even that detail would disprove much or show paths to relocate TF.


----------



## squarepeg

instead of focusing on one man and his results why not take a careful look at a cross section of apiaries and attempt to glean common denominators.

not trying to blow any trumpets, but i published several papers in peer reviewed journals early in my career before leaving for the private sector, and i have a good understanding of just what science can do as well as what it can't.

my assertion is that there are simply far too many variables at play with respect to investigating varroa resistance to make a scientific query doable.

the bee informed survey is the best attempt at present, and it is probing some of these questions. but the purpose and scope of that effort goes beyond looking at this in enough detail to form hypotheses that could be tested.

we would come closer to learning something by designing a more directed survey, and analyze that information ourselves. we're already doing that informally, and colleen's effort in developing the overwintering spreadsheet is a good first step in the that direction.

it's hard not to, and i am as guilty as anyone else, but can we agree that it's not always important nor does it advance our understanding to turn this into a game of 'gotcha'?


----------



## camero7

I have hundreds of Mann Lake PF-100's in my hives. I also have at least one foundationless frame for drone brood [which I regularly cut out for varroa control]. I still need to treat every year or lose my hives. The longest I have had a hive survive without treatment is 2&1/2 years. Got tired of the losses, now I treat as indicated by mite monitoring. I was not successful with TF and small cell didn't make a difference for me. I now am using Rite Cell.


----------



## shannonswyatt

Daniel Y said:


> Maybe, But then with 20% losses he will loose all of his SC colonies as well, it is just a matter of time. so does it prove the same thing?


Using that reasoning any losses at all will lead to total loses of all colonies. 

MB does make splits. It is unreasonable to think that someone with more than a 100 hives would overwinter almost anyplace with zero loses, regardless of the method of keeping bees. 

I think that it is funny that people expect MB to do the research. He is one man that has a system in place that either works very well for him or he is a liar. I tend to believe that it is the former and not the later. I don't think the MB is a Evangelist to SC anymore the those that say it doesn't work are Evangelist's to their methods. If anything I would say MB is quite the opposite. If you listen to him the first thing he practically says is don't buy his book, read it for free on his website. He does make some money speaking about his methods, but I'm pretty sure 99.9 percent of the places he has spoken at he was asked to speak there. He post a lot on beesource, but he has a lot of knowledge. I'm amazed when someone asks about doing x, y or z and he has read some 100 year old book that talked about the same thing. Take what he says and use what works for you and discard the rest. 

On the other hand I would think that if there is an expectation that MB do scientific studies than someone that has that expectation of him should be coughing up the dough to pay for those studies. 

I personally think that MB is a better beek than I will ever be, irrespective to his methods.


----------



## jmgi

shannonswyatt said:


> I think that it is funny that people expect MB to do the research. He is one man that has a system in place that either works very well for him or he is a liar.


I have to agree with this to a large extent. I have followed just about every thread over the last couple years on the subject of MB and his system of success. With most who respond, SC didn't work when they tried it, and they gave it up. Many report similar success as MB. But I sense there are a few out there who question whether MB is exaggerating the truth of his success, intentional or not, or outright lying about it. I don't have any input at this time on whether SC helps because I have never tried it. I did run some natural cell brood nests a few years back on a small scale, and had somewhat better results than what I am currently using. Personally, I don't feel switching over to SC or natural cell is going to work for everyone, I think that should be clear by now with the varying degrees of success from all over the country. I'm thinking right now, that to demonstrate the same success rate as MB, one needs to have a consistent group of the same variables in place and all working together at the same time. To identify exactly what those pieces of the puzzle are, I cannot say. I just know that some have put the puzzle together properly, and many more have not.


----------



## iivydriff

I decided a few years back I was going to go foundationless. I did it and about the 2nd year of it I didnt like that idea anymore. Now I use the small cell plastic foundation from Mann Lake. Most of my bees are from feral swarms. Ive lost maybe 8 hives total in 3 winters combined. had 8 hives first winter then 25 the next two winters. I have not treated in 3 years and last fall I never fed a single hive. I dont even use screened bottom boards. yeh Ive had some bees that get mites, but The longer I Go on like this the less problems with mites im having. Ive got one bee yard with 7 hives in it. never lost a hive last winter never fed a drop of feed in the fall. and one hive was only a single deep with about 7 frames, And survived. This has been one of the worst winters that I can remember. ive made up my mind Im not treating my bees. Im a firm believer that I will have bees that need no treatment. In fact most of my bees are already like that. I know of other beeks around me that do treat and will lose about 50% or more of their bees every winter. I dont treat and I dont even lose enough to worry about. Now the difference in my setup and theirs is I dont run screen bottoms at all. My bees are on small cell, and my bees are crossed up feral swarms with other bees. My bees and these other guys bees are in the same areas too so location being a reason why my bees does better is out of the question.


----------



## tommysnare

id like to hear from Michael Bush


----------



## Brad Bee

tommysnare said:


> id like to hear from Michael Bush


He's likely too busy reading tea leaves and talking to his mite eating tree frogs to post a reply....


Just kidding MB, I'm on your side of this debate!


----------



## jmgi

iivydriff, good that you have made it three years TF with minimal losses, I feel that you are at the critical point however. If an individual hive can survive for more than 3-4 years TF, you quite possibly could have some definite mite resistance to work from. Hope your success continues.


----------



## NewJoe

tommysnare said:


> id like to hear from Michael Bush


Actually I think it speaks highly of MB to not be "called out" by a thread that seems to have been CREATED to start a fight!


----------



## Juhani Lunden

JWChesnut said:


> Walk-away splits, done in mid-summer, enforce a major brood break in the hives raising emergency queens. Mid-summer splits with a 45 day lag to brood production also push young small hives into the fall season. I believe the split practice (more than the untested small cell) may have generated a locally determined low Varroa environment.
> 
> The splits are going to have reduced mite loads (a known effect of brood breaks). Any splits still carrying high Varroa will perish in the Nebraska winter (small weakened nucs are going to suffer higher colony mortality) -- this is a "Bond" effect using the most susceptible to mortality phase of the life-cycle. This leads to a virtuous cycle -- low mites and strong selection for resistant colonies which results in very rapid selection of traits.
> 
> It has been speculated that horizontal transmission from mite-rich colonies to naive neighbors is a major transmission vector. The Bush apiary (as shown by Google) avoids horrizontal transmission -- it is in a Corn and Soybean "desert" with no other colony survival space, it is largely based on very young hives with intrinsically low mite loads that have been further culled as small colonies entering a harsh winter.


I think JWChesnut is quite close in his reasoning (to resolve the mystery, if there is any). It would be interesting to know how many splits (and mites with them) are sold. 

How come there is a "45 lag to brood production"? If nucs are made without giving a cell, broodless period is around 30 days.


----------



## shannonswyatt

NewJoe said:


> Actually I think it speaks highly of MB to not be "called out" by a thread that seems to have been CREATED to start a fight!


Exactly. If I were MB I wouldn't reply. 

Lot of bold words spoken on anonymous forums.


----------



## shannonswyatt

Juhani Lunden said:


> How come there is a "45 lag to brood production"? If nucs are made without giving a cell, broodless period is around 30 days.


You are right, it should be something closer to 30-35 days from egg to laying queen. While the queen can hatch out in something around 15 days she does have to harden and do orientation flights before mating flights and finally laying eggs. 

I'm not sure that MB splits all his hives though, so the brood break theory may not apply to all his hives. And of all the splits he makes I don't know that all of them are walkaway splits. MB raises queens, so he may be using those queens with his splits, if that is the case, the brood break would be unnoticeable.


----------



## Barry

WLC said:


> I do understand why Mike Bush is successful.
> 
> He flooded the area with good BeeWeaver genetics for decades,


Yes, this fits nicely with your other statements of late:

"Sorry, but the Weavers (BeeWeavers) are THE successful TF beekeepers in the U.S. IMHO."

"I don't think there's any question that BeeWeaver is using a successful model of TF beekeeping."

"If you bought your bees from a longtime TF source like BeeWeaver, you're TF."

Starting to look like you may be on their payroll.


----------



## WLC

Tut, tut. No sarcasm allowed.

Besides, I was conversing with squarepeg.

The fact remains, many of us don't have any local TF genetics. We have to import them.


----------



## jmgi

WLC said:


> The fact remains, many of us don't have any local TF genetics. We have to import them.


To me, any hive with a queen that made it through this last winter in my area without treatments, is a good starting point for TF genetics. Time will tell whether they have what it takes.


----------



## pedrocr

JWChesnut said:


> In my experience DWV in the fall is terminal. It is an very easily observed proxy for mite loading and other virii. It predates Varroa in Western Honeybees, so resistance is not out-of-the-question, but in practice and in the fall it is not going to just "go away". DWV has documented alternative routes of transmission, but again it is a proxy for all the other meanies in the nest (such as devastating BQCV -- Black Queen Cell Virus)


Doesn't that make your test apiary less effective? The so called "Bond" method is often described as very high losses for a few years to select for the resistant genetics. If you're taking out the infected you don't have a pool of infected hives from which to select resistance. Solomon Parker had a good post today about this:

http://parkerfarms.blogspot.pt/2014/04/how-to-be-successful-at-treatment-free.html

His point in this post and his "Expansion Model Beekeeping" is basically to aggressively expand from the thriving hives. Since all the hives are not being treated you will be expanding from whatever bees have some form of resistance.

Also, I find the tone of your initial post needlessly negative. You're obviously interested in finding out new methods that work, and that's commendable. But Michael Bush doesn't owe anyone any tests or validation. Unless you're accusing him of lying about his results all he has done is observed something working for him and shared his experience. I doubt he's getting rich selling books or appearing at conferences.


----------



## shannonswyatt

WLC said:


> The fact remains, many of us don't have any local TF genetics. We have to import them.


Along with all the other honeybee genetics, since the are not native to the US.


----------



## jmgi

pedrocr said:


> . But Michael Bush doesn't owe anyone any tests or validation


I agree, this point needs to be hammered home to a certain few. There are some others on here who have had nearly the same success as MB for the same duration, so why is MB being singled out for the abuse. Is it because he has written a book and does speaking engagements, emphasizing his belief in SC among other subjects? Do you feel he is leading beginners down the path of total loss and disappointment? I had over 80% loss this winter TF on large cell, you think I'm not disappointed? MB had nothing at all to do with my decision to run my bees this way. Even if I had been on SC and had these losses, I surely wouldn't blame him for it. MB fought the battle for years until he found stability in his own apiary. He doesn't claim his story is unique, and it isn't.


----------



## Lauri

Best to stay quiet and mysterious when you're the topic of controversy...Keep's 'em guessing, makes you more interesting. 

I _*want*_ some of those mite eating tree frogs! LOL


----------



## Brad Bee

Lauri said:


> I _*want*_ some of those mite eating tree frogs! LOL


I'm trying to graft some but my Nicot kit keeps sinking in the pond.


----------



## tsmullins

shannonswyatt said:


> Exactly. If I were MB I wouldn't reply.
> 
> Lot of bold words spoken on anonymous forums.


This is so true.


----------



## iivydriff

jmgi said:


> iivydriff, good that you have made it three years TF with minimal losses, I feel that you are at the critical point however. If an individual hive can survive for more than 3-4 years TF, you quite possibly could have some definite mite resistance to work from. Hope your success continues.


Well we will see I guess. This will be the fourth summer on some of these hives. Ive had some hives come and go while these seem to not even be affected by mites. I actually thought this last winter I would lose most of my hives, but i didnt. Ive caught some swarms that would start off in the spring and by fall be ate up with mites. I know Ive heard that 3 or 4 years in on a colony the mites will get hold of them, but honestly I dont see why it would take that long. The ones ive had get mites in them real bad did it by the end of their first summer. Then Ive had some other bees that would get a pretty good load of mites in them and still pull through it. Then ive got hives that its hard for me to even find a mite in there any where. Ive never had hive beetles to get a hive either. I find a few hive beetles, but have never had any losses because of them. ive had a couple nucs get Hive beetles in them pretty bad. But other than that i dont even worry about the hive beetles any more. I do think there is some truth to small cell bees being more mite resistant.


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

That's why Michael needs a decent video camera.  We need pictures instead of ideas to understand better, to visualize it.


----------



## jmgi

To visualize what? :scratch:


----------



## Rusty Hills Farm

:scratch: I really don't "get" this attitude that somehow MB OWES anybody anything. Certainly not an explanation or "proof" of ANYTHING! Folks, this is a free forum, as in you can leave at any time. Nobody is keeping you here. If you don't like what you read here, move on! 

Michael, I enjoy your posts and do hope you stay around, but I would certainly understand if you ditched this joint.

I REALLY don't "get" folks on this forum. Wasn't it just last week you were hammering poor Laurie? And now it is Michael! What is with you that you bite every hand that offers help?!?

:s

Rusty


----------



## Acebird

I liked the man before I even met the man. I am so thankful for his website. Is there only one way to be successful with bees? Is your way or my way have to be validated by a disbeliever? Why, how are you threatened?

I came on beesource, I don't know maybe three years ago. I was told all my bees would die if I didn't dump chems into my hives. I am surrounded by beeks that do. Come see my dead bees flying around.

I strongly feel I have Michael Bush to thank for that. What single person could you give thanks to for your success if you feel you have it? Thank you Michael Bush for all you have done for me.


----------



## Dominic

JWChesnut said:


> Bush speaks of gathering thousands of testimonials, which would support the supposition of a broad success, yet there is no evidence of a network of newly emerging queen breeders and young up-and-coming commercial entrepreneurs. That absence argues that the Bush system only works at the non-commercial milieu, or the success rate is vanishingly small.


A bit late in the conversation, but I wanted to pitch in on this point... Personally, I don't have an opinion on small cell. Eventually, I'll run my own experiments and make up my mind then. However, I don't think that the lack of small-cell bees from the commercial breeders is proof of anything. I'm a (small) nuc seller myself, and one thing deterring me from small cell is "who am I going to sell this to?" The vast majority of beekeepers use large cells. And the vast majority of foundation and plastic frames are for large cells. It's quite a supply chain, between the breeders, the beekeepers, and the suppliers. The breeders and the suppliers will, in the end, supply small-cell bees and equipment if the demand for it grows big enough, but given the hassle from transitioning to small-cell, the cost of replacing all the old frames, and the limited choice of already down-sized bees, combined with the lack of apparent benefit from going small-size, there's really little incentive for the beekeeper, commercial or otherwise, to transition.

If I were to have clients tell me they want small cell, I'd transition at least part of my apiary to accommodate them, but otherwise, don't expect breeders to sell small bees. Clients rate queens by their size: big queen = good queen, small queen = bad queen. Why would any breeder want to sell anyone a small queen, unless specifically asked for one? Clients will automatically believe the queen was malnourished and is of poor genetics. I know the first time I saw small-cell bees I assumed it was a question of genetics... Breeders select for what they think will suit their clients.


----------



## D Semple

JWChesnut said:


> Fusion Power,
> I estimate more than a million dollars has been spent in my county alone by others trying to do what Bush claims is easy. This includes several $50-100,000 capital investments. If one can induce others to drop a million dollars on their story, it seems to me it behooves the promoter to actual subject the theory to hard tests. *Otherwise, its just a confidence game*.



To what gain, I don't see anybody getting rich or giving up their day job to promote tf. 


And, just who else would you have us follow? 


I'm proud of the job Michael, Dee, Dean & Romona, Sol, Darrel and a host of others are doing to lead the way.


Don

4y, 30-40h, tf, sc, ferals


----------



## Fusion_power

> Bluegrass: Also 20% winter loss is pretty high and self reported, and may be reported optimistically. If a drunk tells you they drink one a week, they likely drink 4 a day.


This statement amounts to calling him a liar, and insinuates he is unreliable to start with.

I don't treat. My bees survive and have very low numbers of varroa mites. I ignore them just like I ignore people who think it is voodoo magic or the splits did it or some other rationalization. I have no problem accepting that MB is successfully producing honey with 20% losses per year. My losses have been in the range of 10 to 20 percent for the last 8 years. I simply ignore mites and let the bees manage them. The only major difference between my bees and MB's is that I don't attribute survival to small cell or natural cell. I attribute it to finding genetics that survive. Now go ahead and tell me I am reporting optimistically.

I find incredible the expectation that MB has to justify and prove that what he is doing works. The fact that his bees are alive and thriving and producing honey is prima facie evidence that it works. Whether it is because of small cell or natural cell or mite eating tree frogs or just plain genetics is unimportant. If you want to know if his bees can make it on large cell, go for broke, set up 20 colonies and go catch some swarms from his area. You will very quickly find out if it is genetics or small cell.


----------



## FollowtheHoney

I Am just a newbee waiting for bees to get started and really appreciate all the wisdom available from experienced beeks. MB is a generous and humble presence on this forum who has shared his experiences and advice in a manner that is respectful of the various other opinions offered.


----------



## shannonswyatt

Awesome! Not only is MB a liar, but now he is somehow bilking people of money in the process. Way to go JW. (not)


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

I'd like to mention here that Michael Bush is hosting a "_*Bee Camp*_" at his apiary this summer.









More details here:
http://www.bushfarms.com/beescamp.htm


----------



## shannonswyatt

JW should attend. Maybe we could all pitch in to help defray the cost for JW?


----------



## DanielD

To those who are asking for videos, etc. to further show how he does what he does, I think he quite well tells in his site how he does what he does. I haven't even seen his book. He's not demanding banning treatments, but just revealing how he's making it work for him. He's claiming and showing that there may not need to be treatments in beekeeping in some cases. Then there are testimonies from several here on this thread telling how well his site or book has guided them to have similar results. It seems to me there's good evidence it works for some beekeepers and will continue being successful to others. 

Now if he was effectively claiming treatment keepers are lying, covering up, or cooking their numbers just to sell books and chemicals, then I would question HIS integrity, but I don't see him doing that.


----------



## Juhani Lunden

Fusion_power said:


> I find incredible the expectation that MB has to justify and prove that what he is doing works.


Rusty Hill Farms was speking this same... I don´t get it. I read the starting post again, and as far as I understand english, JWChesnut is not demanding MB anything. He is just a curious mind, trying to figure out, for the help of all (of you t -beekeepers) what is the secrect behind the success of MB.

Maybe he is a little bit irritated about the loss of money for someone, someone unskilled maybe. And you SC beekeepers, you must admit: there are some signs of religion. At least it is not science, what JWChesnut obviously prefers( and me too). 

The fact that somebody can be treatment free and the majority cannot is an obvious mystery. I find it marvellous that somebody likes to spend time figuring out what it is. Don´t blame him. He hasn´t blamed anyone, or am I just blind?


----------



## Just Krispy

Rusty Hills Farm said:


> :scratch: I really don't "get" this attitude that somehow MB OWES anybody anything. Certainly not an explanation or "proof" of ANYTHING! Folks, this is a free forum, as in you can leave at any time. Nobody is keeping you here. If you don't like what you read here, move on!
> 
> Michael, I enjoy your posts and do hope you stay around, but I would certainly understand if you ditched this joint.
> 
> I REALLY don't "get" folks on this forum. Wasn't it just last week you were hammering poor Laurie? And now it is Michael! What is with you that you bite every hand that offers help?!?
> 
> :s
> 
> Rusty


 I agree Rusty. Someone got what I would consider pretty disrespectful on her FB page. If they disagree with her methods, why not just stay off her page? Don't ruin it for the rest of us. That goes for Michael Bush too. I would not want to chase him off the forums.


----------



## Saltybee

Julhani,
I am not sure how the first post reads in English. I am sure that in American it is up front and in your face; Michael Bush is leading the lambs to slaughter.


----------



## AstroBee

I've made no doubt to my skepticism of the claims of SC, however, I want to state for the record that I have the highest respect for MB and have learned a ton from him since I joined. He certainly has been a big contributor to this forum and is most definitely partly responsible for its success. Also, I don't believe that he should be responsible for conducting any tests of SC to resolve the lingering questions. Could he contribute to a fair study? Sure! And lastly, I completely believe that he has given an honest accounting of his methods and outcomes. Having read many of his contributions over the years I get the sense he's totally honest. 

Do I agree with everything he suggests? Absolutely not. Since I'm relative neophyte (way less than his 40 years) he likely feels the same about my contributions. What really troubles me, about many in the SC community, and this may be my personality flaw, is when a reasonably well-done study suggests that SC doesn't pose the benefits against varroa and then see it dismissed for a myriad of reasons. The astonishing thing is that most dismissals are done without even acknowledging the possibility that there "may" be something else, currently unaccounted for, that has led to success by the SC community. Again, I believe that was the core of JWC's opening post. I want to acknowledge that several within the SC community have openly admitted that other factors may be involved beyond simple cell size. 

When you have the stage like MB does, and advocate that something works like MB does, then you're going to get challenges when evidence is produced to the contrary. This is kind of the nature of these online sites - we all know that when we step into the room.

This forum has a long history of these challenges:

FGMO,
Queen excluders,
Checkerboarding,
TF,
neonics,
CCD,
etc.

Just kind of how it goes in public forum.


----------



## JWChesnut

Juhani Lunden said:


> The fact that somebody can be treatment free and the majority cannot is an obvious mystery.


Juhani captured my intent more precisely than I could express myself. Small Cell has an enormous problem in that its reported results cannot be reproduced in any consistent fashion. Disentangling and isolating the elements of a complex husbandry scheme is a valorous undertaking. 

Small Cell has the elements of what is called in my profession "a pet theory" -- a hypothesis to which the reporter becomes emotionally attached, and becomes blind to contrary evidence. An alternative explanation, and an independent validation, will serve the best interests of keepers seeking to maintain bees free of persistent chemicals.

Bush promotes Small Cell as a universal panacea -- usually in the formulation "I had mites until I switched to small cell, then I had none". If I was promoting a panacea, I would seek to test and validate it. I find the defense that "its just what works for me" is disingenuous given the broad promotion of the panacea.


----------



## shannonswyatt

Juhani Lunden said:


> Rusty Hill Farms was speking this same... I don´t get it. I read the starting post again, and as far as I understand english, JWChesnut is not demanding MB anything. He is just a curious mind, trying to figure out, for the help of all (of you t -beekeepers) what is the secrect behind the success of MB.


In the initial post he says "How do we resolve this apparent contradiction? One way would be to implement a side-by-side controlled trial to isolate and test the elements of the method. _Oddly, Bush has never seen fit to perform this basic validation._"

I think the italicized portion above brings everyone to the conclusion that this is MB responsibility. 

If I sell Fords and you sell GM I am going to tell you all the reasons Fords are better and you are going to tell me all the reasons GMs are better. The consumer ultimately makes the decision on what is best for them. I wouldn't expect Ford or GM to come out and say their vehicles are worse than a competitor. In MB's case it is a methodology, not a product, but I still don't see why there would be a responsibility for him to go out and do a scientific comparison. In the past he was on LC and had failing hives, then later had success with SC hives. He is also probably a better beek now then when he was on LC, but his experience (along with Dee Lusby and some others) is that SC works for them. But it isn't just the comb, it is also the bees and the regimen.


----------



## Thershey

As a relatively new beek I find it interesting that the term "Small Cell" caught on and is thrown around as if it's some deliberate attempt by humans to manipulate the cell size down. 

Is it not true that "small cell" would be more accurately described as "Natural Cell" ?


----------



## JWChesnut

shannonswyatt said:


> In the initial post he says "How do we resolve this apparent contradiction? One way would be to implement a side-by-side controlled trial to isolate and test the elements of the method. _Oddly, Bush has never seen fit to perform this basic validation._"
> 
> I think the italicized portion above brings everyone to the conclusion that this is MB responsibility.


You read my post correctly. I *do* believe the intellectual author of a theory has the responsibility to validate their hypothesis. This is fundamental to the scientific method. For me, the defense the MB has no responsibility to test presents a distinct strain of cognitive dissonance. I cannot imagine promoting a method as vigourously as MB does without checking and cross-checking, experimentation and limit-testing.


----------



## The Valley

JWChesnut said:


> You read my post correctly. I *do* believe the intellectual author of a theory has the responsibility to validate their hypothesis. This is fundamental to the scientific method. For me, the defense the MB has no responsibility to test presents a distinct strain of cognitive dissonance. I cannot imagine promoting a method as vigourously as MB does without checking and cross-checking, experimentation and limit-testing.


Is a man not allowed his convictions without proof? Could it be that it is put there is a "take it or leave it" proposition? I for one like to be able to listen to all views and choose which I feel more comfortable with, without having to justify it, and as I get more experience you bet your bippy that I will advise people to do it as I do, because for me, that is what works. To suggest another method would be disingenuous. 
Forced compliance and perceived threat are for the easily intimidated. I decided to be a TF beekeeper long before coming here, it just amazes me that ideas can't be traded without someone trying to challenge it. Or are beekeepers just an ornery bunch? I've seen both types already, wonder which type prevails?


----------



## jmgi

Thershey said:


> As a relatively new beek I find it interesting that the term "Small Cell" caught on and is thrown around as if it's some deliberate attempt by humans to manipulate the cell size down.
> 
> Is it not true that "small cell" would be more accurately described as "Natural Cell" ?


This is opening up a whole new can of worms. My take on it is that small cell would be anything 4.9 and smaller, natural cell would be anything larger than that, at least to the small cell community. Also, my understanding is that AHB are the only honey bees that naturally build small cell in the wild, EHB will build small cell only with regression. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong on that.


----------



## Rusty Hills Farm

JWChesnut said:


> You read my post correctly. I *do* believe the intellectual author of a theory has the responsibility to validate their hypothesis. This is fundamental to the scientific method. For me, the defense the MB has no responsibility to test presents a distinct strain of cognitive dissonance. I cannot imagine promoting a method as vigourously as MB does without checking and cross-checking, experimentation and limit-testing.


See, THIS is the problem! The rest of us are *not* involved in some scientific endeavor here. We're just raising bees! Most of us are hobbyists not scientists. I don't believe ANY of us are proposing scientific hypotheses here--we're just discussing what has and hasn't worked for us and our bees.

Hey, if you want to treat your hives as some sort of scientific experiment, then more power to you. Go for it! Just don't expect the rest of us to do the same.

I enjoy MB's writings, his details about what is working for him and what hasn't worked. But the fact is that reading about it doesn't cost me anything but my time. What I actually DO with my hives is entirely up to ME. Heck, that's one of the things I enjoy about keeping bees. IF I decide to try something I've read, that decision is mine alone and so is my success or failure. To somehow suggest that MB is accountable for MY results is positively ludicrous. I am convinced that success or failure as a beekeeper is almost entirely because of that beekeeper's own level (or lack) of skill. We can read until we are blue in the face but it is the hands-on that makes us good beekeepers. And for some of us that takes years. 

I've been at this for more than 20 years and I STILL learn something every single time I open a hive.

JMO

Rusty

edited to add that I am a LC beek and I treat!


----------



## shannonswyatt

JWChesnut said:


> You read my post correctly. I *do* believe the intellectual author of a theory has the responsibility to validate their hypothesis. This is fundamental to the scientific method. For me, the defense the MB has no responsibility to test presents a distinct strain of cognitive dissonance. I cannot imagine promoting a method as vigourously as MB does without checking and cross-checking, experimentation and limit-testing.


Yet you seem eagerly pronounce it's a failure without providing the same scrutiny. Seems to me you are just as guilty or I guess I should say hypocritical. You should held out to Nebraska and perform the study before you dismiss it.


----------



## shannonswyatt

jmgi said:


> This is opening up a whole new can of worms. My take on it is that small cell would be anything 4.9 and smaller, natural cell would be anything larger than that, at least to the small cell community. Also, my understanding is that AHB are the only honey bees that naturally build small cell in the wild, EHB will build small cell only with regression. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong on that.


Natural cell size is 4.5 to 5.1. 

Hell what is natural anyway. If you upsize the bees for a hundred year the feral mutts will have been upsized.


----------



## beemandan

To my thinking there are two, polarized groups. The first, I'll call the subjectives. In their minds 'works for me' is sufficient. The others, I'll call objectives, require some level of empirical evidence. Neither can claim the high ground. On some issues both are in agreement. On others they aren't. This discussion falls into the latter. No amount of argument will shift either from their line of thought. 


JWChesnut said:


> If I was promoting a panacea, I would seek to test and validate it. I find the defense that "its just what works for me" is disingenuous given the broad promotion of the panacea.


As a self described objective, I find it incomprehensible that anyone would spend vast amounts of time digging through studies, old manuscripts and magazines in search of a proof of principle. Spend countless hours posting in defense of the theory. Yet be unwilling to take the few extra hours annually to do an objective mite test that might add some practical evidence to the theory. But....that's just me being my objective self.


----------



## Michael Bush

The term "miracle" pretty much sets the tone for the rest...

Personally I would much rather talk about bees than Varroa, especially since Varroa have not been an issue for me for more than a decade. I am tired of everyone’s obsession with them. Topics like laying workers, preventing robbing, doing splits etc. would be much more interesting to me.

I am not going to engage in a discussion of all of the accusations (confidence game?)... and thank you to those of you who have stood up for me. I will merely try to correct a few misconceptions and apparent misunderstandings.

>I don't buy small cell as being the answer. If that were true Apis ceranae wouldn't have varroa.

But Apis ceranae don't die from Varroa. My bees have Varroa...

>Few if any queen introductions, but the stock has a very diverse and difficult to parse ancestry including feral, Buckmaster, Weaver and other bees. No mention of Russian or Minnesota VSH ancestry.

All of the Buckfast, Russians, MN Hygenics, and SMR (name now changed to VSH) bees I used to have were dead from Varroa before I went to small cell. There is probably some Italian and probably some Carniolan mixed in. The root stock was feral. I used to have some that had some AMM characteristics but those traits have faded those over time.

>Bush's self-described main apiary was (up to 2013) at his home address. He has since moved, and sold the property. 

Actually I haven't sold the Greenwood property yet, and I started moving in August of 2012 and over the course of 2012 to 2013 moved the hives to the new place. The home yard is mostly used for queen rearing when I have the time to get it done. The outyards are usually used for honey. The yards are spread over a large area. 60 miles to some of the farthest ones. Between being out of the country for 3 years and speaking and working full time and moving for the next two years, I'm afraid they have actually been mostly abandoned in recent times. They were not split regularly nor managed at all for most of those five years. So the idea that splits are the cause of success kind of falls apart since they are still alive. Some of them have hives from other beekeepers on the same farm. I have pretty much the same results in all the yards. When I find a yard that doesn't flourish (not a recent occurrence) I bring the rest home and look for another yard. Usually it’s lack of forage or farmers using chemicals that are responsible. There were feral bees at the Greenwood place before I moved my bees there. There still are feral bees there.

Of course, I was in that same place near Greenwood when succeeding as when I lost them all to Varroa... several times.

>The fact that somebody can be treatment free and the majority cannot is an obvious mystery.

I have not found this statement to be true at all. The majority are not even trying to be treatment free. You mean the majority who are not making any attempt to be treatment free other than not treating? The majority of the people I know who are doing small cell and treatment free are succeeding, not failing. I know more people who are treating and losing all of their bees than small cell and not treating and losing all of their bees.

>I do understand why Mike Bush is successful. He flooded the area with good BeeWeaver genetics for decades. He has created his own resistant 'hybrid swarm', and they have the same small cell, reduced mite load characteristics, of other AHB stocks. 

Simply not true. I had BWeaver genetics in Mitchell, Nebraska from 1974 to 1986. I had them in Omaha from 1986-1990. I had them in Laramie, WY in 1991 and Brighton, CO in 1992 and Bellvue, NE in 1993-1996 and Omaha again in 1997-1998. I had them in Greenwood (my previous home) from 1999-2001 but they died off every year and I have not had any since. As soon as they showed any AHB characteristics I quit using them. That is not "flooding the area with good BeeWeaver genetics for decades". I'm now 30 miles from that location.

>That's why Michael needs a decent video camera. We need pictures instead of ideas to understand better, to visualize it. 

I don't know how well I will be at using it, but I did buy a GoPro camera. We will see. I wish I had a good videographer to follow me around...

If you want a visual (and not to feel left out) here are my current hives from the air:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/N...2!3m1!1s0x87946a248cde7fe5:0xa85836e5ddb462aa

Google maps have been updated and you can't see the hives anymore at the old place from the air:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.9107301,-96.4278615,75m/data=!3m1!1e3

But the street view is old so here are some of the hives (the ones by the road) at the old place:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.910...ata=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sPOmg37OAz-E0ud9u50wVNg!2e0

>To what gain, I don't see anybody getting rich or giving up their day job to promote tf. 

That's one of my frustrations. I'd love to do beekeeping full time, but I make much better money doing computers... not much money in being a free "bee consultant".

>Is it not true that "small cell" would be more accurately described as "Natural Cell" ? 

I would call "small cell" more natural than "large cell", but "natural cell" is what you get when you let the bees build what they want, which I highly recommend.

>My take on it is that small cell would be anything 4.9 and smaller, natural cell would be anything larger than that, at least to the small cell community.

"Small cell" is pretty much accepted by "small cell" people as 4.9mm. Natural cell runs from 4.4mm to 5.1mm or so in the core of the brood nest, but by definition if the bees built it without foundation, it is natural cell.

>Also, my understanding is that AHB are the only honey bees that naturally build small cell in the wild, EHB will build small cell only with regression.

Not at all. I've seen many EHB combs that were 4.6mm.

>I may be incorrect, but I believe MB uses mostly small cell plastic in his brood nests, along with natural comb.

I have about 3,000 frames of PF120s (one piece plastic frames with 4.9mm foundation). I have about 3,000 frames of foundationless comb. I have about 1,000 wax coated PermaComb. I'm not sure how many old frames I have in addition that I've cut out and put in the brood nest to get foundationless. I have a couple of top bar hives. My junk pile is a history museum of experiments in box size, frame size, hive types...


----------



## JWChesnut

Interesting and thanks for sharing further detail
"So the idea that splits are the cause of success kind of falls apart since they are still alive."

I hypothesized a "virtuous cycle" where going into the winter with very small summer splits generated enormous selective pressure, since the bees in small splits are vulnerable. I hypothesized that the genetics derived from this "virtuous cycle" are a core element to your continuing success.

On language, "miracle" is a direct reference to the contemporary thread "The miracle of going foundationless", and no one has objected to the use of Miracle in that context.


----------



## pedrocr

JWChesnut said:


> Bush promotes Small Cell as a universal panacea usually in the formulation "I had mites until I switched to small cell, then I had none".


This is a pretty specific accusation. Care to back it up? With a link perhaps?

I went to the source:

http://www.bushfarms.com/bees.htm

Natural cell size (not small cell) is one of four things proposed on that page. Can you point to even one instance of SC being promoted by MB as a cure by itself? I just went back to your original post and you call small cell "the central Bush prescription". That's just a strawman.

Pointing to one element of someone's system and saying "studies have shown that introducing that one change doesn't solve our problems" doesn't make for much of an argument. If you actually want to test what is proposed on that page you need to:

1. Build a yard where you breed from survivors and don't treat (instead of taking out infected hives)
2. To give those bees a fighting chance give them clean wax, natural cell size, and natural food (the details are all on the page)


----------



## TWall

;1084978 said:


> But Apis ceranae don't die from Varroa. My bees have Varroa...


But, I thought the reason small cell worked was it reduced the space and time brood spends in the cell so varroa couldn't complete life cycles as easily. Since the brood cycle time is the same for both, A. mellifera and A. cerana, at 21 days.

I am not against small cell. 

I want to know why you are successful. Not just that you use small cell or natural cell. My gut tells me it is a combination of genetics and location. But, my gut has been wrong more than once!

It is a complex system and I don't think there is just one change that anyone can make. Yes, beekeeping is local. However, Apis mellifera is Apis mellifera in Nebraska and Ohio!

I do value and appreciate your input. 

Thanks,

Tom


----------



## rhaldridge

I wonder if we'll see any acknowledgment from the OP that most of his assumptions about Michael's bees were incorrect. But I won't hold my breath.

Envy is such a destructive emotion.


----------



## AstroBee

Rusty Hills Farm said:


> I enjoy MB's writings, his details about what is working for him and what hasn't worked. But the fact is that reading about it doesn't cost me anything but my time. What I actually DO with my hives is entirely up to ME. Heck, that's one of the things I enjoy about keeping bees. IF I decide to try something I've read, that decision is mine alone and so is my success or failure. To somehow suggest that MB is accountable for MY results is positively ludicrous. *I am convinced that success or failure as a beekeeper is almost entirely because of that beekeeper's own level (or lack) of skill.* We can read until we are blue in the face but it is the hands-on that makes us good beekeepers. And for some of us that takes years.


I'm with you Rusty, particularly the part in bold. Where I start to struggle is: what if you create a method, call it the Varroa TERMINATOR (VT - no offense MP), and believe it helps prevent varroa, shoot it works for you why not help others - great!. You then start to tell others that "just use the VT and varroa losses will be minimal". That's all good - you're just a hobbyiest telling the folks at the local club and a few posts here. Now, if you write a book that leverages the concepts of the VT and, fly around the country promoting the VT, generate a following that continue to further promote the VT, then that to me that puts you into different level of accountability. It could turn out that your VT is a general fix to ALL varroa, but it might also turn out that it only works on varroa in Alabama. I know that MB didn't create SC, but he strongly advocates it and certainly has a national stage. New beekeepers simply don't have the experience differentiate between competing alternatives. SC is SO appealing, particularly to newbees - no chems, minimal losses, what's not to like?


----------



## Robndixie

AstroBee said:


> I'm with you Rusty, particularly the part in bold. Where I start to struggle is: what if you create a method, call it the Varroa TERMINATOR (VT - no offense MP), and believe it helps prevent varroa, shoot it works for you why not help others - great!. You then start to tell others that "just use the VT and varroa losses will be minimal". That's all good - you're just a hobbyiest telling the folks at the local club and a few posts here. Now, if you write a book that leverages the concepts of the VT and, fly around the country promoting the VT, generate a following that continue to further promote the VT, then that to me that puts you into different level of accountability. It could turn out that your VT is a general fix to ALL varroa, but it might also turn out that it only works on varroa in Alabama. I know that MB didn't create SC, but he strongly advocates it and certainly has a national stage. New beekeepers simply don't have the experience differentiate between competing alternatives. SC is SO appealing, particularly to newbees - no chems, minimal losses, what's not to like?


is it any different than another beekeeper saying that bees raised in georgia can't be kept alive anywhere else and flying around the country saying it? i can't believe that there haven't been lawsuits over that (seems like libel or slander).
honestly, i'm not sure the average new beekeeper is going to do any better using any methods other than trial and error. it's not like it was 40 years ago, you can't just throw them in a field and expect them to be there forever.
it's ironic that as the level of difficulty has gone up more people have become interested in keeping bees. if there had been this many backyard beekeepers in the 80's we'd probably have better bees now.


----------



## sharpdog

AstroBee said:


> I've made no doubt to my skepticism of the claims of SC, however, I want to state for the record that I have the highest respect for MB and have learned a ton from him since I joined. He certainly has been a big contributor to this forum and is most definitely partly responsible for its success. Also, I don't believe that he should be responsible for conducting any tests of SC to resolve the lingering questions. Could he contribute to a fair study? Sure! And lastly, I completely believe that he has given an honest accounting of his methods and outcomes. Having read many of his contributions over the years I get the sense he's totally honest.
> 
> Do I agree with everything he suggests? Absolutely not. Since I'm relative neophyte (way less than his 40 years) he likely feels the same about my contributions. What really troubles me, about many in the SC community, and this may be my personality flaw, is when a reasonably well-done study suggests that SC doesn't pose the benefits against varroa and then see it dismissed for a myriad of reasons. The astonishing thing is that most dismissals are done without even acknowledging the possibility that there "may" be something else, currently unaccounted for, that has led to success by the SC community. Again, I believe that was the core of JWC's opening post. I want to acknowledge that several within the SC community have openly admitted that other factors may be involved beyond simple cell size.
> 
> When you have the stage like MB does, and advocate that something works like MB does, then you're going to get challenges when evidence is produced to the contrary. This is kind of the nature of these online sites - we all know that when we step into the room.
> 
> This forum has a long history of these challenges:
> 
> FGMO,
> Queen excluders,
> Checkerboarding,
> TF,
> neonics,
> CCD,
> etc.
> 
> Just kind of how it goes in public forum.


Very well said!


----------



## AstroBee

Robndixie said:


> bees raised in georgia can't be kept alive anywhere else


Finally some common ground :lookout: (just kidding)


----------



## beemandan

Robndixie said:


> bees raised in georgia can't be kept alive anywhere else


Works for me


----------



## Robndixie

dan, i'm only three years in as a georgia beekeeper and my best stock came from alabama........
actually my best bees came from griffin, georgia but who knows where they really came from before that and they have been open mated on my place since then.


----------



## v45

I just want to say that I have appreciated Mr. Bushes website & his time he takes to tell how he raises bees, I have got several good ideas from him on raising my bees in my 4th year with no mentor. I still use OAV treatment but I value his opinion & experience on raising bees


----------



## Michael Bush

>I want to know why you are successful. Not just that you use small cell or natural cell. My gut tells me it is a combination of genetics and location. But, my gut has been wrong more than once!

What I have been saying, for many years now, and what is on the front page of the beekeeping portion of my website (yes I have a life outside of bees), is four primary points. It's just that the tipping point on Varroa was small cell/natural cell (I tried both to see not only what would happen, but what the bees would build, as, contrary to popular belief I have always been a skeptic, not a "believer"). I was already doing much of the rest of those and still losing all my bees to Varroa. There are many things I talk about on my web site, and oddly enough, there is not one page on "small cell" other than addressing all the theories people come up with on discounting small cell as why anyone succeeds on small cell. Natural cell size gets mentioned, of course, on the Foundationless page and the Lazy Beekeeping page (under the topic of foundationless) and the "Natural Cell Size" page. In the "Enemies of the Bees" page small cell is mentioned (along with mentions of all the common treatments at the time I wrote it). But as far as the health of the bees I've listed four primary things and talked about those four primary things many times in many places. And not one of them is small cell either, although natural cell is mentioned as one effect of natural comb. They are here:
http://www.bushfarms.com/beesfoursimplesteps.htm

There are several other web pages on my site that elaborate on these four issues.

I think genetics is very important, however SMR (now VSH), Russians, MN Hygienics and Buckfasts (probably with AHB genes) all died from Varroa on large cell comb, treated or not treated, in the same location bees were surviving later on natural comb and the same location that already had feral bees surviving on their own natural comb. 

I think clean comb is very important, but I was still using foundation I bought back in 1974 until 2001 so the wax was clean enough. They still died from Varroa on clean wax. 

I was not treating, up until 1999, so they should have had a healthy microbial ecology, but they still all died from Varroa. My point is, that I think these are all important issues, but none of them tipped the scale to where there were any bees surviving. Yes I am doing more than cell size. The web site, which you can read for free, when converted to a book, comes to 674 pages. I did NOT write 674 pages just about "small cells".


----------



## Dominic

They say that the varroa:bee size ration is the largest parasite:host ratio in the world... Now imagine with natural (small)-sized bees! Maybe small size does help against varroa... and maybe it has absolutely nothing to do with the varroa's growth in the capped cells? I could imagine the mites being easier to brush off if they take a larger portion of the host's bodies, for one... Maybe the smaller workers can't handle the parasitism as much, and either spend more effort to groom or are more likely to die out in the field (thereby dumping the mites out of the hive).

Does small cell help fight varroa? I don't know. But I think that to simply consider what is going on in the capped cells is to ignore a lot of potential impacts this practice may have on bee and colony health.


----------



## Juhani Lunden

Michael Bush said:


> >I want to know why you are successful. Not just that you use small cell or natural cell. My gut tells me it is a combination of genetics and location. But, my gut has been wrong more than once!
> 
> What I have been saying, for many years now, and what is on the front page of the beekeeping portion of my website (yes I have a life outside of bees), is four primary points. It's just that the tipping point on Varroa was small cell/natural cell (I tried both to see not only what would happen, but what the bees would build, as, contrary to popular belief I have always been a skeptic, not a "believer"). I was already doing much of the rest of those and still losing all my bees to Varroa. There are many things I talk about on my web site, and oddly enough, there is not one page on "small cell" other than addressing all the theories people come up with on discounting small cell as why anyone succeeds on small cell. Natural cell size gets mentioned, of course, on the Foundationless page and the Lazy Beekeeping page (under the topic of foundationless) and the "Natural Cell Size" page. In the "Enemies of the Bees" page small cell is mentioned (along with mentions of all the common treatments at the time I wrote it). But as far as the health of the bees I've listed four primary things and talked about those four primary things many times in many places. And not one of them is small cell either, although natural cell is mentioned as one effect of natural comb. They are here:
> http://www.bushfarms.com/beesfoursimplesteps.htm
> 
> There are several other web pages on my site that elaborate on these four issues.
> 
> I think genetics is very important, however SMR (now VSH), Russians, MN Hygienics and Buckfasts (probably with AHB genes) all died from Varroa on large cell comb, treated or not treated, in the same location bees were surviving later on natural comb and the same location that already had feral bees surviving on their own natural comb.
> 
> I think clean comb is very important, but I was still using foundation I bought back in 1974 until 2001 so the wax was clean enough. They still died from Varroa on clean wax.
> 
> I was not treating, up until 1999, so they should have had a healthy microbial ecology, but they still all died from Varroa. My point is, that I think these are all important issues, but none of them tipped the scale to where there were any bees surviving. Yes I am doing more than cell size. The web site, which you can read for free, when converted to a book, comes to 674 pages. I did NOT write 674 pages just about "small cells".


Lets try to resolve this Bush Miracle by using my own beekeeping as a comparison.

I don´t treat and my winterlosses are bigger than by the treating beekeepers, last winter 17%.
I do a lot of nucs to maintain my hives. They are done with laying queens, which have been raised by myself and mated in an isolation apiary for the last 19 years. 
I use local stock.
I live in north so winters are quite hard.
I have my own wax circulated, so it is propably cleaner than what the ecological beekeepers are using.
I also used Russian stock, when they came on markert, and they died in my beekeeping because the breeding work was then in its early stages. Nowdays I use whatever bees which can cope with mites.
I don´t use pollen substitutes, but I do feed them sugar for the winter.
I give a lot of lectures because it is much more profitable than ordanary beekeeping.

What separates me from Michael Bush:
I don´t use small or natural cells. My foundation is made by Lahtisen Vahavalimo, a family company that has been in operation over 100 years. They do 5,3mm foundations only. 
I don´t sell hives or nucs.


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

What I learned already is, that Michael Bush takes a lot of time helping beekeeping beginners and a lot of effort to pool all the beekeeping knowledge which also ended up in his book. I would never ever offend Michael personally and I cannot see a reason, why I should. In opposite one has to thank Michael for all his work and time. Answering patiently over and over again!

But there is a lot of responsibility, too. I have been reading Michaels writings since a long time, I do have his book. All of what he said, fitted in my ideas of how to keep bees. I tried almost everything he said and even tried to go further. Well, reality didn't match theory much and most of his recommendations were a disaster in my location and reality. (Location, location, location...) Which concerns small cells, natural cells, working without excluder, top entrances and so on. I am guilty myself a bit, because I was repeating Michaels stuff without actual pratical knowledge - just because it sounded good and fitted into my ideology. That's what newbees do today, too. This stuff gets repeated over and over again. 

Every year thousands and millions of newbees post: I am treatment free and do not have losses. After their first year...They do crash the next or the other year. This they don't post. If you google treatment free, you read all the "success stories". While this may help to try it, it also produces a lot of dead bees. Unnecessarily!

It is about time, to correct the misconception. In reality about 99 % of treatment free beekeepers fail and suffer crashes. Treatment free beekeepers have much more losses than treaters. 

My words are not intended to discourage people from going treatment free. The opposite. I am a great supporter of the idea and trying hard myself. I actually do encourage people to treat at least as possible, gradually reducing the use of treatments. 

My intention when asking for pictures and videos is not to get any proof of some sorts. I simply want to learn. And I think we have to pin down what produces the success in treatment free beekeeping. I would visit Michael, but as other users on beesource I am living far away with no opportunity for a quick visit or extended course. I simply want to track down the differences. With some videos that we be possible for us, because some of us are experienced enough to look and see, and immediately see what's going on. And differentiating is what is needed urgently when publishing treatment free success stories. It must be made clear that it is not as easy. Some small cells here, wintering on honey there, fresh wax there. No. That is not so easy.

We need more differentiation, not defamation.


----------



## WLC

"The root stock was feral. I used to have some that had some AMM characteristics but those traits have faded those over time."

It's about time that you've described them.

What were those Amm characteristics? It would be very helpful to anyone contemplating going Treatment Free so they can identify suitable candidate stocks.


----------



## shannonswyatt

WLC said:


> What were those Amm characteristics? It would be very helpful to anyone contemplating going Treatment Free so they can identify suitable candidate stocks.


I read that to be dark and mean!


----------



## sqkcrk

Maybe you should let Michael tell you what it means rather than jumping to conclusions on your own or you might not listen to him when he tells you.


----------



## Daniel Y

shannonswyatt said:


> _Oddly, Bush has never seen fit to perform this basic validation._"
> 
> I think the italicized portion above brings everyone to the conclusion that this is MB responsibility.


I would think your thought is wrong. This is nothing but an observation. Has Micheal done a side by side comparison? Is he even interested in doing one? Finally even if he did would it be evidence of anything? You are free to read into it anything you like. Nobody asked Micheal to do anything. they simply pointed out what he did not do and they consider having done so obvious and important.

The benefit would be to see if SC is actually playing any part in reducing mites or is it caused by some other factor/s.

I know I would tell anyone that made such a suggestion to me that I am a little busy running my apiary. And doing so to achieve my goals for the year. Since Micheal is one of those that seems to be able to manage bees in a way that prevents mites. I woudl not be so ready to hand the management of my apiary over to anyone. Why woudl I listen about how to prevent mites from those that can't?


----------



## shannonswyatt

My point is that JW comes in and says to someone their kids are ugly and not particularly quick on the uptake and he wonders why people would be offended. I read the post because I had started reading the posts about small cell that deteriorated pretty quickly and thought that JW may have something reasonable to add to this discussion. As soon as I read the initial post it was clear that it was just basically a character assassination of MB. I'm surprised that JW didn't claim that MB had a sugar momma that was paying for his "hobby". 

Go back and read the initial post. You can't tell me that isn't accusatory at a minimum. If I tell my neighbor that I like brand X ice cream am I required to do some kind of double blind taste test? If I put it up in a blog is there a responsibility at that point? If people start reading my blog and all start buying that ice cream is it my responsibility at that point? What about if all people don't like that brand, have I committed some malfeasance? Someone may say that brand X putrid and start stalking me on Google street view!

I do not follow MB around like a lost puppy dog, but of the stuff that I have read from MB on beesource he seems reasonable, straightforward and very knowledgeable. I was considering purchasing his book, but he says on his website to save your money since it is all up on the web page. I would add that there is now banner ads on his site, like say, beesource. He lays out what he did in the past, what he does now and tells of his results past and present. I had bees and I did "X" and they all died. I now do "Y" and they mostly live. And while I haven't read his site I have read parts of it and he does describe his methods in a way that most people could understand. I guess that JW can't. I suggest that JW attend the MB camp and learn his methods first hand and than he can perform the validation that he must have.


----------



## Acebird

I love how beekeepers want a proven silver bullet yet there are no two beekeepers alike. Everyone of them will do something different than the next guy no matter how subtle that difference is. No beekeeper has any influence on the environment that may affect what happens in the short term. If you are the sole beekeeper in the local environment you may have a fraction of influence but if you are one in a pool your effect is minuscule. The proof that this thread is looking for would require EVERY managed hive in a 10 mile radius to switch to small cell and do EVERYTHING the same for at least 10 years. How in the world would you expect that to happen among beekeepers?

I am in favor of small cell even though I am not practicing that path simply because if foundation was not used the bees would resort back to that size in time. That alone says it is the right thing to do if your concern is for the bees and not for your own personal reasons. I like Laurie's idea of some percentage of foundation and some natural. I think there are benefits to it beyond financial.


----------



## sqkcrk

I love altruistic beekeepers.


----------



## shannonswyatt

What, where?


----------



## Michael Bush

>It is about time, to correct the misconception. In reality about 99 % of treatment free beekeepers fail and suffer crashes. Treatment free beekeepers have much more losses than treaters. 

This is not consistent with any recent survey that I have seen. The surveys that have been done show the same losses for treatment free and treatment.

>It's about time that you've described them.

http://www.bushfarms.com/images/BlackBees.jpg
http://www.bushfarms.com/beesqueens.htm
http://www.bushfarms.com/beesferal.htm
http://www.beesource.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-281326.html
http://www.beesource.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-207467.html
http://www.beesource.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-292014.html
http://www.beesource.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-188598.html
http://www.beesource.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-234406.html

> What were those Amm characteristics? It would be very helpful to anyone contemplating going Treatment Free so they can identify suitable candidate stocks. 

Black
Runny
Sticky propolis
Excessive propolis
Some were overly defensive (as opposed to aggressive)

I haven't seen runny, excessive propolis or excessive defensiveness for some time now. I don't mind the propolis. I would prefer not to have them runny. I don't tolerate them being overly defensive.


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

I doubt that a non-scientific survey pictures real life very well, if those surveys (plural?) are like those we have here in Germany on wintering losses.


----------



## Riverderwent

"Some were overly defensive (as opposed to aggressive)."

Michael, we're talking about the bees, right. (You're a classy guy.)

David Matlock


----------



## jonathan

Michael Bush said:


> > What were those Amm characteristics? It would be very helpful to anyone contemplating going Treatment Free so they can identify suitable candidate stocks.
> 
> Black
> Runny
> Sticky propolis
> Excessive propolis
> Some were overly defensive (as opposed to aggressive)
> 
> I haven't seen runny, excessive propolis or excessive defensiveness for some time now. I don't mind the propolis. I would prefer not to have them runny. I don't tolerate them being overly defensive.


Micheal.
I run a breeding group based on Amm in Ireland and the only characteristic listed above I would agree with is that they are certainly black.
Runny bees are bad bees. I see this maybe 1 colony in 50
Same with propolis, some glue everything together, most don't
I have some very gentle colonies you can work bare handed.

You sure your dark bees are Amm as opposed to dark mutts?

Anyway, off topic for the thread so I will say no more.


----------



## Cub

Ok, I'm going to bash MB a bit, but on a lighter note, in an effort to close out this endless and pointless thread. On the keeping of bees, he is certainly a master. 

But dang, those hives are ugly and need some paint! I know Miller and Taylor advocate them not being coated, but I just can't handle the look of motley colored/unpainted boxes.

Barry, I think enough is enough.


----------



## tommysnare

Thershey said:


> As a relatively new beek I find it interesting that the term "Small Cell" caught on and is thrown around as if it's some deliberate attempt by humans to manipulate the cell size down.
> 
> Is it not true that "small cell" would be more accurately described as "Natural Cell" ?


natural cell would be just that...natural. small cell is forcing them to draw a smaller cel size due to small cell fundation and downsizing the frame endbars etc. IMHO...and what i do is use no foundation. it seems to be doing well. i see no visible mites through my inspections of drone larvae and have done a few mite counts. with either very few-zero mites found. i would never say it works for everyone because i believe mites are based heavily on locale and feral populations breeding with new queens. BUT i will say (as i have before) some of my colonies CLEARLY rear smaller bees...visually. i sometimes A and B the workers from different colonies just to make sure my eyes arent playing tricks on me. i strongly believe that colonies raise the size bee they need for that particular colonies needs. 

just as they do in the wild.

and for the record...i have a miniscule of history compared to the authorities on Beesource and i would never downplay or lay judgement on how a beek cares for their bees. My intent when i got in to beekeeping after i fell in love and basically obsessed with everything beekeepings,was to have them be as natural as possible. its how we have chosen to do so. it has been working with rollercoaster effects...but, we feel it does work.


----------



## Juhani Lunden

Juhani Lunden said:


> Lets try to resolve this Bush Miracle by using my own beekeeping as a comparison.


Much closer comparison is Kirk Webster, whos doing well without treatments and with normal cells.


----------



## Michael Bush

>I run a breeding group based on Amm in Ireland and the only characteristic listed above I would agree with is that they are certainly black.
> Runny bees are bad bees. I see this maybe 1 colony in 50

Runny bees are not so much an Amm characteristic as a feral characteristic that is easily bred out. The ones here are mostly because the Amm were the feral bees in North America for several hundred years and during the time they ere kept domestically runny was a good characteristic as you could run them out of a box hive to harvest the honey. So the Amm here tend to not be bred for the typical domestic characteristics of gentle and not runny. 

> Same with propolis, some glue everything together, most don't

It's not hard to breed out, but again, in the feral population no one was.

> I have some very gentle colonies you can work bare handed.

Gentleness is another thing that is easy to breed for, but the ferals were not.

>You sure your dark bees are Amm as opposed to dark mutts?

The dark bees here that have been domesticated are mostly Carniolan and Caucasian. I'm not sure at all. In recent times they act more like Carniolans and are not runny, not defensive, and not propolizing a lot.

I am not saying you can't breed Amm to be good domestic bees, but people here have not been doing that. They changed over to Italians back in the late 1800s.


----------



## shannonswyatt

From what I've heard from my great grandfather via my father is that AMM were mean, but my guess is that they were really hybrid bees and not true AMM. The story my father told of them had to have been back in the early 50's. He was warned by my great grandfather not to mess with a black bee swarm since they would be too hot too work. My dad and his cousin, being teenagers knew everything and hived them up for a while until they became to hot for them to work. 

I've read that AMM in Europe are not that mean, but I've also heard they are not as good at producing honey as AM. I have zero personal experience and have never seen a black bee other than in pictures.


----------



## rhaldridge

Daniel Y said:


> Why woudl I listen about how to prevent mites from those that can't?


This is an excellent point.


----------



## rhaldridge

sqkcrk said:


> I love altruistic beekeepers.


In other forums, we like to call them "concern trolls."


----------



## Juhani Lunden

There is no Bush Miracle.

The basic elements for all tf -beekeepers, who have made it longer than 3 years: 
1. stubborn individual, who sticks to a plan and some basic principals and is not afraid of big losses
2. own stock and queen production 
3. remote area or the possibility to somehow controll matings
4. losses are covered with lots of nucs
5. other incomes besides honey (nucs, queens, lectures, books, etc.)
maybe also
5. clean wax

Small or natural cells has nothing to do with the success in tf beekeeping, but bees must be able to raise drones as much as they want (for instance extra space in the bottom).


----------



## Michael Bush

>Much closer comparison is Kirk Webster, whos doing well without treatments and with normal cells. 

Kirk makes his own foundation and it is 5.1mm, not 5.4mm. While Kirk does not credit cell size as a part of his plan, but he is only .2mm larger than 4.9mm and .3mm smaller than 5.4mm. I find this is often the case with successful treatment free people. People are on Pierco (5.2mm), PermaComb (5.0mm), Mann Lake PF100s (4.95mm and was sold for years as just inexpensive one piece frames) or they are doing natural cell. It just hasn't occurred to them that they have changed the cell size.


----------



## Juhani Lunden

Michael Bush said:


> >Much closer comparison is Kirk Webster, whos doing well without treatments and with normal cells.
> 
> Kirk makes his own foundation and it is 5.1mm, not 5.4mm. While Kirk does not credit cell size as a part of his plan, but he is only .2mm larger than 4.9mm and .3mm smaller than 5.4mm. I find this is often the case with successful treatment free people. People are on Pierco (5.2mm), PermaComb (5.0mm), Mann Lake PF100s (4.95mm and was sold for years as just inexpensive one piece frames) or they are doing natural cell. It just hasn't occurred to them that they have changed the cell size.


Oh, did not ask, must ask next time I phone... he was just laughing so (friendly) to a mutual friend about his small cell "blind spot"...


----------



## shannonswyatt

Juhani does have a good point. Before the season starts a lot of people come up with a game plan. Things like I'm going to split all my hives at the end of some period, or I'm going to start raising my own queens or I'm going to move my apiary to another location on a certain flow, or whatever it is. I think what separates the folks that are successful and the ones that are not is the ability to come up with a good game plan before the season, and then the ability to keep with the plan as the season progresses. I would like to be the later but I am the former. I hope this is the season that I have put together a good plan and that I'm able to stick with it.


----------



## Mike Gillmore

Juhani Lunden said:


> The basic elements for all tf -beekeepers, who have made it longer than 3 years:
> 1. stubborn individual, who sticks to a plan and some basic principals and is not afraid of big losses
> 2. own stock and queen production
> 3. remote area or the possibility to somehow controll matings
> 4. losses are covered with lots of nucs
> 5. other incomes besides honey (nucs, queens, lectures, books, etc.)
> maybe also
> 5. clean wax


If that's the case, then most of the thousands of backyard beekeepers with 3, 5, 10 hives are out of luck. The only point they could realistically achieve is #5 clean wax. 

What advice could be given to someone in the "hobbyist" category trying to go TF?


----------



## The Valley

Mike Gillmore said:


> What advice could be given to someone in the "hobbyist" category trying to go TF?


Use local stock and let nature dictate, if the bees don't make it, they weren't meant to. I used local bees and queens from another TF apiary, my bees came through winter fine, I don't use medicine, chemicals or feed sugar.


----------



## Mike Gillmore

How many years have you been able to sustain this? How many hives?

If all your bees die, what stock will you restart with?


----------



## cerezha

Mike Gillmore said:


> ...What advice could be given to someone in the "hobbyist" category trying to go TF?


 I am not in position to give anybody advise, but my bees are doing well for the past 3 years against prediction by "experienced beekeepers." I do not like/use the definition of treatment-free by Solomon Parker at beesource. I do not use chemicals, sugar, foundation, frames and I treat my bees with love. We started from 2 colonies. Those 2 colonies produced 5 more beehives. I lost one colony to my stupidity - robbing. Another colony, looks like CCD - they left when I was in Russia. So, possible mites-related lost is 1 colony over 3 years. My bees originated probably from feral stock. We are living in the city in SoCal, thus - no winter break. Bees are foundationless and frameless, top bars only. I used to check mites, but stop doing so, because bees are alive and well does not matter what the count is. Over 3 years, bees swarmed 3 times: first time they left, 2 others -conveniently hived themselves at my place. Two other neighbors have bees from the same stock. I estimate my bees produce ~40 kg per hive per year (spread over entire year).

I have deep respect to Michael Bush as most knowledgeable beekeeper. His book is only beekeeping book I have in paper - the rest are in digital form. My beekeeping technique is a "natural beekeeping" utilizing the best (to me) elements from the best beekeepers: Michael Bush, Walt Kirk, Perone, Varre and many Russian/slavic sources. 

As for original subject of this discussion - I expressed my opinion many times in the past. The biggest problem is stress - anything, which can reduce the stress, would be beneficial to bees:
- natural cells, bees love to make a comb, they release the stress this way;
- minimal disturbance in the nest;
- bees always have enough honey for themselves, never sugar or other substitutes;
- bees have as many drones as they wish;
- bees have native California plants, variety of flowers, fruit trees, eucalyptus, avocado etc.;
- all fresh snow-white comb, no comb reuse;
- beehives are stationary, no migration, no almonds whatsoever.

Stress affected immunity, less stress - better immunity. I guess, healthy bees can stand against varroa.

you may see my bees here:
http://www.beesource.com/forums/sho...-frameless-honey-in-Santa-Monica-July-16-2012


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

cerezha said:


> The biggest problem is stress - anything, which can reduce the stress, would be beneficial to bees:...


Sounds good to me. Which is, why I started all the things you named in the past, yet the bees failed to thrive in my place. Which lead me to pesticides. And well, what can I say, since I am reducing stress by being poisoned the bees do better. So to that list of beneficial things one can do to bees, I would add decontamination. Which matters in some places and not so much in more natural landscapes. Or at least: if there are alternative ressources for the bees to forage on.


----------



## cerezha

BernhardHeuvel said:


> ... yet the bees failed to thrive in my place. Which lead me to pesticides...


Bernhard - there are many different ways to mitigate mites. Did you try all of them? Russians use "thermo-camera" for treatment against varroa - they "cook" bees at 45(?)oC for 5-10 min until 99% mites drops from the bees (broodless period in winter). This is great technique - I wish to have it available for my bees (just in case ), but it needs to be done in cold. My Russian friend is using garlic for prophylactic of mites. Also, if bees were selected to be treated with pesticides - of coarse, they can not survive without treatment - they programmed for this.


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

I meant pesticides used in agriculture (and gardens...) not inhive pesticides. I already posted it before but I reckon there is a link or two, between varroa susceptibility and pesticides. My summary is as follows: http://www.immenfreunde.de/forum/download/file.php?id=134 (it's a PDF, if you can't download it, tell me.)


----------



## cerezha

BernhardHeuvel said:


> I meant pesticides used in agriculture (and gardens...) ....My summary is as follows: http://www.immenfreunde.de/forum/download/file.php?id=134 (it's a PDF, if you can't download it, tell me.)


 Absolutely agree! I purposely did not mention pesticides in my original post because it's like a red fabric to the bull. Pesticides (any) as any chemicals weaken the immune system. It is irony - my bees survived partially because in the city (especially our city) there is less chance to be exposed to pesticides!


----------



## Daniel Y

shannonswyatt said:


> My point is that JW comes in and says to someone their kids are ugly and not particularly quick on the uptake and he wonders why people would be offended. I read the post because I had started reading the posts about small cell that deteriorated pretty quickly and thought that JW may have something reasonable to add to this discussion. As soon as I read the initial post it was clear that it was just basically a character assassination of MB. I'm surprised that JW didn't claim that MB had a sugar momma that was paying for his "hobby".
> 
> Go back and read the initial post. You can't tell me that isn't accusatory at a minimum. If I tell my neighbor that I like brand X ice cream am I required to do some kind of double blind taste test? If I put it up in a blog is there a responsibility at that point? If people start reading my blog and all start buying that ice cream is it my responsibility at that point? What about if all people don't like that brand, have I committed some malfeasance? Someone may say that brand X putrid and start stalking me on Google street view!
> 
> I do not follow MB around like a lost puppy dog, but of the stuff that I have read from MB on beesource he seems reasonable, straightforward and very knowledgeable. I was considering purchasing his book, but he says on his website to save your money since it is all up on the web page. I would add that there is now banner ads on his site, like say, beesource. He lays out what he did in the past, what he does now and tells of his results past and present. I had bees and I did "X" and they all died. I now do "Y" and they mostly live. And while I haven't read his site I have read parts of it and he does describe his methods in a way that most people could understand. I guess that JW can't. I suggest that JW attend the MB camp and learn his methods first hand and than he can perform the validation that he must have.


Shannon, First of all you have to make up an entire story of comments to support your conclusions. I can make anything up myself.

As for what you think of your neighbor. It has more to do with how many people you say it to rather than what you say. tell enough people and it becomes subject to criticism and evaluation. Micheal Bush is hardly having a neighborly conversation over the back fence. Criticism goes with the territory.

Sounds to me like you are the one with a bone to pick and using all the insulting language.


----------



## shannonswyatt

Daniel Y said:


> Sounds to me like you are the one with a bone to pick and using all the insulting language.



Not really. I just find it strange that someone would jump on MB for providing the information that he does apparently for free. The only add on his website is for his book, a book that he recommends you not purchase.

A lot of folks on this board are new and I've seen MB provide a lot of good information to folks out there. He has been on the board of years and has provided tons of info on just about anything related to beekeeping. Not just SM, TF, etc. He has a wealth of knowledge and is glad to share it. I haven't seen him come out and say that others that treat or use LC foundation or whatever and have success are liars, he is simply stating what works for him and what did not work for him. 

What I read seemed more like accusations versus criticism. And going on that basis anyone that has been around for a while should be criticized, yet a noob with no expertise should go unchallenged? Like I said, if JW is really, truly interested in knowing more about the MB method he should go to his bee camp. Pretty sure he wouldn't though.


----------



## Acebird

Mike Gillmore said:


> The only point they could realistically achieve is #5 clean wax.
> 
> What advice could be given to someone in the "hobbyist" category trying to go TF?


Backyard beekeeper can achieve Item #1.

My advice is know what you are getting into. The easiest way to do so would be to read Michael Bush's book or his website. All the important information from the old beekeeper books is referenced there.

You will meet resistance so I feel Item #1 is a requirement. Good luck, even the experienced beekeeper with all the turn of the century methods needs luck.


----------



## Sticky Bear

Cub said:


> Ok, I'm going to bash MB a bit, but on a lighter note, in an effort to close out this endless and pointless thread. On the keeping of bees, he is certainly a master.
> 
> But dang, those hives are ugly and need some paint! I know Miller and Taylor advocate them not being coated, but I just can't handle the look of motley colored/unpainted boxes.


I have to agree someone needs to volunteer to paint those for M.B.


----------



## shannonswyatt

You should see McCartney Taylor's hives on YouTube. I offer to send him free bars if he would like them. His hives were made from old fence pickets.


----------



## Nabber86

Mike Gillmore said:


> If that's the case, then most of the thousands of backyard beekeepers with 3, 5, 10 hives are out of luck. The only point they could realistically achieve is #5 clean wax.
> 
> What advice could be given to someone in the "hobbyist" category trying to go TF?



Split what you can, catch swarms, keep buying nucs/pacakage bees and most importanly, stretch the truth. It's just like fishing, only you have the internet to hide behind.


----------



## FlowerPlanter

There is a lot more to MB then just small cell. He knows just about everything there is to know about bees or at least where to find it. He helps anyone that needs it for free.

Small cell is just one part of his plan, and if it doesn't work for you. Then Get Over It!
It's not going to bring back your bees.

There is nothing from stopping anyone from performing their own test, MB sells queen also sells a few nucs. 

How about all the people that buy VSH queen or Russians that die from mites. There is not one TF plan. If there were we'd all be doing it. 

The best thing we can do is work together and pool all the information.

Just want to throw something out there, anyone that has not had luck with small cell, did you do everything MB does? Or just one or two things. Do you have top entrances only? Did you know mites breed better in less in humid hives? Top entrance hives may be more humid as humid air is heavier. This is just one of a hundred factors that may effect mites. MB says for him SC was just the tipping point. Where is your tipping point?


----------



## Brad Bee

So, I've been wondering.......

Is the intention of this thread solely to call out Michael Bush and perhaps to get him to quit being helpful and posting replies threads started by new beekeepers (which I thank him for) and to try and discredit what he has to offer, or is the purpose of this thread an attempt from those who haven't been successful keeping TF bees, in trying to debunk TF beekeeping?

It seems as though there is quit a bit of axe grinding being done on this thread.

There are a few very knowledgeable beekeepers on this site and many new folks like myself who are desperately looking for advice. If you guys are successful in irritating MB enough that he stops contributing to this site, which I hope he doesn't not do, are you going to go after Michael Palmer next? Wasn't there a thread not too long ago calling out Lauri? Are you guys who are having problems keeping bees going to attack anyone who is successful? 

It is my opinion that there are those present here who are jealous of the success of others, and are doing nothing more than trying to discredit successful beekeepers, simply for being successful..........


----------



## Saltybee

FlowerPlanter said:


> The best thing we can do is work together and pool all the information.
> 
> Just want to throw something out there, anyone that has not had luck with small cell, did you do everything MB does? Or just one or two things. Do you have top entrances only? Did you know mites breed better in less in humid hives? Top entrance hives may be more humid as humid air is heavier. This is just one of a hundred factors that may effect mites. MB says for him SC was just the tipping point. Where is your tipping point?


Another possible factor is the 8 frame box. That shape is closer to what bees will draw in a new top bar hive; fat half football shape. That shape has to be based on heat retention.
How consistently is the density of bees in a succeed vs fail test? Density is temperature. Not usually discussed or considered. Makes me wonder about the south success and the north failure with TF. Or Joseph's foam hives.


----------



## USMCEOD

Well, I can't take it anymore, so here's my 2 cents... I know less than I thought I did by measure of listening to everybody here on Bee Source... I have had bees for 5 years and am too dumb to know how to treat, so I never have... even the first package that I got in the mail from Georgia (that place) survived the first winter... I have lost a few hives to my own foul play, but I am still a hobbyist... by some miracle I still have bees.. By the advice of Bee Source members, youtube and the dreaded internet I have trapped my first 2 swarms this year, I'm sure they were my bees anyway... 

I have had no mentor, I use SBB and make everything except the frames and I have faith in what I am doing at my place will work for me... I have started going foundationless, and I don't try everything I hear about on the forum, just as I don't believe everything I hear on the news...

If in fact beekeeping is local...then some things I do may not work for somebody in Maine... What Michael Bush does in his cornfield...works for him, but to go so far as to google earth somebody's house to make a disclaiming point...is rediculous!!!

I am glad that Mr. Bush shares his information and his success with us in the way that it is available to everyone is great... he helps anyone with a problem on the forum... so if you can't make something work for you move on. I have never met Mr. Bush, but I am glad he and others are here to answer us HOBBYIST's questions. 

What I do not like about the forum is people who try to pick fights and consider what every one else besides themselves are incorrect in some manner or another...but, hey that's why I spent 21 years in the Marines for is so you can have your freedom of speech... as for me HooRa Mr. Bush, Mr. Palmer and you all that keep it positive!!!


----------



## AstroBee

Mike Gillmore said:


> What advice could be given to someone in the "hobbyist" category trying to go TF?



Great question. My view is that genetics are far more likely to yield wide-spread success than any form of equipment choice. My guess is that genetics and management practices are the basis for the reports of success with SC. There are numerous breeders offering bees with varying levels of resistance. For a hobbyist, they would need to find a breeder and purchase queens. Learn to make *good queens* and continue to "replenish" genetics periodically to maintain sufficient levels of resistance. I think this would be achievable even for a small 2 or 3 hive operation. Obviously there are no guarantees, but bringing in good genetics, learning to propagate them well, and the establishment a small nuc program to manage losses are key elements to success.


----------



## Thershey

USMCEOD said:


> Well, I can't take it anymore, so here's my 2 cents... I know less than I thought I did by measure of listening to everybody here on Bee Source... I have had bees for 5 years and am too dumb to know how to treat, so I never have... even the first package that I got in the mail from Georgia (that place) survived the first winter... I have lost a few hives to my own foul play, but I am still a hobbyist... by some miracle I still have bees.. By the advice of Bee Source members, youtube and the dreaded internet I have trapped my first 2 swarms this year, I'm sure they were my bees anyway...
> 
> I have had no mentor, I use SBB and make everything except the frames and I have faith in what I am doing at my place will work for me... I have started going foundationless, and I don't try everything I hear about on the forum, just as I don't believe everything I hear on the news...
> 
> If in fact beekeeping is local...then some things I do may not work for somebody in Maine... What Michael Bush does in his cornfield...works for him, but to go so far as to google earth somebody's house to make a disclaiming point...is rediculous!!!
> 
> I am glad that Mr. Bush shares his information and his success with us in the way that it is available to everyone is great... he helps anyone with a problem on the forum... so if you can't make something work for you move on. I have never met Mr. Bush, but I am glad he and others are here to answer us HOBBYIST's questions.
> 
> What I do not like about the forum is people who try to pick fights and consider what every one else besides themselves are incorrect in some manner or another...but, hey that's why I spent 21 years in the Marines for is so you can have your freedom of speech... as for me HooRa Mr. Bush, Mr. Palmer and you all that keep it positive!!!


Spot on...this thread should have been tossed in the trash based on the title alone.

PS. Thank you for your service.


----------



## Sonoramic413

Thershey said:


> Spot on...this thread should have been tossed in the trash based on the title alone.
> 
> PS. Thank you for your service.


I agree completely with both statements.


----------



## Richard Cryberg

Top entrance hives may be more humid as humid air is heavier. This is just one of a hundred factors that may effect mites. MB says for him SC was just the tipping point. Where is your tipping point?[/QUOTE]


The molecular weight of water is 18 while the average molecular weight of air is about 29. Thus humid air is lighter than dry air at a given temperature.


----------



## Michael Bush

>Top entrance hives may be more humid as humid air is heavier.

It would seem that way, but it is not. Humid air is lighter than dry air. (looks like Richard beat me to it...)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density_of_air#Humidity_.28water_vapor.29
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/density-air-d_680.html
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/weather/wdensity.htm


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

And don't forget bees do breath...all the CO2...

Doesn't make top entrances more favourable to me. Forced ventilation is no good to the bees.


----------



## shannonswyatt

I never knew that humid air was lighter than dry air, but it make sense. Otherwise we would be walking on clouds, literally!


----------



## Acebird

Saltybee said:


> Makes me wonder about the south success and the north failure with TF.


Do you know where NE is?:scratch:


----------



## WLC

Acebird said:


> Do you know where NE is?:scratch:


There are more people in Manhattan on a weekday than there are in the entire state of NE.

Do we really care?


----------



## Saltybee

No Ace I do not, I'm from Maine. Just a hick.


----------



## WLC

If we just admit that all you need are resistant feral genetics, then we could dispense with oodles of philosophy.

Frankly, they should have said that from the get go.

Them 'hicks', they can go on forever about nothing.


----------



## Michael Bush

>There are more people in Manhattan on a weekday than there are in the entire state of NE.

Cherry county Nebraska is 6,010 sq mi with a population of 5,713. That's a density of 1 person per sq mi. Sioux county is 2,067 sq mi with a population of 1,311. That's a density of 0.6 persons per sq mi. Manhattan is a area of 33.77 sq mi with a population of 1,626,159 for a density of 70,825.6 persons per sq mi. That is a 118,000 times the density of people in Sioux county. Cherry county by itself is bigger than Connecticut. It's more than twice as big as Delaware. It's four times as big as Rhode Island. It's 7/10ths the size of New Jersey.

I actually live in Cass County which is only 566 sq mi with a population density of 44 persons per sq mile. (the populated end of the state)

Nebraska is 77,354 sq mi with a population density of 24 persons per sq mi. Nebraska is seven times as big as Massachusetts and half again the size of New York state.

That's why I don't live in Manhattan...

As for weather, though, which I think was Ace's point, I'm in USDA zone 5. But that seems to have more to do with degree days than low temps. We had a lot of -20 F this last winter and have a couple of weeks -10 F in a typical winter and -27 F in a cold winter.


----------



## WLC

Who cares? 

Yep, you can go on forever. 

Yet still, all you need are the right feral genetics.

That took me one short sentence.


----------



## DanielD

Concerning more humid and less humid air, in a given mass of air, it's 'relative' humidity goes up when that air cools down. Cooler air can't contain as much water vapor so the humidity goes up when air cools even when no moisture is added to that given air mass. When that air mass cools down to the dew point temp, or contacts something that's below dew point temp for that given amount of air, the moisture in the air condenses to a liquid state. When a given amount of air mass in the area of a certain hive goes into the hive, if the hive is cooler inside than outside, the air will become more humid. I don't think it matters where the entrance is, but I could be wrong about that. In the winter, I would speculate that when warmer air in the hive contacts the very cold lid, it condenses on the bottom of the lid back to liquid state. Drip drip. 

Clouds are up high because lower warmer rises upwards and cools as it does. If it cools enough to the relative humidity of that given air mass, it condenses to the liquid state (clouds). More complicated than that though and a lot of variables in that. If the cloud water gets heavy enough, it falls to the ground. Sometimes it falls to the ground and warms up as it goes and evaporates into gas state again before it hits the ground. 

If I am all wrong about all that, feel free to beat me up. If you consider this carefully enough, you will understand how it applies to beekeeping and this thread. Let me know what you come up with there.


----------



## Cloverdale

"That's why I don't live in manhattan..."
:thumbsup: agree! The Catskills are the place to bee....WLC can have the City...


----------



## BWrangler

Hi Guys

>A trial could be designed...

Great! A little testing and observations are always a good thing. But, I've discovered through time, that there are many who are more than willing to propose. But few who are actually willing to do the work or foot the expense.

And for good reason. Extending testing can really be a chore. It impacted my family. And sure took the fun out of beekeeping for me.

Unfortunately, for the latest crop of beekeepers, these questions were run into the ground a decade ago. Michael and a few others continue to speak and frequent the lists. But for most who follow a similar path, beekeeping has become rather routine with just the normal surprises and disasters. 

Here are a link that might be interesting. It describes what happens when mite tolerant small cell bees are un-regressed:

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

And these bees were surrounded by hundreds of migratory commercial hives.

Anyway, enjoy.

-dm


----------



## Juhani Lunden

BWrangler said:


> Hi Guys
> 
> >A trial could be designed...
> 
> Great! A little testing and observations are always a good thing. But, I've discovered through time, that there are many who are more than willing to propose. But few who are actually willing to do the work or foot the expense.
> 
> And for good reason. Extending testing can really be a chore. It impacted my family. And sure took the fun out of beekeeping for me.
> 
> Unfortunately, for the latest crop of beekeepers, these questions were run into the ground a decade ago. Michael and a few others continue to speak and frequent the lists. But for most who follow a similar path, beekeeping has become rather routine with just the normal surprises and disasters.
> 
> Here are a link that might be interesting. It describes what happens when mite tolerant small cell bees are un-regressed:
> 
> Un-regressed Bees
> 
> And these bees were surrounded by hundreds of migratory commercial hives.
> 
> Anyway, enjoy.
> 
> -dm


Very well done! And your page is done in such a stylish and nice way, that it makes it even more convincing. Although the experiment is small in size, it makes my earlier words ..."Small or natural cells has nothing to do with the success in tf beekeeping, but bees must be able to raise drones as much as they want (for instance extra space in the bottom)... untrue, or makes them at least less correct..

Your experiment leads to the conclusion, which I really hate to say loud: I have bred extra strong and extra varroa resistant bees. They can survive without treatents in large cells (5,3)

Kirks bees are the next best, since they survive 5,1mm (haven´t confirmed that yet), Michael Bushes bees get the third position, because they survive, but they have small cells, and all those beekeepers who have small cells but haven´t made it tf, their bees are left without medals.


P.S. Since Google has been in topics, just curious, what pages come, when you search "varroa resistance"?


----------



## WLC

Cloverdale said:


> "That's why I don't live in manhattan..."
> :thumbsup: agree! The Catskills are the place to bee....WLC can have the City...


I've been to the Catskills recently. In fact, I should be going up again shortly.

I like to visit New York City's property up there.


----------



## Daniel Y

FlowerPlanter said:


> There is a lot more to MB then just small cell. He knows just about everything there is to know about bees or at least where to find it. He helps anyone that needs it for free.
> 
> Small cell is just one part of his plan, and if it doesn't work for you. Then Get Over It!
> It's not going to bring back your bees.
> 
> There is nothing from stopping anyone from performing their own test, MB sells queen also sells a few nucs.
> 
> How about all the people that buy VSH queen or Russians that die from mites. There is not one TF plan. If there were we'd all be doing it.
> 
> The best thing we can do is work together and pool all the information.
> 
> Just want to throw something out there, anyone that has not had luck with small cell, did you do everything MB does? Or just one or two things. Do you have top entrances only? Did you know mites breed better in less in humid hives? Top entrance hives may be more humid as humid air is heavier. This is just one of a hundred factors that may effect mites. MB says for him SC was just the tipping point. Where is your tipping point?


So SC really doesn't work? What does work is finding out for yourself what does? Sort of sounds like what this thread started out doing.


----------



## D Semple

Thanks for the link BWrangler. P # 169

Appreciate you sharing.



Don


----------



## Brandy

Bwrangler, I don't see how many colonies made up each of the test groups? Only the one in the backyard I see mentioned. I'm guessing the queens were taken from already existing stock, but earlier did you see any difference in the ones that stayed SC vs. went into the LC study? Thanks in advance....


----------



## mark williams

Yep just as I thought,Never meet anyone from New York City that wasn't an [email protected]%hole,Mark,,,,,


----------



## Acebird

mark williams said:


> Yep just as I thought,Never meet anyone from New York City that wasn't an [email protected]%hole,Mark,,,,,


Actually I thought it was funny because it is so true.


----------



## D Semple

mark williams said:


> Yep just as I thought,Never meet anyone from New York City that wasn't an [email protected]%hole,Mark,,,,,


Now to be fair to New Yorkers, how do we know somebody who post anonymously is actually from where they say they are from? :scratch:

Kel Varnson regards


----------



## mark williams

D Semple said:


> Now to be fair to New Yorkers, how do we know somebody who post anonymously is actually from where they say they are from? :scratch:
> 
> Kel Varnson regards


If he's not, then he should be.Mark,,,,,


----------



## Juhani Lunden

Michael Bush said:


> >Much closer comparison is Kirk Webster, whos doing well without treatments and with normal cells.
> 
> Kirk makes his own foundation and it is 5.1mm, not 5.4mm. While Kirk does not credit cell size as a part of his plan, but he is only .2mm larger than 4.9mm and .3mm smaller than 5.4mm.


Kirk has 5.2mm cellsize, so it is only 0,1mm from my 5.3mm, and 0,3mm larger than yours. Phoned him today. http://kirkwebster.com/


----------



## shannonswyatt

Juhani Lunden said:


> Very well done! And your page is done in such a stylish and nice way, that it makes it even more convincing. Although the experiment is small in size, it makes my earlier words ..."Small or natural cells has nothing to do with the success in tf beekeeping, but bees must be able to raise drones as much as they want (for instance extra space in the bottom)... untrue, or makes them at least less correct..
> 
> Your experiment leads to the conclusion, which I really hate to say loud: I have bred extra strong and extra varroa resistant bees. They can survive without treatents in large cells (5,3)
> 
> Kirks bees are the next best, since they survive 5,1mm (haven´t confirmed that yet), Michael Bushes bees get the third position, because they survive, but they have small cells, and all those beekeepers who have small cells but haven´t made it tf, their bees are left without medals.
> 
> 
> P.S. Since Google has been in topics, just curious, what pages come, when you search "varroa resistance"?


I haven't read through so someone may have answered this, but you are basing your ranking on the size of the bees and varroa resistance. Is there any studies showing that large bees are actually more productive than small bees? I think that when the original upsizing was done it was more of "well, if they are bigger they must be better". But if you have two hives, one with little bees and another with big bees is there any more productivity from the bee bees? Maybe a single bee can carry more, but is that the limitation on production? I would think that the number of bees, the number of forage days per bee and the distance to forage would have more to do with the production than the size of the bee. 

How do you know your bees are "stronger"? Do you run some kind of iron bee competition with your bees to show that they are better than some puny girly bee? (Ok, they are all girly bees, but you know what I mean).


----------



## Michael Bush

>Kirk has 5.2mm cellsize

Close enough. I got the 5.1mm from someone who measured his foundation. Dee Lusby says she's 4.9mm but I've measured her foundation and it's actually 4.83mm... size varies by how warm the wax you're running through the mill is and how much it gets stretched.


----------



## Juhani Lunden

shannonswyatt said:


> I haven't read through so someone may have answered this, but you are basing your ranking on the size of the bees and varroa resistance.


 
Michael Bush writes, that small cells have positive influense on his bees varroa resistance (the tipping point). BWrangler writes, that small cells are everything, the most important factor.
http://bwrangler.litarium.com/un-regressed-bees/

Well I don´t have small cells.

If Michael Bush and BWrangler are right, then my bees must withstand this important disadvantage on living in large cells. Despite this disadvantage, they survive without treatments. All beekeepers, who have bees living over 3 years without treatments and on large cells have these "strong" bees. "Strong" meaning they can handle the huge disadvantage which large cells make (according to Michale Bush and BWrangler)


----------



## Juhani Lunden

Michael Bush said:


> >Kirk has 5.2mm cellsize
> 
> Close enough. I got the 5.1mm from someone who measured his foundation. Dee Lusby says she's 4.9mm but I've measured her foundation and it's actually 4.83mm... size varies by how warm the wax you're running through the mill is and how much it gets stretched.


Much closer mine than yours.


----------



## shannonswyatt

I got what you are saying, you are saying that if a large bee survives it must be super awesome, but my question is do larger bees produce more honey (assuming that is the goal) or survive other vectors at a higher rate.


----------



## Juhani Lunden

shannonswyatt said:


> I got what you are saying, you are saying that if a large bee survives it must be super awesome, but my question is do larger bees produce more honey (assuming that is the goal) or survive other vectors at a higher rate.


I don´t know. Lots of religion like talk about small bees being better, but I cannot say, science cannot say and real life examples are to both ways. There are beekepers failing with small cells and although this happens small cells are propagated with very large voices.


I´m just a stubborn beekeeper who has decided to stop treatments.


----------



## Juhani Lunden

The real secret might be the relation between latitude and cell size. 

Bees get bigger from equator to both polar areas.


----------



## Acebird

shannonswyatt said:


> the distance to forage would have more to do with the production than the size of the bee.


The distance to forage will affect efficiency of small vs. large bee so that is a variable.


----------



## shannonswyatt

True, and small bees may be slower or faster than large bees. And does a large bee with a full load of pollen and nectar fly faster or slower than a small bee. 

I think this is one of those things that is probably incalculable. On a related note I do remember reading a story on how they are now working on getting more small breeds of cattle since they produce more usable meat in smaller plots of land. The huge cows may have made sense in the past were they had large room to graze, but now a lot of pasture is gone. Bigger is not always better, smaller not always worse. 

I'm not a rancher, not trying to start a flame war with cattle owners, just what I read. Not sure what the best cell size is for regressing cows.


----------



## Michael Bush

>True, and small bees may be slower or faster than large bees. And does a large bee with a full load of pollen and nectar fly faster or slower than a small bee. 

They have the same size flight muscles and the small cell has a smaller load and less wind resistance, so it seems reasonable to assume a small cell can fly faster and farther.


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

Yet I see no link between cell size and bee size. As I reported already, I have bees on small cells and they are of a normal size and appearance. They do not differ from other bees on large cells. 

It must be malnutrition (pollen dearth) or genetics but not cell size.


----------



## Juhani Lunden

Juhani Lunden said:


> The real secret might be the relation between latitude and cell size.
> 
> Bees get bigger from equator to both polar areas.


When the bees natural size is getting bigger from equator to polar areas, it would sound reasonable that the cell size they want to make and feel most comfortable with does equally so too. 

This would be of course somewhat race dependent, black bee (A.m.m) being the biggest.


----------



## T0ADMAN

I have also seen very differnt sizd bees from my same hives at different times of the year.


----------



## grozzie2

Interesting thread. What have I learned after wading thru 10 pages looking for any possible new gems.

Regarding cell size, nothing new to report. Read it all, heard it all before.

Regarding Beesource dynamics. Nothing new, same folks going on about certain resistant ferals, same ones going on about the need to buy resistant stock from one specific source. Same folks saying TF is the way of the future, same ones saying its not possible, and the same ones saying 'can we talk about something else?'

Regarding beekeeping revenue. Interesting tidbit I picked up. At least one TF proponent has admitted, there's more money in doing talks on the subject, than there is in raising the bees.

Can I have my half hour back ?


----------



## shinbone

The only concrete conclusion to be drawn form this discussion is that all beekeeping is local - but then we already knew that.


----------



## WLC

CW wanted some objective evidence for the claims being made in his OP.

Perfectly reasonable.

We can get resistant stock from a source like BeeWeaver, with enough AHB genetics that it would be worthwhile to test them out on small cell since the Brazilian studies have shown a reduced mite load with AHB/Italian hybrids. We really do need a positive control at this point.

We're not getting any bees from Mike Bush so the point is moot. Most of us don't live in, or get bees from, Nebraska either.

We can be objective about it by purchasing the right stock and testing out the small cell hypothesis, or we can subjectively ramble on.

Frankly, until they make reasonably priced small cell plastic foundation, I don't think we'll make much progress. I found the ladder comb on the PF frames to be a pain.

By the way, now that BeeWeaver is offering breeder queens for sale, I think that their open mating protocol can be replicated in other areas, like Alabama, that have their own 'resistant' feral stocks (AKA: Hybrid Swarms).

Enough with the subjective philosophy already.


----------



## Juhani Lunden

Juhani Lunden said:


> When the bees natural size is getting bigger from equator to polar areas, it would sound reasonable that the cell size they want to make and feel most comfortable with does equally so too.
> 
> This would be of course somewhat race dependent, black bee (A.m.m) being the biggest.


http://resistantbees.com/fotos/klimazonen.jpg

Luzbys have from the very beginning been pointing out, that latitude has a connection with natural cellsize. Despite this, SC promoters stick to 4,9mm. I wonder, if this is the reason why Erik Österlund, one of the most famous disciples of small cells, is failing to leave treatments. And another beekeeper in Finland. It might be that in our latitude (Finland and Sweden are on the maps black zone), 4,9mm is just too small cellsize.


----------



## sqkcrk

Michael Bush said:


> They have the same size flight muscles and the small cell has a smaller load and less wind resistance, so it seems reasonable to assume a small cell can fly faster and farther.


And not be able to carry as much nectar back to the hive, following your line of thinking.


----------



## Juhani Lunden

Michael Bush said:


> They have the same size flight muscles and the small cell has a smaller load and less wind resistance, so it seems reasonable to assume a small cell can fly faster and farther.


So, bees from small cells are smaller, but despite that they have same size flight muscles. 

Their flight muscles are the same size, but despite that their wind resistance is smaller. Any studies as a proof?


----------



## jmgi

Seems like this thread is burning out, and as a result it has degraded down to just postulating, or worse yet wishing or hoping something is fact. I'm with MB, I'm tired of hearing about varroa and talking about it. Just deal with it one way or the other.


----------



## lehimainen

Juhani Lunden, there is someone in finland using sc? Eric österlund does use mostly 5,1 and few 4,9 mixed in his boodnest. Thats atleast what i read from his blog just yesterday. At nebraska its almost as cold there as in finland, bit north also and sc seems to work there. I would be interested to give it a try. It doesnt cost much atleast.

Anyone running on sc succesfully even more north than nebraska like in canada? Winnipeg starts to become near finland on latitude.


----------



## Juhani Lunden

jmgi said:


> ...wishing or hoping something is fact. I'm with MB, I'm tired of hearing about varroa and talking about it. Just deal with it one way or the other.


We were talking according to the thread title about "the Bush Miracle", in particular the effect of small cells.


----------



## Michael Bush

>So, bees from small cells are smaller, but despite that they have same size flight muscles. 

Yes.

>Their flight muscles are the same size, but despite that their wind resistance is smaller. Any studies as a proof? 

Not off the top of my head. I've heard some, but I would have to spend some time finding them.


----------



## lehimainen

actually anchorage alska is at latitude of southern finland where i live. Would my sc trials in finland be doomed?


----------



## Juhani Lunden

lehimainen said:


> actually anchorage alska is at latitude of southern finland where i live. Would my sc trials in finland be doomed?


Are you planning to be treatment free?


----------



## jmgi

Juhani Lunden said:


> We were talking according to the thread title about "the Bush Miracle", in particular the effect of small cells.


Its all the same to me anymore, usually a discussion about varroa includes SC, and vice versa. What we need are some new studies, long term preferably, so we have something different to talk about.


----------



## Juhani Lunden

jmgi said:


> Its all the same to me anymore, usually a discussion about varroa includes SC, and vice versa. What we need are some new studies, long term preferably, so we have something different to talk about.


I suppose you have heard these ridiculous claims of small bees having large flight muscles so many times, but I joined just last October, so it is all new and strange.


----------



## lehimainen

Yes to the extend it possible. Not at once ofcource but thats the goal. Sc could not be negative aspect to have anyways.


----------



## Michael Bush

>Sc could not be negative aspect to have anyways. 

Certainly, it could be. So why not let the bees build what they want instead of misleading them with foundation that is the size we want?


----------



## shannonswyatt

sqkcrk said:


> And not be able to carry as much nectar back to the hive, following your line of thinking.


Good point! I'm sure that both me and Lance Armstrong consume the same amount of energy on a bike ride as well!

Bigger bees can carry more honey, but just living would require they burn through more calories. I'm sure a body builder at rest burns more calories then me at my most active (I'm not very active!) If the same applies to bees as people, bigger bees will need more stores than little bees.


----------



## Michael Bush

>And not be able to carry as much nectar back to the hive, following your line of thinking. 

When I was a kid and trying to get more work done by taking a bigger load, my dad would call it a "lazy man's load". What you want is the right size load where you are working efficiently, not the biggest load you can carry where you are struggling to get it there. It's the total amount of work accomplished and the least effort to accomplish it that counts, not the size of the load.


----------



## shannonswyatt

Michael Bush said:


> >And not be able to carry as much nectar back to the hive, following your line of thinking.
> 
> When I was a kid and trying to get more work done by taking a bigger load, my dad would call it a "lazy man's load". What you want is the right size load where you are working efficiently, not the biggest load you can carry where you are struggling to get it there. It's the total amount of work accomplished and the least effort to accomplish it that counts, not the size of the load.


Every load I carry is a "lazy man's load" by definition.


----------



## lehimainen

ok. I will do it like that, first regress them to sc, and after that let them build free. Then i can see will the natural size be smaller or bigger than 4,9.


----------



## Juhani Lunden

shannonswyatt said:


> Good point! I'm sure that both me and Lance Armstrong consume the same amount of energy on a bike ride as well!
> 
> Bigger bees can carry more honey, but just living would require they burn through more calories. I'm sure a body builder at rest burns more calories then me at my most active (I'm not very active!) If the same applies to bees as people, bigger bees will need more stores than little bees.


SC beekeepers promote their idea by the fact that there are more bees in the colony, because there are more cells. The consumption of an individual "body builder" is not relevant, beacuse the consumption of the whole colony propably about the same.

According to studies, bees area able to fly a distance of 700 km during their lifetime. Small bee can therefore carry less honey(lighter loads) during its lifetime. But because there are more bees in SC colony, the honeycrop remains the same. 

(Let me quess the answers to this : SC believers propably claim, without any proof, that for some mysterous reason, small bees fly longer distances.)


----------



## Juhani Lunden

lehimainen said:


> Yes to the extend it possible. Not at once ofcource but thats the goal. Sc could not be negative aspect to have anyways.


Seriously: Do not start treatment free beekeeping with normal bees. Italian, carnica what so ever. Believe me, I have 37 years of experience. You will end up in a disaster. Small cells are not going to help if you use normal bees, like the ones from Janne Leimi.


----------



## Acebird

Juhani Lunden said:


> Seriously: Do not start treatment free beekeeping with normal bees. Italian, carnica what so ever. Believe me, I have 37 years of experience.


I have less then 4 years should I gas the hives I have and start over with something else?:scratch:


----------



## lehimainen

I beleave what you say but i just have to start from somewhere. I will make mite countings and if its too much i have to use tymol. Otherwise what do you suggess me to do? how did you start your tf beekeeping?


----------



## Juhani Lunden

lehimainen said:


> I beleave what you say but i just have to start from somewhere. I will make mite countings and if its too much i have to use tymol. Otherwise what do you suggess me to do? how did you start your tf beekeeping?


If you for some ideological reason (as I) what to be tf, then I strongly suggest that you buy my words and buy special beematerial, which is varroa resistant allready. These are however hard to find. My queens are the only ones for sale in Finland and they are expensive.

I started with Primorski bees, they were not ready, they could not handle varroa in the beginning. But they were the best on the market at that time. 

Buying good bees is allways about the best investment a beekeeper can make, but after you have those good bees, stick to them and start your own queen production.


----------



## deknow

If a human (who doesn't even have to )fly goes to the doctor for a problem and is 40% (or even 10%) overweight..is there a complaint (physical or mental/emotional) that is not likely to improve or have a better prognosis if the extra weight is taken off?

The historical record is pretty conclusive....bees have been made bigger by putting them on enlarged foundation.

If you look at other insects that have natural size variations (like grasshoppers...they look the same even though they come in vastly different sizes) you will see an exponential relationship between length and mass. With bees made larger on foundation, this relationship is proportional. If you were going to engineer a larger aircraft, the mass (and engine) would be exponential in relation to size.



I always thought the "small cell helps everything" claims were mostly overstated until I considered that even in humans "being overweight hinders everything". They are two sides of the same coin.

Deknow


----------



## Acebird

lehimainen said:


> Otherwise what do you suggess me to do? how did you start your tf beekeeping?


I can only tell you what I did as a back yard beekeeper with no goals to make money off the bees. I bought an Italian nuc from a beekeeper who treats and left them on their own to sink or swim. I killed the first hive the first year leaving a feeder on all winter not knowing any better. So I bought another nuc the next year and split in the following spring to increase to three hives. I split in the spring to maintain three hives. That is my plan. This plan may not work for you but it has worked way better for me then what I was told it would work.


----------



## Michael Bush

> SC believers propably claim, without any proof, that for some mysterous reason, small bees fly longer distances.

I don't make any claims and I can't think of any "mysterious" reasons, but a smaller bee with the same flight muscle as a larger one should be able to fly further and that would be consistent with comments made by Brother Adam comparing the small English brown bees to the Italians. I don't see any significant difference in honey yield by small cell bees, other than live bees make a lot more honey than dead ones...


----------



## T0ADMAN

I don't mean to doubt this, but...

I've heard it said that SC bees are smaller but have the same size flight muscles? Is this a documented fact? It seems somewhat counter-intuitive.


----------



## Juhani Lunden

Michael Bush said:


> > SC believers propably claim, without any proof, that for some mysterous reason, small bees fly longer distances.
> 
> I don't make any claims and I can't think of any "mysterious" reasons, but a smaller bee with the same flight muscle as a larger one should be able to fly further and that would be consistent with comments made by Brother Adam comparing the small English brown bees to the Italians. I don't see any significant difference in honey yield by small cell bees, other than live bees make a lot more honey than dead ones...


Brother Adams original bees were black A.m.m bees, which is well documented in all of his books. A.m.m. is the largest of all beeraces. And unlike you, I have some books, with which I can prove that I´m right and you are wrong.

From The Hive and the Honeybee (Dadant publication), p. 32:"The nothern Dark bee of Europe, Apis mellifera mellifera Linnaeus (1758) is larger than the southern races..." 
From Friedrich Ruttner Naturgeschichte der Honigbiene (Kosmos), p. 63:" A. mellifera mellifera is the longest and broadest of all know beeraces of A.mellifera subspecies (original German words translated, die längste und breiteste von allen bekannten Unterarten von A. mellifera)

You have that part right, that according to his experience the original english Black Bee, the biggest of all beeraces, was the only race, which could travel the distance from his Abbey homeyard to heather and get a honeycrop from that long distance.


----------



## shannonswyatt

Wow! Now it is my library is bigger than yours!


----------



## Michael Bush

Some comments based on Baudoux's measurements of body mass and specific gravity (density) (if you go to the beesource link there are links to Baudoux's charts):

"From geometrical principles, one would expect that under these conditions the weight of the bee would vary as the cube of her length or other linear dimension. Very surprisingly, this is not so. The weight of the bee is proportional to her length, not to her (length). This is most unexpected; as M. Baudoux states, it must mean that the enlarged bee is not as solid as the bees of the smaller series. M. Baudoux, we understand, intends to test this point. His results will be awaited with much interest.

"This matter of the specific gravity of the bee, and its decrease with increase of size, is not only of theoretical interest. If we suppose that the head, thorax and abdomen share alike in the lightening process, we shall-if we continue to enlarge the bee-arrive finally at an insect which cannot fly as fast or lift as great loads as smaller bees. Big wings demand big muscles to move them; as far as can be seen, the mass of the flight muscles must increase as the cube of the wing length. If the weight of the body increases in this proportion, the bee will continue to be an efficient flyer; but if-as is the case with M. Baudoux’s bees-it does not, then one of two things must be happening. Either the bee will have less flying muscle than she needs to work her long wings; or the flying muscles will make up a greater proportion of her total weight. In either case, theory would indicate that very much enlarged bees should be less efficient nectar-carriers. That the limit (where this begins to occur) has not yet been reached is shewn by the excellent practical results which M. Baudoux obtains."--The Bee World – January, 1934 – Pages 2-5

http://www.beesource.com/point-of-v...-cell-size/the-influence-of-cell-size-part-2/

Similar assumptions in modern research on body size, wing muscle and lifting ability:
http://jeb.biologists.org/content/127/1/1.full.pdf

"Subspecies of honeybees in Africa exhibit morphological differences from EHB that suggest a greater flight capacity (Hepburn and others 1999). Morphological examination of 18 African and European subspecies demonstrated that, as a group, the African subspecies were 33% lighter, had 17% greater thorax-to-
body mass ratios and 27% lower wing loading (mg/mm) (Hepburn and others 1999). Based on a steady-state aerodynamic model and the assumption that the flight muscle is a constant proportion of the thorax, Hepburn and colleagues estimated that African subspecies have a 25% advantage in generating aerodynamic power based on morphology.

"A. m. scutellata, A. m. ligustica and A. m. mellifera, the main subspecies present in the Americas, were relatively typical of the subspecies examined, with A. m. scutellata collected from South Africa having a 20% greater thorax-to-body mass ratio than these European subspecies when collected from their natal regions (Hepburn and others 1999).

"We compared thorax-to-body mass ratios of AHB and EHB workers in March 1992 in Zamorano, Honduras, and for queens and drones in July 1993 in Linaris, Mexico. Colonies were classified as AHB if they possessed African mtDNA; for the reproductives, hexokinase and Mdh allozymes were also used to assign subspecies. All comparisons indicate greater ratios of thorax mass-to-body mass for AHB (Table 1). However, the morphological differences between AHB and EHB workers were much smaller than reported for AHB and EHB collected from their natal regions (Table 1), suggesting that hybridization has reduced differentiation. Since bees in these
American studies were reared on commercial comb designed for European bees, it is possible that American AHB and EHB would be more dissimilar in morphology if reared on natal comb. Reproductives of Neotropical AHB and EHB differed more in thorax-to-body-mass ratios than did workers (Table 1). Neotropical AHB also exhibit higher mass-specific metabolic rates during flight than do EHB. AHB workers measured in Honduras had 9% greater thorax-specific metabolic rates than did EHB, while queens and drones had 27 and 36% higher rates, respectively (Table 1). These higher rates of metabolism suggest higher rates of generation of aerodynamic power, but this important question has not yet been tested. Together these morphological and metabolic differences suggest that AHB invest a greater fraction of their resources in traits that support flight capacity than do EHB"

I can't get to the whole study, but Seeley did one on body size, flight time, loads etc.:
SEELEY, T. D. (1986). Social foraging by honeybees: how colonies allocate foragers among patches
of flowers. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. (in press).

which is referred to here:
http://honeybeenet.gsfc.nasa.gov/Docs/Harrison et al. 2006.pdf

If one had the time the same experiments on body mass, body density, thorax to body mass and flight times could be measured in the same way that Baudoux and Seeley did if one had both small cell and large cell bees of the same genetic stock to compare.


----------



## Michael Bush

One of these days I will get caught up and get back to finding Brother Adam's reference to how small his "English" bees were. He was never of the opinion that they were the same as AMM in the rest of Europe. But frankly I don't see me having the time in the near future. I am still trying to get moved out of my old house, moved into my new house, publish books, keep bees, work full time and keep up with the forums... I would have to reread his books. Since they are not electronic I can't simply find it with the computer...


----------



## deknow

Certainly in recent times (with domestic bees being on foundation), AMM is often referred to as the small black German bee, not just the black German bee. If AMM is the largest race of bee, then it speaks a lot of how enlarged the smaller races have become.


----------



## Juhani Lunden

Michael Bush said:


> Some "A. m. scutellata, A. m. ligustica and A. m. mellifera, the main subspecies present in the Americas, were relatively typical of the subspecies examined, with A. m. scutellata collected from South Africa having a 20% greater thorax-to-body mass ratio than these European subspecies when collected from their natal regions (Hepburn and others 1999).
> 
> "We compared thorax-to-body mass ratios of AHB and EHB workers in March 1992 in Zamorano, Honduras, and for queens and drones in July 1993 in Linaris, Mexico. Colonies were classified as AHB if they possessed African mtDNA; for the reproductives, hexokinase and Mdh allozymes were also used to assign subspecies. All comparisons indicate greater ratios of thorax mass-to-body mass for AHB (Table 1). However, the morphological differences between AHB and EHB workers were much smaller than reported for AHB and EHB collected from their natal regions (Table 1), suggesting that hybridization has reduced differentiation. Since bees in these
> .


Thorax-to-body mass is a race dependent factor, as these studies show, it has nothing to do with the thorax-to-body mass of regressed bees. Regression does not affect genes, if regression means the process where bees are transformed smaller.


----------



## Michael Bush

Of course small and large are just relative terms, but generally the are in proportion to Italians most places, at least here in the States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_dark_bee
Apis mellifera mellifera (the “Northern European” or “dark” or “German” honey bee)
"These *small*, dark-colored honey bees are sometimes called the German black bee"

http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/academic/agriculture/entomology/beekeeping/bee-l/log9706a.txt
"Perhaps a new strain of bee is needed. In my young days (1930s) in Britain the *small* dark old English bee was being replaced by the larger yellower Italian bee."--Geopelia http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...ees-are-living-shorter-less-productive-lives/

http://www.orsba.org/htdocs/beekeeping_101_selecting_queens.php
"GERMAN BLACK. Apis mellifera mellifera. First bee in U.S., still very prominent in feral populations. *Small*, dark and mean. Very susceptible to foulbrood, but a survivor bee in many areas affected by Varroa and invasion of Africanized bees."

http://barnsleybeekeepers.org.uk/species.html
Here in the UK, the native bee - and hence most kept bee - is the A. mellifera mellifera. The sub-species is found throughout Britain and Ireland and extends across northern and central Europe. A. mellifera mellifera is a relative newcomer as honey bees re-entered northern Europe following the last ice age. The bees of this sub-species are typically *small*, stocky bees with a number of variants existing in different geographical locations. Colours can vary from jet back to dark brown. No yellow should exist on native A. mellifera mellifera however, much hybridisation has occurred with Italian bees making pure bred A. mellifera mellifera largely a thing of the past. Neither dark or Italian bees are considered to be aggressive however the hybrids of the two are often aggressive by nature causing beekeepers to spend much time and effort in developing and maintaining non-aggressive gene pools.

http://www.beekeepingforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=2708
"Apis mellifera mellifera Types of Queen bee. ... These *small*, dark-colored honey bees are sometimes called the German black bee, although ..."


----------



## oldiron56

Now get with that !


----------



## shannonswyatt

oldiron56 said:


> Now get with that !


To fast!


----------



## Juhani Lunden

I would rather see some reference from a respected book, scientific publication etc. 

Hive and The Honey Bee is propably the most widespread bee book around the globe. Origins are from 1853 Langstroths book and its writers are mostly well known professors. It is for instance used as course readings in Helsinki University beekeeping education(my place).

Friedrich Ruttner is German professor and very widely acknowledged as the leading expert of beeraces in the world. I´m sure you have heard of him.


Internet has this major fault, that false information has the tendency of becoming true by repeating, which is exactly the same as has happened in this SC propagation.

P.S: I corrected the Wikipedia part


----------



## Saltybee

Hey, I'm a couple of pages behind: Is the current argument that small cell bees do not exist? never existed? should not exist? Arguing the normal size for bees is like arguing the normal size for humans.
Or is all this just back stop to does small cell work for some or none? 
Does not work for some is established? right? Why not, is a more interesting question and should be good for at least 10 more pages.


----------



## Michael Bush

Actually I think the general observation that AMM are smaller is due to the fact that both here and in the UK they were typically wild and wild bees are on natural comb and are smaller. I see a lot of small wild bees of every color. I think it is the same for Brother Adam. He went to Italians and new kinds of hives when the English bees were dying and was probably completely unaware that the foundations were enlarged at the same time.

But it is the general observation here in the US that the "German black bees" are smaller and that observation has been around for a long time. Where they are kept on artificially enlarged foundation, the observation may be quite different.


----------



## WLC

We know that AHB are 'small cell' bees. We also know from studies that they reduce mite loads on small cell foundation relative to large cell foundation.

I think that Mike introduced Buckfast and AHB genetics into his area via his BeeWeavers.

A 'hot hive' that swarmed is how AHB genetics likely travelled for many miles 'usurping' a colony and establishing itself locally.

Thus, Mike found resistant ferals that do well on small cell. 

It makes sense.


----------



## Michael Bush

I don't tend to get my information from the internet. I get it from books I have read and a very good memory. I validate it to other people with the internet as it is a common place I can show them the information to prove I didn't just make it up, since they don't have my books in front of them... and often I don't have my books in front of me either. That does not, of course, always mean that it is true, nor does it mean it is not. But it does prove I am not the only one with that opinion or who has heard that opinion.


----------



## Barry

Really WLC, how many time are you going to post that remark?


----------



## WLC

If you're addressing me, I got BeeWeavers, remember?

The information on the genetics of the 'hybrid swarm' in Texas (BeeWeaver's home state) is from the scientific literature, as is the information on small cell and AHB.

You informed us that you've had BeeWeavers for 30 years including a hot hive (too much AHB) that swarmed.

I don't need to be in Nebraska to get BeeWeaver's. 

Ocham's razor applies here.

All the rest is too subjective to be of any use.


----------



## Michael Bush

>I think that Mike introduced Buckfast and AHB genetics into his area via his BeeWeavers.

Your theory makes absolutely not sense in light of the facts:

1) The BeeWeaver bees obviously did not resist Varroa as all of them died. Multiple times all of them died from Varroa. This also debunks the "isolation" theory.
2) There were feral bees surviving at my Greenwood location before I arrived. They had no BeeWeaver genes to help them survive. If anything the BeeWeavers would have watered down those genetics.
3) The Carniolan and Italian bees I put on small cell were still marked queens when they were surviving Varroa fine. They had no BeeWeaver genes to help them survive nor any of the genes of the local feral bees.

Have you read this?
http://www.bushfarms.com/beessctheories.htm

I realize the facts don't fit your model of the world. That happens sometimes.


----------



## WLC

Do you remember the mitochondrial haplotype of your bees from that Magnus study?

It could objectively shed light on the issue at hand.


----------



## NeilV

I'm not sure I have a point, but this is more fun than what I'm supposed to be doing, so I'll add this:

It seems to me that subspecies of just about every critter that exists in the world vary in size based on the environment. The overall trend is that it is better to be larger in colder environments. At least in mammals, its better to be small where resources are scarce too. Why would it be better for bees to be large/small without regard to the local situation? 

While that seems to suggest that maybe natural comb makes sense and lets the bees decide how big they want to be, it does not suggest that smaller (or larger) bees are necessarily going to be better, either. 

Also, even assuming for argument's sake that small bees cope with Varroa better, they were not small 100 years ago to cope with Varroa, even if they were smaller back then. If they were smaller in the past in a given location, it was because that was the size that nature selected as being best for that location.

As to bee races in America, I'm not sure that there is such a thing at this point. I suspect that what we call Italians around here are just bees that are suited to here, which happen to have a lot in common with Italians. I caught a swarm on Wednesday that had dark bees and light bees and small bees and large bees all in the same swarm. And they seem pretty gentle but are also pretty runny on the comb. So depending upon what you want to see, you can see it in that one swarm. 

As to the general topic, I can assure you that there are lots of people around here who use foundation and don't treat for Varroa and are not losing their hives. The key is to collect swarms and breed from survivors and don't just replace queens with the commercial queens that are the bee equivalents of Holstein cows. We don't have any commercial operations in this area that would either import virulent mites or bad honeybee genetics.

Jim Tew spoke at out Big Bee Buzz. He said at a recent conference in Alabama, a show of hands indicated that most beekeepers were not treating for Varroa mites and were doing fine. At our meeting, I think a majority of beekeepers indicated the same. I know for a fact that many/most of these folks are not using small or natural cell. 

The bees here are swarming. This week was the start of the swarm season, and I have already gotten two calls. Last year, I got a swarm call while I was collecting a swarm and filled up all my equipment. In some of those instances, the bees were swarming from natural cavities. They are not getting killed by Varroa. I started keeping bees in 2006, and they number of swarms seems to have gone up every year around here, despite two years of extreme drought. 

My personal opinion is that the bees have just gotten better a dealing with Varroa over time and will continue to do so. That may in part be the Varroa is playing nicer over time too, since killing hives is bad for business for them too. Maybe in another 10 years we will need to find something new to argue about.


----------



## rhaldridge

I've wondered about this too. It could be that some success with small cell is coincidental with increased varroa resistance in the general population.

Mine are on natural comb, mostly to avoid contaminated wax. But it is true that some beekeepers are not treating and succeeding with large cell. It's a mystery... one of the things that make beekeeping such a fascinating and complicated pursuit.


----------



## WLC

This was happening with Texas ferals till about 2001. Maybe something similar was happening elsewhere?

https://bibliotecadigital.ipb.pt/bitstream/10198/2887/1/449.pdf


----------



## Juhani Lunden

Michael Bush said:


> Actually I think the general observation that AMM are smaller is due to the fact that both here and in the UK they were typically wild and wild bees are on natural comb and are smaller. I see a lot of small wild bees of every color. I think it is the same for Brother Adam. He went to Italians and new kinds of hives when the English bees were dying and was probably completely unaware that the foundations were enlarged at the same time.
> 
> But it is the general observation here in the US that the "German black bees" are smaller and that observation has been around for a long time. Where they are kept on artificially enlarged foundation, the observation may be quite different.


The fact that Apis mellifera mellifera is big, the biggest of all races, is in line with the fact that it has the most northely living environment of all races. According to the Bergmann law, which is referred for instance by the Luzbys, animals in general and bees too, get bigger in colder climates. Ruttner has a table in his book about this enlargement both ways from equator. 

Another fact is that Brother Adam often said that his A.m.m colonies make a small nest. Bees which have smaller brood areas and make smaller colonies compensate that in colder climates by being longliving and big.

What comes to using Wikipedia as the main source of infomation, it is like lottery. And as Nicholas Carr is writing in his book "What Internet is doing to our brains" it is even affecting the quality of scientific studies, as the researches have time to read only the first 50 hits what Google brings, like Wikipedia. I hope that Michael Bush is bringing some information from a respected and widely distributed book or scientific research. But he is not going to find that. All these untrue things like the thorax-to-body mass having anything to do with regressed bees, the size of black bee and other have been going around this SC community soo long that they have become the "truth". Sadly most of the SC folks skipped this message, because they know from my name that it is not information they want. People read what they like and what is familiar to them.


----------



## oldiron56

what did he say?


----------



## WLC

He's saying that you've created your own narrative to rationalize what you doing.

Or, should we say Mike did.


----------



## shannonswyatt

Pretty sure he is saying he is a prophet and we are all rubes.


----------



## T0ADMAN

NeilV said:


> The overall trend is that it is better to be larger in colder environments. At least in mammals, its better to be small where resources are scarce too. Why would it be better for bees to be large/small without regard to the local situation?
> 
> As to the general topic, I can assure you that there are lots of people around here who use foundation and don't treat for Varroa and are not losing their hives.


The size observations you make are interesting, but probably misleading. A hive of bees is the real 'organism' rather than each individual bee. Body mass helps insulate and keep warm blooded animals warm in the cold environments. Hives act as warm-blooded organisms where individual bees do not. Size of individual bees is also not likely to determine the resource requirements of a hive, where cluster size will. 
Of course bees also have the ability to change their body mass during the year in a way most organisms do not. They also have the ability to store energy external to their body, where mammals store it as fat. A hive can get very large during the summer to store food, and then shrink the population during winter to require less food. 
I think this ability to reactively adapt the colony size to the environment is a key feature in surviving bees. This is why I prefer car is in my location. I feel that the Italians have a tendency (probably due to selective breeding in the past) to always booming colonies regardless of e resources available. I suppose this suits bees in the almonds, being rented for pollination or producing package bees, but does not suit my local needs. 

As for the genetics, I agree that locally adapted, and eventually varroa adapted bees, are important. As with most agriculture, we loss too much genetic diversity and are now left with the commercialized bees. As with tomatoes and apples, people are becoming interested in more locally adapted 'heirloom' varieties. This will be a benefit in the long-run. 

I have, however, had very good success in my 3years and my genetics are all from packages and splits that I breed openly. I have loss rates of 0, 10 and 25%. This last year was so high because I did not combine any of the weak hives in the fall and 3 of the 4 lost hives were dead by early December. I really only had one hive this year that was an 'unexpected' loss and 2-3 hives made it that really should have been goners. 
Of course, I don't fit into any category. I use pierco plastic foundation, which I guess is smallish, but not small cell. I did not treat any of my 3 hives the first year; treated my 11 hives with thymol the second; and did not treat ant of my 18 hives this year. I prefer not to treat, but will treat when I am having obvious mite damage in my hives. 
I'm starting to think that the fact that I have grown my apiary so fast (I also lost 6 nucs to a flood last summer) might be part of my luck. I never have enough comb and am always forcing my hives to draw more. Maybe my inadvertent use of clean wax has helped my bees survive. Maybe it's the feeding or dry sugar I give them in the fall. I'll just keep reading and keeping bees and try different things to see what works and what doesn't. I may even try treating some hives and not others to see if there is a difference. I like the idea of natural comb, but will see if it can be done simply in my deeps. 
I keep saying there is no magic bullet or one thing that works. You have to find the combination that works for you. Looking to people like MB to see what you can learn from their success, and listening to his theory of why he has success is a great way to think critically about your own practices and improve them. Blindly trying to follow his method is not likely to work; it's too hard to replicate without missing a key piece or drop some fundamental husbandry technique that someone with 40 years of experience does in his sleep. If your new, you have to start somewhere, but are likely to take your lumps in the process of becoming successful. The more you learn from them, the quicker you can be successful too.


----------



## Lauri

T0ADMAN said:


> Maybe my inadvertent use of clean wax has helped my bees survive.


If this thread does nothing else, I hope people recognize this fact alone..clean comb..I believe is a common, major contributing factor in most success stories, no matter what else the circumstances.(cell size or location)

Once I got rid of frames from other apiaries and only had comb drawn at my own place (And raised my own queens that thrive in my climate) beekeeping has been almost effortless.


Effortless, Except for all the work that is. But the work now is to manage the healthy growing hives, scheduling, etc... not fixing and babying the sick or failing colonies.


----------



## T0ADMAN

I like those partial foundation frames! I might have to copy those.


----------



## WLC

Lauri:

Am I the only one to notice that the outside 'foundationless' comb appears to be of a larger cell size, and the cells aren't following the same horizontal row pattern as the central foundation?

One though, perhaps if you put the foundation at the edges of the frame, they might draw a different type of comb centrally. Perhaps even small cell.

PS-It might also be a good way to economize on plastic foundation.


----------



## Lauri

This is the first year I'm making these , but like them very much so far.

I cut 6 1/2 " off a full sized sheet and use it for my half sized deep frames for mating nucs. Cut them 10 at a time on my compound miter saw.
They score and snap easily too, if you are only doing a few.

The remainder 3/4 sheet is, as shown in the photo above, used in the bottom two deeps. It might have drones early on in the season, but I look forward to the large feed source stored near the brood later in the flow. Might make for good overwintering feed availability and less backfilling in smaller cells during swarm season? We'll see. I like the way the bees are working the frames so far.

This is what a half sheet looks like. Nice size for some cut comb honey with deep frame stability. Enough worker sized cells to use anywhere if I wish tho.



















When placed in or directly above brood nest, they draw out the foundation first.


----------



## Barry

WLC said:


> Am I the only one to notice that the outside 'foundationless' comb appears to be of a larger cell size, and the cells aren't following the same horizontal row pattern as the central foundation?


No, I wouldn't expect much different. Lot's of honey/drone comb.


----------



## Lauri

WLC said:


> Lauri:
> 
> Am I the only one to notice that the outside 'foundationless' comb appears to be of a larger cell size, and the cells aren't following the same horizontal row pattern as the central foundation?
> 
> One though, perhaps if you put the foundation at the edges of the frame, they might draw a different type of comb centrally. Perhaps even small cell.
> 
> PS-It might also be a good way to economize on plastic foundation.


Rite cell has increased in price significantly. I save 1/2 to 1/3 on my foundation costs..Not a big deal if you use one case a year. But if you use 30+ cases... well, @ about $100. a case of 100 sheets, it sure adds up fast 
One of the reasons I made them this way, but not the only reason. 

I wanted to do some foundationless, but need reliably built worker sized cells in the center for a quality frames I can use anywhere within the hive , or sell in a nuc. The foundationless sides are built smaller cell in the brood nest area, larger cells when frames are placed above it on the sides, as expected. I get what I want, they get to build what they want...within reason.
Now if they only made rite cell in 5.1. It would be great.

But 5.4 works for me with VSH Carniolan Hybrid/Feral genetics and in a Northern climate with 5 months of broodless period during winter. I can raise big fat queens that sell, produce and overwinter well.

Somehow, I feel like I am cheating....


----------



## Juhani Lunden

Lauri said:


> Rite cell has increased in price significantly.


Just curious, how much is the total cost of new foundation, I mean how much do you spend money on buying new (plastic) foundation?

I spend about 4-5 dollars/hive/year for the making of my own wax foundation. It is made according to my measures from my own wax, they just need to have 150kg lot at a time.



Lauri... very Finnish name!


----------



## Lauri

Any more questions about this type of frame, please refer to this thread:

http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?295025-The-Miracle-of-Going-Foundationless!

I'd like to see this thread die and be forgotton ASAP and get back on to more positive things.

Although it has been informative, it's been a bit painful to watch unfold. 

I wouldn't be as successful as I am today if it weren't for Michael Bush's web site. Although I do things differently than he does, I respect and appreciate his opinions and keep an open mind to ALL methods of beekeeping here on Beesource.
Michael HAS taught me one thing recently...How to be gracious and calm when faced with a thread and comments like this. Not just a thick skin like Barry is always telling me I need to get. It's a better quality than that.


----------



## rhaldridge

Lauri said:


> Michael HAS taught me one thing recently...How to be gracious and calm when faced with a thread and comments like this. Not just a thick skin like Barry is always telling me I need to get. It's a better quality than that.


Very good point.


----------



## WLC

"I'd like to see this thread die and be forgotton ASAP and get back on to more positive things."

I think that looking at an issue objectively, as the OP intended, is a positive thing to do.

For example, I looked up the accessions for the feral haplotypes in NE from the Magnus study, the one Mike Bush contributed to.

Unfortunately, they're unverified in Genebank. 

So, no verification of the stock, and none on smallcell in the scientific literature except from Brazil.

See how that works Lauri. That's objective.


----------



## Haraga

.....coming from someone with no real beekeeping experience that we have seen.


----------



## Juhani Lunden

Lauri said:


> I'd like to see this thread die and be forgotton ASAP and get back on to more positive things.
> 
> Although it has been informative, it's been a bit painful to watch unfold.


I find looking for the truth to be very positive.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

WLC said:


> I think that looking at an issue objectively, as the OP intended, is a positive thing to do.


Say what? 

If objectivity was was the intent of the thread, why was the word "Miracle" chosen for the the thread title? :scratch:

That seems to be more of a _pejorative _to me.


----------



## Mike Gillmore

Lauri said:


> I wouldn't be as successful as I am today if it weren't for Michael Bush's web site.


That sums it up for me too. I have not been able to replicate TF beekeeping, but I have adopted many of his methods and have experienced great success in doing so.


----------



## Barry

And now the thread has turned another corner and we're discussing _objectivity_! At least that's my objective view.


----------



## Acebird

Lauri said:


> Once I got rid of frames from other apiaries and only had comb drawn at my own place (And raised my own queens that thrive in my climate) beekeeping has been almost effortless.


Lauri, you are going to make a lot of enemies saying that.

"Everything works if you let it" That is what hit me and it is the only thing that would explain why I STILL have bees. Lots of them...
No beekeeper does what everybody does because we are all different. We learn from each other and then do are own thing. And the bees think we are A-holes because they are going to do what they want to do regardless.

Lauri, from an old man to an old woman (you said that not me) you can scrimp and save and in the long run it is short lived. We are now consuming less oil, less electricity and less energy in general than we did before, so the power companies, and oil companies just double the price to get back what they lost because of the lack of consumption. I love your idea of 1/2 sheets but keep in mind the cost savings are short lived. The suppliers will double the cost of foundation to make up for the lack of consumption.


----------



## Lauri

Acebird said:


> Lauri, you are going to make a lot of enemies saying that.


I don't follow you. Why would suggesting clean comb and rearing your own queens would cause me to make enemies?


----------



## Lauri

Acebird said:


> The suppliers will double the cost of foundation to make up for the lack of consumption.


LOL, Ace, I doubt I have that much influence. Perhaps sales of rite cell will go UP from new customers that want to try a partial sheet. You can't do it with any old foundation ya know


----------



## WLC

Clean wax?

Lauri, don't you treat with Amitraz, etc. ?


----------



## Acebird

Lauri said:


> I don't follow you.


"beekeeping has been almost effortless"


----------



## Acebird

Lauri said:


> You can't do it with any old foundation ya know


Why not?


----------



## Lauri

Too thin? Rite cell is thick, rigid and tough..pop it in and you're done. Is there any other foundation that is thick enough?


----------



## Lauri

WLC said:


> Lauri, don't you treat with Amitraz, etc. ?


I like to dab it behind my ears.. a little in the bath water is quite refreshing too

Seriously, when I started out and had mite issues with my purchased bees, was unsure about how to proceed and erred on the side of caution. I tried hopguard and was not impressed. I tried Apivar and _Loved it_. But as I get more experienced and my bees are more established, my need to treat these days is almost down to nothing. I don't buy bees anymore, I have no exposures to commercial crops and all that goes with them, no other apiaries near my yards, have not ever treated with antibiotics or fumagillin. I don't do any pollination services. I'm more experienced with mite monitoring and stay on top my colonies. But I use brood breaks along with genetics. So my 'treatments' these days would be management methods instead of chemicals.
My comb is clean and I don't have the continual reinfestation issues many others have due to location.


----------



## Flyer Jim

Lauri said:


> Too thin? Rite cell is thick, rigid and tough..pop it in and you're done. Is there any other foundation that is thick enough?


Pierco, much better imho


----------



## WLC

Lauri said:


> I like to dab it behind my ears.. a little in the bath water is quite refreshing too


I'm sorry to hear of your Varroa issues.


----------



## Lauri

WLC said:


> I'm sorry to hear of your Varroa issues.


OMG, now that's funny
That's what happens when you live in the country my friend. You live with Man, beast and bugs...at least I do


----------



## Lauri

****


----------



## Brad Bee

Lauri, I think I'm ready to go commercial with the mite eating tree frogs. Anyone want to prepay to ensure their order???


----------



## WLC

Lauri:

At our age, they say the first thing to go is the mind.

With me, it was hernia, knee, teeth, then shoulder.


----------



## Acebird

Lauri said:


> Is there any other foundation that is thick enough?


I use wax foundation. I don't see why I can't cut the sheet in half or quarters and do the same thing you are doing with plastic.


----------



## Ramona

When I use foundation I do what Lauri does but horizontally and with sc wax. Foundation goes just above the top wire and just below the bottom wire. Bees are free to build whatever size comb they want at top and bottom of frames.

Most of our frames have comb guides across the top ( we do a lot of foundationless). I started putting foundation in this way as comb guides prevented inserting. Sometimes bees will build sc comb all the way, other times they use the spaces for large cell honey storage and/ or drones. Everyone is happy...

Ramona


----------



## deknow

The well known studies that look at morphometrics/cell size change are the Badeaux, and the Grout studies.

The data from Badeaux is in the older ABC's of Beekeeping (Root)...charts measuring bees from enlarged comb. I'm pretty sure there is enough data there to see if any of the ratios change with cell size from his data...but I don't have it in front of me at the moment.

The Grout study is hard to come by...I don't know of a copy online. I do have a copy, but it is many pages, and scanning it would be a chore (I think it was his thesis).

There is also this study available to read online:
http://digirep.rhul.ac.uk/file/8660b362-1e7f-f728-044d-38dd0ecfacd5/4/m6049.pdf

It doesn't seem to support the cubital index claims of some of the other studies, but an interesting line from the introduction regarding the natural brood cell size of AMM:
"According to Cowan (1904) the width of the brood-cell of the Northern European dark bee Apis mellifera mellifera at this time was in the range 4.9 to 5.1 mm"

I found the Cowan book available to read online, but haven't been able to look at it closely or download it.
http://www.worldcat.org/wcpa/oclc/6...4abb96d&title=&linktype=digitalObject&detail=
...should let you read it..if not, go to this page:
http://www.worldcat.org/title/honey-bee-its-natural-history-anatomy-and-physiology/oclc/608930209
...and "find a copy online".

I think Cowan is a pretty reasonable (and contemporary) source...and I think that what both Michael and I have pointed out about a 'larger race' on natural comb may be noticeably smaller than a 'smaller race' on large comb.

deknow


----------



## shannonswyatt

I may be wrong, but i think the advantage of the plastic when cut is that it can be securely fastened to the frame. Wax could tear off.


----------



## sqkcrk

Acebird said:


> Lauri, you are going to make a lot of enemies saying that.
> 
> "Everything works if you let it" That is what hit me and it is the only thing that would explain why I STILL have bees. Lots of them...
> No beekeeper does what everybody does because we are all different. We learn from each other and then do are own thing. And the bees think we are A-holes because they are going to do what they want to do regardless.


When Lauri says beekeeping has become almost effortless, she doesn't mean she puts no effort into it. When you do what you love and love doing it, then it isn't work. Maybe that's what she means. Not that she doesn't work at it, but it doesn't feel like work because she enjoys doing it.


----------



## Daniel Y

Where was it that she said "it would be effortless if it where not for all the hard work"? or did I imagine that?

I agree with mark. It is not work when you look forward to it.


----------



## Barry

deknow said:


> The Grout study is hard to come by...


Not really.
http://www.beesource.com/point-of-v...pon-the-size-and-variability-of-the-honeybee/


----------



## Lauri

sqkcrk said:


> When Lauri says beekeeping has become almost effortless, she doesn't mean she puts no effort into it. When you do what you love and love doing it, then it isn't work. Maybe that's what she means. Not that she doesn't work at it, but it doesn't feel like work because she enjoys doing it.


That is true Mark. But not the only thing. 
Don't get me wrong, My statement doesn't mean I think I've figured out the worlds bee problems. But I _have_ figured out what works for me.

I wouldn't enjoy it if I continued to have the problems I did when I started out. Once the 'issues' were dealt with, which includes clean new comb, it has been a pleasure instead of a nightmare.

Kind of like the difference between riding my horse instead of kickin' a dead one.

I also give some credit to my Not-so-secret-recipes....Don't tell Keith where my extra protein comes from tho


----------



## Acebird

Lauri said:


> which includes clean new comb, it has been a pleasure instead of a nightmare.


I don't have any proof that this is so but I always had a hunch that it is one of those things that help allot. It follows the logic that bees live in a hollowed tree for a period of time and then leave or die out. Then wax moths and other critters come in and chew it out. Then the bees come back. The process of making wax comb has got to improve the health of the colony some how. I can't imagine a hive made with all plastic comb surviving very long.


----------



## deknow

Thanks Barry, I didn't realize it was posted here.
There is plenty of data between Grout, Badeaux, and the other recent document I posted to actually look at the ratios that have been questioned. It may be easier to quote Ruttner, but I don't believe he actually looked into these questions.


----------



## Juhani Lunden

deknow said:


> Thanks Barry, I didn't realize it was posted here.
> There is plenty of data between Grout, Badeaux, and the other recent document I posted to actually look at the ratios that have been questioned. It may be easier to quote Ruttner, but I don't believe he actually looked into these questions.


Just give me the name of the book which says that A.m.m is not the biggest of all A.m bee races.


----------



## Barry

Actually, if you go to www.thebeerace.com, it's quite clear that Pennsylania is the biggest when it comes to American beerace.


----------



## deknow

The largest race isn't necessarily larger than a smaller race on enlarged comb. I'm not sure why such an observation (that amm tend to appear small) is necessarily in conflict with the idea that amm is one of the larger races. I'm not sure what the argument is about.


----------



## Saltybee

It is a tradition.


----------



## shannonswyatt

I think the black is slimming, and horizontal strips make you look fat.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

_Lauri_, it may be time to cut back a little on the Amitraz. It appears that it may be a little harsh on your knees! 



... no, not the _bees_' knees ...


----------



## Juhani Lunden

deknow said:


> "According to Cowan (1904) the width of the brood-cell of the Northern European dark bee Apis mellifera mellifera at this time was in the range 4.9 to 5.1 mm"
> 
> 
> I think Cowan is a pretty reasonable (and contemporary) source...


Again and again: small cell promoters like to bend the truth in a way that suits themselves. 

I bought the Cowan book from Amazon. It came today. 

Original first edition is from 1890. Second edition 1904. They did measurements with Amm cell size. All together 36 measurements, 10 and 60 cells in a row. The average was 5,1mm. Variation from 4,7mm to 5,3mm.


----------



## shannonswyatt

Yup, it is a big conspiracy. Small cell is what the Bilderbergers meet about every year. All a part of the New World Order.


----------



## lazy shooter

shannonswyatt said:


> Yup, it is a big conspiracy. Small cell is what the Bilderbergers meet about every year. All a part of the New World Order.


Shannonswyatt:

Hooray for you, it's about time someone had the courage to tell it like it is.


----------



## Intheswamp

But now Shannonswyatt has to worry about the black SUVs with the blacked-out windows riding slowly by their house at all times of the day (and night) and the funny "clicks" during their phone conversations. Not to mention the odd inquires that show up on their credit reports. Oh, and their dog peering through the sliding glass door at night as if "something" was catching his attention.


----------



## odfrank

Michael just recently suggested that small cell would be drawn better on 1 1/4" comb spacing, and coincidentally I had at hand all to prove him correct.

FAIL.

I had abandoned my Gargantuan experiment and had a box full of 11 1/4" deep frames made for 1 1/4" spacing ready for my last small cell experiment in ten years. All have failed so many times, as I renovated other small cell frames this winter I switched them back to large cell.
I dumped a large swarm that I guessed had come out of a BWeaver hive, onto this SC foundation. I felt this small possible influence of african bee genes might lead to better small cell. I got the usual konka wonka cells. So possible African influence did not help. 1 1/4" comb spacing did not help. Forty sheets of wax small cell foundation available for other experimenters.


----------



## Barry

odfrank said:


> Forty sheets of wax small cell foundation available for other experimenters.


What difference does it make? If they always draw it out large, use it. You seem to prefer LC comb anyway.


----------



## lazy shooter

Intheswamp said:


> But now Shannonswyatt has to worry about the black SUVs with the blacked-out windows riding slowly by their house at all times of the day (and night) and the funny "clicks" during their phone conversations. Not to mention the odd inquires that show up on their credit reports. Oh, and their dog peering through the sliding glass door at night as if "something" was catching his attention.


Black helicopters hovering in the distance, dark suited men with out dated ties everywhere you go, and generic looking vans parked near your home with satellite dishes on top. Oh woe is me to poor shannon.


----------



## shannonswyatt

The BLM is already threatening my small cell bees saying that the comb is owned by the state!


----------



## Acebird

odfrank said:


> I got the usual konka wonka cells.


:scratch: What are konka wonka cells?


----------



## Mike Gillmore

Look at the pics in #297. Cells of different sizes all mixed up on the comb.

I've never heard the term before, but it fits.


----------



## Acebird

But he said it as though it was a bad thing...


----------



## Brad Bee

Acebird said:


> :scratch: What are konka wonka cells?


That's where Oompa Loompas come from.


----------



## Roland

ODFrank - I think I know what you did wrong.You did not believe. You where testing them. Bees are very sensitive to cosmic forces, and They must have sensed your lack of faith in their ability to draw out the small cells properly. You need to take those extra sheets of foundation, and try again, but this time with the belief that they can do it. Only with good Carma, will you succeed.

Crazy Roland


----------



## lazy shooter

And I had often wondered where oomph loom pas came from.


----------



## odfrank

Barry said:


> What difference does it make? If they always draw it out large, use it. You seem to prefer LC comb anyway.


You didn't read the post or look at the pictures. They don't draw it out large cell, they draw it out like they are stoned on LSD. It is unusable for brood.


----------



## WLC

Odfrank:

Looks like you did the 'Full Monty' with the 11 frames and small cell. Good for you.

While someone will tell you that they need to be regressed first, I think that you would need to have the right stock from the get go.

You would basically have to hunt down a feral colony already on 'small cell'.


----------



## shannonswyatt

What part of town are the bees from Haight-Ashbury?


----------



## F6Hawk

You may be korek about internet mis-information. At least ole Abe agrees with you!











Juhani Lunden said:


> I would rather see some reference from a respected book, scientific publication etc.
> 
> Hive and The Honey Bee is propably the most widespread bee book around the globe. Origins are from 1853 Langstroths book and its writers are mostly well known professors. It is for instance used as course readings in Helsinki University beekeeping education(my place).
> 
> Friedrich Ruttner is German professor and very widely acknowledged as the leading expert of beeraces in the world. I´m sure you have heard of him.
> 
> 
> Internet has this major fault, that false information has the tendency of becoming true by repeating, which is exactly the same as has happened in this SC propagation.
> 
> P.S: I corrected the Wikipedia part


----------



## Barry

odfrank said:


> You didn't read the post or look at the pictures. They don't draw it out large cell, they draw it out like they are stoned on LSD. It is unusable for brood.


Yes, I read it and looked. They drew it out how they wanted to. Since you are not a SC fan/supporter/believer, what difference does it make now? It doesn't/didn't work as SC, yet this comb is no good to you? Why? Use it as honey comb.


----------



## odfrank

Barry said:


> Yes, I read it and looked. They drew it out how they wanted to. Since you are not a SC fan/supporter/believer, what difference does it make now? It doesn't/didn't work as SC, yet this comb is no good to you? Why? Use it as honey comb.


You are trying to pit one group against another. You know better than all of the members I have been trying small cell for ten years. It is not a case of if I believe or don't believe. I am trying to make it work because you and others tell me it does. Look at the comb. There are cells of every size and shape. It can not be used as honey comb as it is on 11 1/4" deep frames in the middle of a single brood chamber. They are drawing it like this right on the middle brood combs. The outside foundation is not even drawn yet. 

>Since you are not a SC fan/supporter/believer, what difference does it make now?

This statement implies that you want small cell users rely on faith, not facts. It supports Roland's statement in a previous post:
>ODFrank - I think I know what you did wrong.You did not believe. You where testing them. Bees are very sensitive to cosmic forces, and They must have sensed your lack of faith in their ability to draw out the small cells properly

I "believe" facts, and do not rely on "faith". Years ago I gave up believing in so many tales society told me to "believe" when I was a child:

Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy and yes, even God. After ten years of trying small cell I still don't find facts. I can't no longer rely on faith.


----------



## Barry

Yes, we all see your facts. I accept them. Yet you keep trying to disprove the facts of others. Why? SC doesn't work for you, move on. If I had as much trouble as you've had, I wouldn't still be trying to make it work.



odfrank said:


> It can not be used as honey comb as it is on 11 1/4" deep frames in the middle of a single brood chamber. They are drawing it like this right on the middle brood combs.


Move it to the outside positions in the brood chambers.



odfrank said:


> Forty sheets of wax small cell foundation available for other experimenters.


I've actually said on several occasions that using sc wax foundation is not the answer and will just lead to the type of comb building your bees did. I have a lot more than 40 sheets of sc wax foundation. I'd be glad for someone else to use it as well as I'm not going to ever use it. I'll stick to plastic.


----------



## odfrank

>Yet you keep trying to disprove the facts of others.

Why do you insist that the discussion be "us against them"? Believers against non-believers? I said nothing to disprove other's facts. I just said, "it ain't working for me".

Moving it to the outside positon is not a solution. I work my hives, not just leave a brood chamber as a set entity for years once I start it. If I divide the hive in half to make nucs they will end up in the middle. From my experience all the combs will be drawn funky. 

I will take a picture of a small cell hive that is on it's third year, lured onto small cell combs in the middle of suburbia, now making five or six mediums of crop. I keep trying because sometimes SC works, just not as reliably as large cell. And it does not keep the hives from dying, so what are it's other advantages?


----------



## Barry

odfrank said:


> I just said, "it ain't working for me".





odfrank said:


> I have been trying small cell for ten years.


For 10 years you've been saying "it ain't working for me". Maybe it's time you find something that does work. It seems odd to me that one would keep trying something that didn't have positive results.


----------



## odfrank

I believed in Santa Claus until I found the same presents under the tree that I had found in the closet. I believed in the Easter Bunny until the same eggs showed up in the garden that I had colored the night before. I believed in the tooth fairy until I woke up to find my mother hiding the quarter under the pillow. I guess I am a slow learner.


----------



## Barry

I'm just guessing those lengthy lessons came when you were little? With age comes . . .


----------



## F6Hawk

frank, forgive my ignorance here, not trying to stir the pot, but what's wrong with the cell pattern you have gotten, exactly? (Bear in mind, I have been keeping bees only a bit longer than you have been flying the space shuttle)

The only thing I can say about it is (if you haven't already)... try it with foundationless. Cut thin strips of your foundation to slide into the top bar to give them a centered start, maybe 3/8" wide, so maybe 1/8" protrudes below the top bar. I have wax foundation in my hives, but wherever I put plain wood, they ignore the foundation (or chew it up to draw on the wood), and they draw straight. Can't say much about the pattern of cells, except that they draw what they want where they want, and I don't see a point in trying to influence them. Nature does that.

I did get one or two frames of nothing but small cells, but other frames are interspersed with larger cells. Some get drones, some get honey. As someone with more experience than I said, no need to try to change their minds, as they want to have a certain amount of drones, and anything less might stress them out. IDK. 

Just trying to understand why you didn't like the pattern you posted, or to get a grip on what your goal is. Heck, I'm just happy to have hives that haven't swarmed on me...



odfrank said:


> I got the usual konka wonka cells. So possible African influence did not help. 1 1/4" comb spacing did not help. Forty sheets of wax small cell foundation available for other experimenters.


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

I second the experience Frank had. The wonky comb causes more pollen clogged combs, irregular brood pattern and such. The queen simply refuses to lay eggs in that comb or has difficulties to do so. The hive does not thrive as it would and could on good combs. Put it on regular foundation and it booms.

If you do natural combs - without frames, spacers, nothing - you do get natural cell size. Which is not (!) small cells. 

Michael stated, that he has small bees coming out of small cells. I do not have such bees, they are just about the size as all the other bees on normal foundation. (5.4 mm) So it might be due to a local strain of smaller bees that it works alright in Michael's apiaries. Not the smaller cells but the strain of bees he is keeping as the reason that it works for him. All beekeeping is local, I like that statement.

Small cells do not work per se in every location. Natural cells do, but they are not small cells necessarily.


----------



## Daniel Y

Barry said:


> For 10 years you've been saying "it ain't working for me". Maybe it's time you find something that does work. It seems odd to me that one would keep trying something that didn't have positive results.


So I take it you have little experience with the process of refining and tweaking a process. I have spent 40 years refining my artistic skills. It will never stop. I cannot say it has every really worked for me yet. Not on photography becasue you never quite get exactly what you where looking for. not in painting or sculpture, not in music. I am now in my second year of working with checker boarding. it has not prevented swarming yet. I only lost two queens so far this year though rather than nearly all of them like last year. I have also not increased my apiary by a factor of 6 capturing those swarms either. I have put together a management scheme that works quite well so far. It is called improving.

Now some processes are not worth improving. But for me this whole issue of natural comb has not been much of an issue. I find the most problem at a very specific situation though. Bees do not drawn natural comb very well while making honey. They draw it they just make a mess of it. Frames drawn during build up and for brood are much better. That is a tip on how to tweak or refine a process. Excellence is in the details. Look carefully at every detail.

Can you tell me which frame in which box of any hive you own the bees are most likely to start drawing? if not are you really paying attention? Enough attention to get any better that is. I can tell you that in most of my hives it is box two frame 7. Frame seven is two frames toward the east from center. It is where they want the center of their brood nest. At times the brood nest will shift toward the west but for the most part they stay with this slightly favoring the east side of the box by a fraems or sometimes two. sometimes I have a hive that does not locate the nest in this location. they also do not do as well. I found by changing the frame in that location often corrects the situation. I have not yet seen what they do not like about the previous frame.


----------



## mbc

Daniel Y said:


> So I take it you have little experience with the process of refining and tweaking a process. I have spent 40 years refining my artistic skills. It will never stop.


This.

Strive for perfection, settle for excellence, and the current state of understanding is only a step in a work in progress.


----------



## WLC

Odfrank:

I'll agree that there's too much 'mythology' surrounding small cell (and some other stuff as well).

I didn't get wonky cells, but there were a bunch of other issues that made using small cell foundation to be a poor choice.

In a nutshell, I found regular rite cell to be the better choice.


----------



## bluegrass

Looks like "Finnman" is back on board. Good to see. It is good to have contrary opinions around to question the main stream. Especially from somebody who may be controversial, but really knows their stuff. 

WLC: How did your Weaver bees do this winter?


----------



## WLC

bluegrass said:


> Looks like "Finnman" is back on board. Good to see. It is good to have contrary opinions around to question the main stream. Especially from somebody who may be controversial, but really knows their stuff.
> WLC: How did your Weaver bees do this winter?



Both colonies survived the winter.

They're foraging for pollen as of late.

One colony does exhibit new behaviors to keep me interested.

The latest one is bees working as 'platoons'. Someone else reported it here before, now I'm seeing it too.


----------



## Brad Bee

odfrank said:


> I believed in Santa Claus until....


Are you saying that there is no Santa Claus?


----------



## Barry

Daniel Y said:


> So I take it you have little experience with the process of refining and tweaking a process.


Or perhaps you have little experience letting go of refining and tweaking, that result in the same outcome, and trying a different process? 

"Now some processes are not worth improving."

Yeah, my point to Odfrank.

"But for me this whole issue of natural comb"

We're not talking about natural comb. He's using foundation.


----------



## Barry

WLC said:


> The latest one is bees working as 'platoons'. Someone else reported it here before, now I'm seeing it too.


Mine are already working as battalions. Yours are still trying to get organized.


----------



## Michael Palmer

WLC said:


> One colony does exhibit new behaviors to keep me interested.
> 
> The latest one is bees working as 'platoons'. Someone else reported it here before, now I'm seeing it too.


New behaviors?
Platoons?

Please expand.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

> 'platoons'
> 'battalions'

And my drones are 'unarmed'.   Good thing you guys are several states away! :lpf:


----------



## Mike Gillmore

This is news to me. 

I've been painting all of my boxes white. Guess I better start repainting them all Camo.


----------



## F6Hawk

If you're gonna do that, Mike, don't do it half way... use CARC paint. (but beware the health & safety requirements while applying it!)


----------



## Beeonefarms

As a super new freshman bee keeper, I am very interested in hearing what may work what hasnt and what works where. I have my own theory with no data yet to back it up which really wont matter cause what happens in one yard wont work the same way somewhere else. So it must be "all about the love(drones)" Everyone enjoy your spring flow and keep an eye out for swarm behaviors.




Randy Oliver Mckinney 
Bee One Farms


----------

