# Simplicity



## Clayton (Dec 8, 2000)

Hi Micheal,

All good thoughts. Almost all of which I have dealt with, I have little problems with these nowadays.

The one problem I have out of the whole bunch is that I have around 150 shallow supers. As you metion tough to swap frames around when not standardized. I will keep them however as above the third deep there is little problem for me to use them. Also are good for cut comb if I should choose to produce it. But all in all I have standardized with deep boxes.

I guess the key though here is the flexibility through simplicity.

Clay
Clay's Bee Page- http://wave.prohosting.com/clay2720/


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

If I could only lift full Deeps I would have standardized on them too.









I also have some oddball stuff around. Shallows, DE boxes that are different dimensions. Like you, I try to just use above the basic unlimited brood nest area so I just harvest it anyway, but it would be nicer if it was all the same. Also I save them for last. You can get cut comb from mediums too. This year I have tried to save all of those oddball ones for last and haven't used them hardly at all.


----------



## Sungold (May 11, 2003)

MB, Thanks, this is good. As I start to get ready for my second year your insights on standardizing are very helpful. I've pretty much decided to go forward with all mediums utliziing my deeps for feeder covers on new colonies. Now the next decision is should I go with all wax or spring for Perma Comb? cj


----------



## Clayton (Dec 8, 2000)

I'm a wood and wax kinda guy. MB I'm sure likes the stuff but been dabblin' in that plastic permacomb stuff ;> ) Use what you like.........

Clay
Clay's Bee Page- http://wave.prohosting.com/clay2720/


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

Size of frames is the most important standardization because it makes the frames of honey/brood/pollen interchanable. I'm mixing wax and PermaComb all the time. You can always try a litte PermaComb and see how you like it first. I am wax coating mine to get small cells and that has been a messy process that has been some work to perfect but has worked beyond my best expectations for regressing. If you want to wax coat it I will try to give you a detailed description of what I'm doing. If you're not going to wax coat it, I would go for small cell foundation or no foundation, myself. I would not use the artificially enlarged foundation.


----------



## Sungold (May 11, 2003)

Why do you find small cell to be so important? Should'nt FGMO (fogging and cords) control mites adequately?


----------



## Sungold (May 11, 2003)

More accurately, should'nt FGMO fogging/cords), SBBs and hygenic queens adequately control mites. On top of these controls, isn't small cell a lot of work for the incremental mite reduction? cj


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

Dee and Ed Lusby have been doing nothing but small cell and housel positioning, genetics (breeding survivors), feeding only honey etc. for control of everything and succeeding at it. Think of the simplicity. Not oils, no chemicals, no treatments. Just raise bees. Small cell can be a lot of work to get to if you're in a hurry. It can be just routine culling of combs if you want to take your time. Either way the bees are obviously happier building natural sized cells instead of the artificially enlarged ones, and they are healthier. Why would you NOT want natural sized cells?


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

A few points.

Bees have been breed over the years for honey collection traits, etc. Are we forgetting these so-called advancements in selection? Most garden plants, dogs, seeds, etc, has been altered or selected over time for positive traits. This does not have to be a bad thing.

The lusby's still cull drone brood as I understand. Very tedious and not something the average beekeeper does. Small cell still requires added steps for success. In comparision, FGMO has bonified testimony that it creates mite free hives. Does small cell handle the T-mits also as FGMO?

I will assume the lusby's are well above the average beekeeper in ability and management of the hives they have. Thier ability may go a further step that the average beekeeper can or does not achieve.

If my comb is to last 5-20 years as it can, then small cell or natural progression is being achieved all the time. If you have standard comb now, then figuring the added cost of transition, the time involved, the steps like culling that is then required, then the benefits for me are a wash. Would comb on small cell need to be replaced more often as cell size continues to decrease?

It would be a shame to go through the time/expense and then find out the mites have the ability, like most pests, to change in time to the enviroment.

The question was asked concerning SBB, better queens, FGMO, if this creates mite free enviroments.....Why also go small cell? Not that anyone has suggested that anyone do all of the above, just perhaps the question could be answered by suggesting that a combination of IPM steps can or could be employed of your choice, and if the end result is achieved, thats the goal.

As with any of the applications, the pro/con has to be balanced as to your time/expense/expertise level, etc.

I'll say one thing about beekeepers in general, and it may even rub some the wrong way. Take Apistan as example, the LEVEL of
resistance has been directly related to the misuse of this product. Yes, some resistance as with most drugs would happen. I'm talking the increased level. Now if the average beekeeper has no respect or can't apply this medication properly. Then as they say "God help them..".

The lusby's, Dr. R, M.B., or others, are successful in the applications they choose, because the level of their expertise, the diligence they exercise, and factors the average beekeeper does not have. Poor beekeeping will always result in dead hives.


----------



## Sungold (May 11, 2003)

Ok, so is the idea that once you get to small cell you can eliminate all other IPM (or other treatments)? cj


----------



## loggermike (Jul 23, 2000)

<<I'll say one thing about beekeepers in general, and it may even rub some the wrong way. Take Apistan as example, the LEVEL of
resistance has been directly related to the misuse of this product

I think when we first started using Apistan we were told that we could only expect around 5 years of effectiveness based on the experience of other agricultural use of miticides.So the fact that it lasted longer in most cases doesnt seem to reflect too badly on beekeepers.


----------



## Sungold (May 11, 2003)

Michael,

I would be intereted in understanding your wax coating process for PC. cj


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

Sungold, 
No.
The lusby's as M.B. stated are successful with small cell perhaps because of a combination of items. Selective breeding, housel positioning, years of beekeeping experience, culling of drone, etc. This is in combination or augments the small cell program.
Unless you have that level of expertise, and that in itself encompasses alot, and incorporate those other items into your IPM management, then small cell in itself may not be 100% effective. The lusby's should perhaps say more on this as I do not want to speak for them.

[This message has been edited by BjornBee (edited September 17, 2003).]


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

loggermike, 
I would like to know the dimwit who said it would only last 5 years. Apistan, rotated with other medications like checkmite, and used when needed after a mite test has deemed appropriate, Apistan should or could of lasted many time over. Maybe that person was taking into account the yearly application some used it. Even when not needed. Some used it both spring and fall. Under those conditions of coarse it lasted that short of period. I guess he knew what the abuse would be.
I don't give credit to beekeepers who did and continue to create a bigger problem.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>The Lusbys still cull drone brood as I understand. Very tedious and not something the average beekeeper does. 

Probably not, but going through the hives once a year to cull comb isn't that bad when you have to inspect them at LEAST once a year just to assess the condition of the hive. I don't think they work their hives that often because they are very remote. This is partly what motivated them to come up with a system that does not require constant manipulation of the hive. I think small cell is the least amount of hive manipulation.

>Does small cell handle the T-mits also as FGMO?

Yes. Smaller spiracles on smaller bees keep the mites out.


>Ok, so is the idea that once you get to small cell you can eliminate all other IPM (or other treatments)? 

Yes. Personally I will use the SBB and perhaps some other treatment because I have to have the FREE of mites in order to ship bees, but if I didn't have to ship them I probably would not do anything else.

>The lusby's as M.B. stated are successful with small cell perhaps because of a combination of items. Selective breeding, housel positioning, years of beekeeping experience, culling of drone, etc. This is in combination or augments the small cell program.

Housel positioning is a recent addition to the Lusbys program, I believe. Feeding only honey and real pollen are also part of their program.


>I would be intereted in understanding your wax coating process for PC

Heres what I have for equipment to do this and where I do it. I have an old gas stove with an oven set up outside. I have a table next to that with a turkey roaster pan. The pan is thermostatically controlled and has a double boiler/steam table kind of arrangement. Meaning it has a roaster pan inside of the roaster. I can put water in the outside part and a little water in the inside roaster with the wax. This keeps the wax from getting too hot. I set the thermostat to about 250 degrees F which boils the water which keeps the wax about 212 degrees F. I have some rubber dishwashing gloves and a frame grip. I set the oven, using an oven thermometer, so that it is about 200 to 210 degrees F. I put a piece of cardboard on the rack (with a fold so it runs up the back of the oven) and put PermaComb in the oven. If you want something as feedback until you get the hang of it, you can put a small piece of wax in one of the cells of the front PermaComb so you can look and check if it has melted yet. When the PermaComb gets up to temp (about 20 to 30 minutes) and the wax is up to temp (the wax is melted and the water in it is bubbling a bit) you pull one comb and dip it. My pan isnt quite deep enough and I have to lay on one side and wait for the bubbles to stop, then the other side and wait for the bubbles to stop, and then because the pan isnt quite long enough, I have to put the opposite end in and repeat the process. Now that every cell is full of wax, I have to shake as much of the wax back out as I can. I start by holding it upside down with the frame grip and shaking it over the pan. Then I shake it horizontally to shake one side out more and then flip it and shake the other side out more. Then I hit the top of it on the table several times to knock some more wax out and then I move to a spot beside that spot and slam it flat ways a few times on each side. Then I put the comb in a Lanstroth box upside down on the frame rests so it can drain more if it will. Then I do the next comb. After a few combs I go back to the first few combs in the rack and hit them a couple of more times to knock out some more wax and then I put them in a regular box right side up.

I know this sounds complicated, and it is a bit. But mostly it is very messy and very hot. You will have wax all over your clothes and your shoes. The concept is that the comb needs to be hot enough to melt wax so that the wax wont clump up in the cells. The wax should be hot enough to run well, but not too hot so it doesnt melt the PermaComb. PermaComb melts at temps over 220 degrees F. Then you get all of the insides of the cells coated and then you try to get all of the excess off so it doesnt make clumps and drips and fill up the bottoms of the cells.


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

M.B.

I know going from say 5.15 or larger to 4.90 range or smaller, in relationship of percentages are small. But I am wondering how this smaller spericle on the bees would eliminate t-mites. On pictures of the mites, they are microscopic in relationship to the trachea's of the bees. (Even if the opening is smaller.) 

Could you pass on some research or articles concerning t-mite free mites on small cell bees. I have thought for awhile that everything is blamed on the mite we see, that being v-mites, and not enough emphasis on the one we do not see, that being t-mites.

Thank-you.


----------



## loggermike (Jul 23, 2000)

<<Maybe that person was taking into account the yearly application some used it. Even when not needed. 

Once the hives have varroa,they will always have them.I wouldnt consider a yearly treatment to be abuse and there are areas where it sometimes takes 2 treatments to get control.Where I keep bees ,if you skip a year your hives perish.This may not be the case in some isolated areas not subject to re-infestation.I agree completely on the need to rotate treatments ,but except for Miticure(amitraz) for a short period,there was no legal effective alternate to Apistan during the first years of infestation.Even now there isnt much to choose from.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>I know going from say 5.15 or larger to 4.90 range or smaller, in relationship of percentages are small. But I am wondering how this smaller spericle on the bees would eliminate t-mites. On pictures of the mites, they are microscopic in relationship to the trachea's of the bees. (Even if the opening is smaller.) 

The opening is much smaller than the trachea. I don't know of research off the top of my head, but the Lusby's are doing nothing else and say their T-mite problems went away when they got down to 5.0mm

I am fogging FMGO which should also take care of them. Before I started that I used the grease patties.


----------



## Jorge (Sep 24, 2002)

The idea of regressing I think is a wonderful one, and I am in the process of doing it with my own hives. However, I believe that none of these methods should be relied upon in isolation 100%. 
Why should we believe that bees can adapt to growth a smaller cell by growing to an approximately proportionally smaller size, but mites can't?! 
It is said that V-mites don't reproduce as well in small worker cells and prefer the larger worker ones (and the drone cells) for mechanical reasons. The solution is quite simple if I were a reasonable mite that loves that wonderful bee blood: get smaller too. 
I can't think of a good biological or mechanical reason why mites should not be able to adapt to small cell comb in the long run as well as bees.

The same thing with FGMO. The proponents of this method claim that mites can NEVER grow resistance to it. I can easily think of a couple ways how mites could: 1) evolve to produce some FGMO digesting enzyme concentrated in the respiratory tract of the mites; 2) evolve to grow a cover over the spiracles to protect it from stuff like FGMO; 3) evolve to go into some sort of dormancy when your trachea are partly occluded, etc. Insects and arthropods in general are a magnificent example of how to find solutions to survival problems.

I conclude: use more than one method!

Jorge


----------



## Daisy (Jul 24, 2003)

I suppose I could put mediums together and deeps together next year. Then go with mediums from now on. 

The deeps can be used for the attic spaces for overwintering all the mediums as I do away with deeps. 

And for bait hives maybe. They come in handy for so many things. They make good places to sit, and something to stand on, and something to lay beeboxes onto when working hives.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

If there is any adaptation by the mites it will simply be that some have the ability to reproduce in small cell and some don't and the ones that succeed will pass on that trait. Evolution, if it takes place at all, is so slow that it has never been observed.

My guess is that it's simple mechanics that prevents the Varroa from being able to reproduce effectively in small cell. I don't expect an adaptation to that.

But I do agree more than one method is always good.


----------



## Jorge (Sep 24, 2002)

Michael,

I am not sure by what you call Evolution as in:

"Evolution, if it takes place at all, is so slow that it has never been observed."

But, if we define it somewhat simplistically, as the accumulation of changes that allows a species to survive in new environments (whether it leads to the creation of a new species oo not), then I would claim that Evolution is seen all the time, including in the bugs that we deal with. What would you call the development of resistance to Apistan by Varroa jacobsoni?

Jorge


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

Apistan resistance, and any other resistance such as TM resistant AFB etc, is a simple shift in the genetic distribution of the population. There were, from the begining, mites that would survive Apistan. There always were. The difference is that the only ones that survived were the ones with this ability. Since the ability was genetically already there, you can't say they evolved the ability. But the only ones that lived to reproduce were the ones that already had that ability. This they pass on to their decendants and they only have the opportunity to mate with mites that also have this resistance, because all the other mites had to survive too.

The bubonic plague wiped out most of Europe. The rodents of this continent still carry the bacteria but we have had no outbreaks of it since the black plauge in Europe (Except in Chine in the 1920's). Why? Did we "evolve" the ability to survive the plague? No. All the people WITHOUT the ability died. The survivors did not evolve this ability, they all ALREADY HAD THE ABILITY, otherwise they wouldn't have lived to pass this on to their decendants. We now have a LESS diverse genetic pool. This is not a new genetic ability or different genetic makeup, just a shift in the number of the population that have the ability to survive a certain situation, chemical, or bacteria.

Evolution is when some NEW genetic trait develops that was not there before.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

>>Since the ability was genetically already there, you can't say they evolved the ability.

The species has evolved by nature of genetic selection. Its the slight differences in the species make up which allow the species to survive when populations are pressured by a certain factor, in this case V mites treated with Apitsan. These traits would not be expressed if it wern't for that pressure. Do you not beleive the mites are evolving to live in an environment with fluvalinate? The bees are going through the same pressure right now with Vmites.
I call this evolution

Ian


----------



## wishthecuttlefish (Jun 24, 2003)

Evolution is an ongoing process and is a term which can only be applied to an entire species, not individuals within a species. In fact, if you believe in evolutionary theory, you really shouldn't say that a species has "evolved" since species are always "evolving". There is no end point, except for extinction. Evolution is also not necessarily a linear progression upwards. Natural selection is the process by which species continually evolve as described earlier by Micheal Bush. The mechanism which drives natural selection are random genetic mutations amongst individuals in a species which give that individual a survival advantage in one way or another over other individuals. The reason evolution is not necessarily a linear upward progression is because not all beneficial genetic mutations remain beneficial over time. A species can "evolve" itself into extinction by becoming so specialized to its environment it can't survive when that environment suddenly changes. 

However, since Darwin's original theories appeared, they have been modified somewhat to include not just physical changes but behavioural adaptations in a species as well. This is called "Cultural Selection" and is based on learned behaviour.

Kai Richardson


----------



## Jorge (Sep 24, 2002)

Michael,

I can't agree with you completely on this. There is no way you can be certain that "there were, from the begining, mites that would survive Apistan". Since mites were not treated with apistan before they were (pretty circular, I know), either they had the traits before or they acquired them after. How could you tell?
There is a simple experiment that could be carried out with bacteria (and I have done it in a microbiology course; bacteria reproduce so fast, that's why this is possible): take a wild type form of bacteria that is sensitive to an antibiotic. You will try to grow them in the presence of the antibiotic and they will ALL die. Now irradiate those bacteria with UV light and you will induce some mutations. If you try this with enough numbers of bacteria, sooner or later a resistant strain will appear. The trait was not there before. You forced the genetic material to change and fortuitously one lucky change allows the bacteria to thrive in the antibiotic.

Unless we know for sure that Varroa was somewhat resistant to Apistan from day 1 Apistan appeared in the market, we can simply not say they were resistant then. Mutations happen all the time (and UV light simply speeds the process up; that's why we get cancer if exposed too much) and one chance mutation can give the Varroa that edge. One female is enough to get a big ball rolling towards total ineffectiveness of Apistan treatment unless we use additional methods to kill that one runaway female.
I am not claiming that new species are appearing, but given the right environmental pressures, one could emerge from such changes.
Your example of bubonic plague can be explained differently too: those who survive did so in part because, either they had better higine (that's why new outbrakes go unnoticed or simply don't go far these days), they got infected with lower doses and their immune system had a better chance to get a good start in the fight, or they were malnourished people whose immune system was weak. Once the immune system is primed and survives, a second infection is easier to fight. I don't think there is anything genetic in this case.

Jorge


----------

