# honey supercell



## JohnBeeMan (Feb 24, 2004)

I have tried HSC in several packages that I started this year. I have had mixed results in how fast they accepted the plastic foundation. However I still believe this is an excellent approach to regression.

In the spring I plan to transition the HSC hives over to all regular 4.9 foundation and use HSC in other regression efforts. 

I may even cut down some of the HSC for mini-mating nucs.


----------



## drobbins (Jun 1, 2005)

I started 3 hives on it this spring
actually 2 were packages and one was a fairly weak 1 medium hive I "forced" onto it
the two packages fizzled due to slow acceptance during our spring flow and then a terrible drought, they just never took off
the third hive is a boomer, one of my best
the comb from the deadouts is now used and I'll definitely be using it this spring
hope we get some rain this year

Dave


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

I'm not aware of how Randy Oliver is qualified to conduct any type of study or why a company would choose him, to do this study. Anyone more familiar with his qualifications? 
Did they offer the product to the Bee Labs, Penn State, U of Ga or Dyce for testing and were turned down? It just seems convenient to have Randy do a study and pronounce it a success the 1st. season (if I'm reading it correctly) and am I understanding ABJ is going to publish an article on this calling it a success?

That aside, I can't open the Norway Study or at least if I can it looks like it's take a long time. Anyone willing to do a synopsis of that work?

The reasons they cite for lower varroa are the mites are crowded out of the Cell, capping times and less drone comb. How did they establish this from the study. It would make sense with no or low drone comb (an un-natural condition for a hive) mite populations would be impacted. I'd like to see more on the other two or how that conclusion was drawn. This is the 1st. mention of crowding mites I recall and I wonder out loud if they have stumbled onto an aspect we haven't discussed here (unless I've missed it) of small cell varroa control?

Where's Fischer?


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

Dave, 

Thanks for posting this, I wish I could see the Norway Study.

Did you feed at all and was all the startup foundation HSC for the packages? It looks like the hive (now the boomer) had transferred brood to start with? If so were those bees on small cell prior to the HSC and if so. Why the HSC over standard small cell?

Thanks


----------



## drobbins (Jun 1, 2005)

Joel,

the Norway study is here

http://www.honeysupercell.com/downloads/Commercial%20Bkpg%20in%20Norway.pdf


I started two packages on it
they both started slow, bees don't seem to care for plastic
but they had no choice and eventually got going
unfortunately by then our flow ws over and we had a really bad drought last summer
one crapped out due to my error
I'm pretty sure I rolled the queen and they failed to recover
the other made it till late december, then we had a cold snap and they starved
again, operator error
I didn't keep em fed
I had a lot of trouble feeding this year
top feeders and I had a LOT of bees drowning
still trying to get a technique worked out
the third hive was some VHS bees I had from the year before who were kinda weak and in a single box
I stacked boxes of HSC on top of them so that's the only place they had to expand and they took off like a rocket
I got 2 boxes of honey off them which was good for this year and I think I left a box on them I could have taken (if I had a brain I could have taken it and saved the hive that starved)
the bottom line for me is they don't like to accept it, but once they do they do fine
I'll do some careful stickyboard tests next year and see what I find
another reason I wanted to try it is as a possible tool against shb
don't know about that yet
bottom line, I just ordered two more boxes which is a lot for a guy with 10 hives

BTW, I'm pushing all my hive toward smallcell except one hive of survivors I got from iddee, they're my control

Dave


----------



## drobbins (Jun 1, 2005)

Joel,

I'm sorry, I missed your first post and just saw the second
I think the Norway thing has been discussed here before
if I remember correctly the guy was part of a bigger study and was criticized for releasing his results before the study was done
search the beesource archives
I sent the paper to the email addy on your website

Dave


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

Thanks Dave, 
I know you do considerable experimentation on your own as I've been through your web site/ pictures. You should share more of what your doing with the post! I still could not open the Norway study so I'll PM. 
Thanks for the answers.


----------



## BULLSEYE BILL (Oct 2, 2002)

Just did a quick search for 'Honey Super Cell' and got 16 pages of threads.

Here is the best one; http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=205880&highlight=honey+super+cell

My plan for this year is to get that other twenty boxes in production as well as forty more I just ordered. I want to get one box of HSC under one or two boxes of PC. So far I think the 'one and a half hive' is working the best for my area.


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

Thanks to Dave for sending the Norway Report, and Bill for posting the last link, it really is pretty comprehensive: I completely missed this last year.

It clearly has some minor intro problems but looks pretty good on the whole. I'm thinking I'll order enough for 20 and let the bees draw them out for honey over Brood during the spring flow and then after extracting introduce them as brood frames. I assume wedge top frames are the way to go? I noted in Peggjams pictures the foundation looked shorter than the frames.


----------



## drobbins (Jun 1, 2005)

you're missing the point here Joel
this is complete plastic comb with frame included
the bees don't need to draw it
I cut mine up and put it in frames because I wanted mediums which they don't make but that not what is intended
here are some pics

http://www.drobbins.net/bee's/hsc/

in the middle picture you can see the comb is fully formed

Dave


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

Yea, I can be a little thick sometimes . I understood the drawn comb aspect. I had looked at pictures on the prev. post but what stuck in my mind was Jim's which had aparrently been cut down.

My thoughts on putting it over brood for honey was to get it waxed before introducing it to brood.


----------



## drobbins (Jun 1, 2005)

with the 2 packages I started on it I put them in a nuc with 4 frames of HSC and 1 drawn comb in the center
I figured they get established on the drawn comb and not want to leave
it worked (they stayed) but they clearly didn't like the HSC at the beginning
on the other hive I poured some sugar in the combs and whetted it then placed them on top of the hive in winter as extra feed
they jumped right on that

Dave


----------



## MichaelW (Jun 1, 2005)

I know a newer beekeeper that spent a small fortune on HSC. He thought the bees where doing well. A 'decades of experience' beekeeper took a look through his bee yard and said they look awful. Time will tell if they get used to the plastic or not.

Thats not a scientific review, just a word of caution. Use caution before throwing down a lot of money on un-'proven' products. A few hives isn't a small fortune, this was considerably more than that.


----------



## MichaelW (Jun 1, 2005)

As Joel said, we could use the critical eye of Jim Fisher.

But as far as the Norway study goes, that does look pretty good to me. Sounds like a good study as far as I can tell from the article. Its good to hear some promising news in the cell size area. As stated in the study, the chalkbrood may have had some effect, but hard to say . Time will be telling with all the studies apparently underway.


----------



## peggjam (Mar 4, 2005)

MichaelW said:


> I know a newer beekeeper that spent a small fortune on HSC. He thought the bees where doing well. A 'decades of experience' beekeeper took a look through his bee yard and said they look awful. Time will tell if they get used to the plastic or not.
> 
> Thats not a scientific review, just a word of caution. Use caution before throwing down a lot of money on un-'proven' products. A few hives isn't a small fortune, this was considerably more than that.


 
I totally agree with that statement.


----------



## stangardener (Mar 8, 2005)

Joel said:


> It clearly has some minor intro problems but looks pretty good on the whole. I'm thinking I'll order enough for 20 and let the bees draw them out for honey over Brood during the spring flow and then after extracting introduce them as brood frames. I assume wedge top frames are the way to go? I noted in Peggjams pictures the foundation looked shorter than the frames.


if your referance to wedge top frames is for the hsc you won't need them. hsc is drawn out 
one piece frame, plastic comb.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Use caution before throwing down a lot of money on un-'proven' products.

Or anything you haven't proven YOU like. It's frustrating to spend a lot of on something you eventually wish you hadn't...


----------



## BULLSEYE BILL (Oct 2, 2002)

My take on HSC as posted in the above referenced post;

------------------------------
My bees have two choices, HSC or PC. It seems that a lot of them prefer the PC but when it is full they use the HSC, and when consolidating will leave the HSC first. Others hives seem to not care and will use the HSC as quickly as the PC.

For the most part this was a year of getting the HSC used for the first time. What is common in both the PC and HSC is that once it is used by the bees, "broke in" if you will, it is accepted just like if it were their own wax.

Bottom line, It Depends. I will say that some bees like it, most tolerate it, and a few really just don't want to touch it.
-------------------------------

I will also remind you that what works of one person will not automatically work for you. You have to modify your techniques when working with a new or different type of product.


----------



## kirk w (Jul 19, 2007)

*HSC acceptance*

I started 5 non regressed four frame nucs on HSC the first week of Sept.
I brushed the HSC frames with wax before introducing them. The 3rd week of Sept. I added a medium, with half the frames of each super had drawn small cell. Today each hive is in one deep and two mediums. I will have to add a third medium before the citrus flow gets started. I am looking foreward to great spring. kw


----------



## drobbins (Jun 1, 2005)

kirk,

welcome to beesource
it sounds like you now have a mix of HSC and wax
a lot of the concern with HSC has to do with acceptance
are your bees using the HSC or have they moved over to the wax frames?

Dave


----------



## kirk w (Jul 19, 2007)

Dave thanks for the welcome.
I've had complete acceptance of the HSC. I didn't introduce the wax until the HSC was in full use. I was surprised at the speed at which is was accepted. I purchased the nucs from a local queen breeder, the queens were young and seemed a little under sized. Also I started them at the beginning our pepper, which is a strong flow for my area. I have pictures but I hav'nt figured out how to post them yet. Next week I'm going in to the hives to open the brood up nests I will know more then.

Thanks Kirk


----------



## drobbins (Jun 1, 2005)

keep us posted on what effect the HSC has on the shb problem, I assume you're in the thick of it in Florida
I'm hoping it creates a big problem to them

Dave


----------



## sjbees (Jun 9, 2007)

Hi Joel,

> I'm not aware of how Randy Oliver is qualified to conduct any type of study

I don't understand what seems like hostility. Randy is held in high regard across the country, even if you have never heard of him.

Look around the web and you will find that Randy is a commercial beekeper in NorCal who has written for the ABJ and done excellent work on the techniques/effectiveness of oxalic acid. He is a keen observer of bee behavior and has been involved with CCD and nosema analysis.

> ...or why a company would choose him, to do this study.

Nobody chose him. Randy's "experiment is currently unfunded. Mark Hamby donated the HSC frames, and at my request paid for the bulk bees. All other equipment and labor are out of my pocket."

Like many others, Randy is well aware of the aura/myth/belief or whatever else you choose to call it as to the merits of small cell. He decided to run a field test of two groups with similar genetics in the same yard and prevailed upon the makers of HSC to provide him with the frames and bees to make the comparison.

Bob Harrison is another commercial operator who has been convinced that small cell is worth trying by correspondence/conversation with Dennis Murrell. My personal opinion is that Bob should have used HSC also because it reduces the number of variables involved with regression issues.

> It just seems convenient to have Randy do a study and
> pronounce it a success the 1st. season

You obviously read what HSC wrote about what Randy wrote instead of going to the source. The first hint that the HSC home page might just be hyperbole aimed at selling more product is that there is no link to Randy's site. 

It strikes me as odd that nobody in this thread appears to have read the source either. What you will find at http://www.scientificbeekeeping.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=51 is a progress report on the first few months and the results are mixed e.g the fact that "overall weight gain was greater for the control combs built on foundation" does not count as a success for HSC in my book.

This fact is highlighted in the report: "A surprising result was the greater amount of honey stored in the control group. One would expect the bees to be able to store more honey in the preformed cells, since no wax would need to be produced to form the cell walls. I have no explanation for opposite results observed."


----------



## drobbins (Jun 1, 2005)

sjbees,

I started this thread when I ran across the excerpt from Randy's website on the HSC website
that's what I posted a link to and I suspect that's all many people read
I've only become aware of the much more detailed writeup on Randy's website within the last couple of days
I'm optimistic about the stuff

Dave


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

SJ your assumptions about my familiarity with Randy and his work are just that, assumptions. I've read virtually everthing Randy has published in ABJ and online. If you check my posts you'll find I've critizied Randys' demeanor but for most part complimented Randys' work based on my interpretations of the works merits not my personal opinion of him.

{I don't understand what seems like hostility.}

I've made no secret of my opinions of Randy Oliver to him directly or this post since he came here and trash talked the members of this post. Pay a visit to Bee-L where you'll find less people in awe there than the "rest of country" who apparently you are qualified to speak for. He doesn't post here, something about pinheads and chaff if I remember correctly. I do beleive he is dedicated to becoming a teacher, that's good we need teachers. Frankly I like the fact we are getting information on a more real time basis but it has to be tempered with responsibility if it's going to be presented as "Scientific Beekeeping". Randy'w work has value but not as he is presenting it.

{Nobody chose him.}

So can I assume he was in a lottery with Dr. Keith Delaplane , Dr. Nicholas Calderone or Dr. Shiminoko and he was the most qualifed scientist that was picked in the lottery to conduct qualified independant research on the this product ? Perhaps he was chosen due to his name and ability to be used to promote a product, perhaps the manufactured believes he is the qualified person for the job, or maybe no real scientist would have published any results less than 1/2 way through a 2 year study. Each of us can make our own deductions based on the facts. 

{experiment is currently unfunded.}

Well that is what Randy said on the site but he did not test it for free, the HSC people paid for the Frames and paid for bees. At any rate it certainly is not an independant study which both Randy and the Manufacturer are well aware. That of course makes it something else, not dishonest, just not independant.

{Bob Harrison is another commercial operator who has been convinced that small cell is worth trying by correspondence}

Bob posted here and on Bee-L his experiment with small cell was a failure. I know he changed horses in the middle of creek but that's a whole nother post about Bob and since he doesn't get here much that'll be another day.

{correspondence/conversation with Dennis Murrell.}

Just so you don't make any additional assumptions about what I've read I've been through Murrells', Lusby, and Bushes website extensively, read the new Zealand, Norway and American Study on small cell and participated in and read numerous discussion here and on Bee-L about small cell. I'm very interested but due to my investment would like to understand the science. Please feel free to paruse my posts over the past couple of years, it's all there.

{This fact is highlighted in the report: "A surprising result was the greater amount of honey stored in the control group. One would expect the bees to be able to store more honey in the preformed cells, since no wax would need to be produced to form the cell walls. I have no explanation for opposite results observed.} 

{You obviously read what HSC wrote about what Randy wrote instead of going to the source.}

Actually what is obvious is you assume, incorectly, a great deal of the time. I read his site, it, before this post incidentally and back when it was Randyoliver.com. Anyway here's one possible answer to the scientific quandry he took a year to investigate and me 10 mintues and an e-mail to find a possible cause. I present the following opinions from a trusted source which would suggest we need further research due to the potential impact of reduced foraging on colony survival. This may explain the honey differential between the control and HSC hives.

1) Empty comb has an actual pheromone. Empty WAX comb does. 
Empty wax comb drawn on any sort of foundation, or, for those who 
want to make more work for their bees, comb drawn in frames not 
provided with any foundation at all.

2) Now HSC is... ummm, plastic. No pheromone.

3) So, what's that pheromone do? Well, it has a motivating effect
on foraging. The foragers can smell empty comb, and it results in
more foraging sorties. This is the primary reason why one wants
to be able to "super up" a hive during a flow with multiple supers
of drawn comb added all at once, as to not do so is to lose a 
significant part of the resulting crop due to a lack of both
pheromone-induced motivation and space in which to evaporate 
drops of nectar. 


It's great Randy is out there doing "scientific research" and publishing instant results, likely hundreds of beekeepers who know his reputation will spend a great deal of money running out and buying these HSC frames because he is allowing the manufacturer to represent his "research". For the record, real scientific study and instant results are usually mutally exclusive. HSC may be the greatest new bullet proof thing in beekeeping. I just suggest before Randy runs arounds parading his "Scientific beekeeping" results all over he actually do the science part. 
Here's a few other factors brought to my attention which perhaps need to be considered that were in my 5 -10 minute query:

4) We would not want to expose HSC to any of the miticides, as we have no idea what sort of residue would be absorbed by the plastic, and we would be 
well-advised to be concerned about what sort of reactions would
take place between the plastic and the various acids that are
all the rage these days (formic, oxalic, and acetic). Has this been tested?

5) Another reason why plastic might be a poor idea is when bees dance, they 
take advantage of the resonance of WAX comb to carry the vibrations 
of the dance, and no big surprise that the vibrations are the primary 
mechanism for recruiting additional foragers. In fact, the bees chew 
the side edges and bottom edge of a single wax comb away from its frame 
to make a "better" "more resonant" dance floor, more reminiscent of a 
comb in a tree hollow. This chewing would be impossible with HSC, as 
it would be with everything except wax.

Randy Olivers site promotes the idea he is doing scientific beekeeping, I think Randy is a beekeeper with a degree (wasn't he a biology teacher?) who does some good work but needs to be more responsible in the scope of his research and the publishing of his results under that heading. This may be a great product but Randy's reasearch does not answer that question at this point and obviously a missed impact could be an important one. 

SJ I like Randy's work from a standpoint of a commerical beekeeper publishing his experiances and place the appropriate value on his results, I think his self representation as a scientist is not an accurate one although I did like his coin toss methodolgy, that was a hoot.


----------



## sjbees (Jun 9, 2007)

Joel, I now understand the hostility bit but I not why you wrote what you did in your first entry e.g.

I'm not aware of how Randy Oliver is qualified to conduct any type of study
or why a company would choose him, to do this study.

You are well-versed in Randy Oliver's efforts but presented it otherwise.

It just seems convenient to have Randy do a study and
pronounce it a success the 1st. season

Since you had read the original content why did you attribute a claim the paper did not make? That perturbs me even more than when I thought you had not read the original.

It is not uncommon in academic circles to accept/solicit products/support from manufacturers, even when they are doing an unbiased study. These costs pale in comparison to the total cost of labor and documentation but every little bit helps. The HSC and bees donation bothers me a lot less than it does you, as I took it at face value and did not interpret there was a hidden agenda.

FWIW, I have never met Randy and I have never met you but I confess to disliking the tone of your first entry because it was so different to my reading of the report.

However, my response to you was tart and unnecessarily inflammatory, and for that I apologize as I have no wish to see the thread continue in this vein.


----------



## xC0000005 (Nov 17, 2004)

Regarding the donation of HSC/paying for bees:
The practice in and of itself doesn't bother me. The donation of raw materials to a 3rd party for a test is hardly nefarious. The question I have is how a negative result would be reported. If equipment is donated, bees are paid for (effectively donated) and the results are rosey, well, maybe things are great, and maybe it's a case of "better not complain". The unfortunate truth is that if Randy's write up reported major issues with HSC and discouraged its use we probably wouldn't question whether or not donating the equipment/bees somehow taints the results.

I have one hive on HSC. They were slow to get started, caught up with the others, went into winter as my heaviest hive (Chef Isaac can attest - he helped me move it). Can't speak as to effects on foraging, because after Julyj the HSC hive was consistently the "busiest" hive with the largest population. But that's _one_ hive. _One_ queen. Hardly something on which to form an scientific opinion. It's plenty to form an informal opinion, and as long as I don't present it otherwise there's no problem


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

{Since you had read the original content why did you attribute a claim the paper did not make? That perturbs me even more than when I thought you had not read the original.}

My Mistake SJ. When I'm reading these posts I'm researching. Since the start of this post I've read the HSC site, re-read Randy's site, exchanged 7 e-mails with other knowledelgable beekeepers and visited 4 sites on the effects of wax Phermone on foraging. You are right, as a Rule Randy is good about reporting facts and observations and doing so in real time and letting people draw their own conclusions which is of high value to beekeepers who keep bees in real time. It is obvious on review it is the HSC folks who are making the claims! Thanks for keeping me honest!

Good news is I was on a Panel at the local college yesterday with other industry professionals including Nick Calderone from Dyce Lab. Nick is conducting some studies on the impact of HSC on small cell. Although the mite impact looks positive he won't be publishing any results until the end of the of the 2nd year study. 

We'll have to wait and see if the value of mite control outweighs the honey crop decrease if in fact that plays out over the 2nd season.

At any rate, someday I'll share the "mite solution" story with you if you are not aware of it. We need to challenge results and look for answers as opposed to just accept information as fact because they orginate from fame!


----------



## drobbins (Jun 1, 2005)

interesting update on this at the bottom of this page

http://www.scientificbeekeeping.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=51

Dave


----------



## peggjam (Mar 4, 2005)

Randy posted an update on BeeL:
Enjoy:



Now, for an update:
Yesterday, I went to the almonds to check the colonies. Nearly all
the HSC colonies had collapsed. There was not typical PMS
symptoms--the brood looked healthy, and no sign of DWV. The one
sample that I tested had about a 15% mite infestation. Brood that I
sampled had some mites, but they were not overwhelming. There were no
nosema spores.

In addition, the two treatments (HSC and controls) had been in a
relatively isolated apiary, and cold, wet weather would have prevented
significant robbing from any collapsing colonies. So I doubt that the
HSC colonies went down due to a "domino effect."

There certainly appear to be serious virus issues in some operations
in the West. Colonies are collapsing without high mite levels, nor
the other usual suspects (including pesticides). My guess, currently
unsubstantiated by data, is that the relatively high mite level in all
the colonies in the trial (remember, no colonies received any mite
treatments) allowed the virus(es) to get the upper hand. I will be
sending in samples for confirmation.

Based upon my experience in other yards, a single fall treatment would
likely have saved at least the HSC colonies. The bottom line is that
the HSC colonies appeared to significantly decrease mite buildup (by
whatever means), but that due to unforseen factors (perhaps viral),
the colonies collapsed in February, during cold, rainy weather (cold
appears to be a common factor with the collapses we're seeing).

Randy Oliver

****************************************************
* General Information About BEE-L is available at: *
* http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/default.htm *


----------



## Black Creek (May 19, 2006)

*dead out*

i THINK i might have lost one of my hives during this extremely mild winter because of HSC. I think HSC is a good idea, but it's slow to be accepted. The hive was started from a 4lb package last april and they took seemingly forever to get going even with non stop feeding. I put one package on all HSC and the other 10 frames i divided up between 2 colonies that i'm attempting to regress. I divided them up since i had read so much about slow acceptance. One was a package, one was an established colony. The 2 hives with 5 HSC each in them didnt start using the HSC at all until mid-summer AND i had sprayed them down with syrup to start. They just seemed content to work around them. All the frames were eventually used. But the package i started strictly on them died out. When i found them dead, the cluster was smaller than my fist.... almost half the size of my fist actually. the cluster was a few inches from stores in a foundationless medium-totally drawn out that was placed on top late season. 

So..... I AM A NOVICE, but i'd say you might not want to start a new package directly on 100% HSC. 

The hives that had 50/50 HSC frames are strong and healthy right now.


----------



## drobbins (Jun 1, 2005)

Matt

I had the same experience with 2 hives of HSC
they both petered out
I gotta admit the weather last year was horrible (drought)
I'm going to repopulate them this year and now the combs are all used
that will be the real test
it ain't easy to introduce

Dave


----------



## beehoppers (Jun 16, 2005)

Just a thought...Since the HSC is heavier, denser, it must conduct heat more quickly than wax comb...


----------



## drobbins (Jun 1, 2005)

denser doesn't mean it conducts heat better
think aluminum vs iron
aluminum is less dense but conducts better
on the other hand denser does mean it conducts sound better, there has been some discussion of plastic combs and how they conduct vibration through the hive

Dave


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

..the big difference between hsc and sc comb (besides being plastic), is that the cell walls on hsc are thick. although the inside size of the cell is small, the density of cells (and therefore brood) is about that on 5.4 comb. this may well be significant.

deknow


----------



## beehoppers (Jun 16, 2005)

Ok...I understand thermal conduction is not function of density. I misspoke. I would venture, though that HSC is much more thermal conductive than wax comb and that may affect the bees in cold, damp weather.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

to be clear, i'm not talking about the density of material, but of the number of cells per square inch.

deknow


----------



## drobbins (Jun 1, 2005)

beehoppers

I think the number we're talking about is the coefficient of thermal conductivity (big words)
I have no idea how wax compares to polyethylene
plastics tend to be a pretty good insulator
good question

Dave


----------

