# Is 5.0mm foundation to big to use as small cell?



## masarin (May 7, 2012)

I live in Sweden and the smallest cellsize I can find for plastic frames in my frame format is 5.0 

Would it still give the benefits of small cell, or is it better to go with 4.9mm wax foundation.

A nother option might bee to buy plastic sheets of 4.9mm foundation, cut them to the right size and use with hoffman frames.

I live in a varroa free zone and want to regress my bees quick before they gets here. They are close.
All my hiver are foundationless for now.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

I would prefer 4.9mm but 5.0mm seems to work for Varroa. Part of the problem, of course, is that the bees build a variety of cell sizes and if you can get the core of the brood nest to 4.9mm and the edge of that at 5.0mm and the outer edges of the frames at something larger for honey it works fine. So 4.9mm seems like a good goal. With plastic, it is more difficult for the bees to change the sizes compared to wax. So they may end up fairly consistent size depending on the depth of the cell wall on the plastic... consistent 5.0mm seems to work for Varroa. Dee Lusby says it was not adequate for her for what she calls "secondary" problems. By her definition, these seem to include chalkbrood, foulbrood etc.

I have a lot of hives that are 4.95mm (Mann Lake PF120s) and are doing fine.


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

I wonder if Dee Lusby's theories on latitude and elevation are pertinent to this conversation.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

masarin said:


> All my hives are foundationless for now.


what diameter cells are they drawing in the center of the broodnest?


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Didn't you guys get the memo? Smaller cell sizes for varroa control has been completely repudiated. Not only does the technique not work, but the theory behind it has been falsified:



> On the natural cell size of European honey bees: a "fatal error" or distortion of historical data?
> Journal of Apicultural Science. July /2014; 53(3):327-336.
> 
> As a possible way to help control varroa mites, some beekeepers advocate the use of cells smaller than the regular size commonly used by beekeepers. This paper addresses two of their principal arguments, namely that honey bees built smaller cells under natural conditions in the past, and that a "fatal" error occurred at the turn of the 20th century when a new and allegedly misleading method of estimating cell density was introduced. Historical data show not only that cell sizes were not smaller in the past, but also that estimating cell densities was not an issue before the introduction of wax foundation.
> ...



http://www.ibra.org.uk/articles/natural-cell-size-fatal-error


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

most of the comb in my hives was drawn on rite cell foundation. the few frames i have so far that were placed foundationless have about 4.9 mm cells in the centers of the brood frames, with larger cells and drone cells around the edges.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

JWChesnut said:


> I feel persecuted and rejected for questioning the catechism with evidence.


 i doubt that is true, but the west coast if famous for all kinds of support groups jwc and i'm sure we could find you one if needed.

seriously, i didn't say anything about varroa control nor do i subscribe to any theories and i'm not part of any cult.

just sharing information: when given foundationless frames my bees draw 4.9 mm cells for worker brood, which is how i assume they would draw it in the feral state.

since my bees are on mostly comb drawn to 5.4 and are tolerating varroa off treatments, i don't think my ancedotal experience supports that using smaller cell foundation is necessary, but it's interesting that they draw it smaller when given the opportunity to do so.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Probably because you are in Alabama. Masarin in Sweden will find it harder to get the bees to build small cell comb, however he is shooting for a 5.0 mm cell size so ought to work out, plastic foundation will help.

His other question was will it give the benefits of small cell? Frankly, I doubt it, that is based on following the experiences of other beekeepers in his area of the world. And of course, leaving out the question of whether there actually are any benefits.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

interesting ot. to be honest i've not read the studies and really don't have a dog in the fight anyway. 

why would bees in alabama draw comb differently than in sweden? have different subspecies been found to draw different size cells? has it been show to vary with region?


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Yes to both. Region and climate has an effect, and also bee breed. In my country for example, despite searching for it in wild comb, I have never found 4.9 cells built naturally, apart from the odd one where they joined 2 combs or similar. This despite being the council bee removal guy for more than 20 years, which goes back pre varroa & I've seen a lot of comb. I've also asked on out local forum to see if anyone else has found any, nobody has.

Natural cell size here for centre brood nest is 5.2 or 5.3 and this holds true across our 3 main bee breeds.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Here is a link showing how Dee Lusby sees effect of climate on cell size.

http://www.beesource.com/point-of-v...ta-on-the-influence-of-cell-size/climate-map/


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

hmm. looks like she acribes smaller cell sizes to the warmer climes. do we know where the numbers come from?

in fairness, i only took measurements from one frame, which i pulled from a dead out last winter, and that frame is back in service.

i'll check again when i get the chance, and try to post of photo for the forum.


----------



## JWChesnut (Jul 31, 2013)

Square Peg,
Could you post a pix of a representative comb, with the short edge of a business card pinned to comb, or a ruler attached. Short edge of biz card is 5.1 cm so is a great over-under gauge.

I am collecting scalable comb images, as a research interest.
I have a millimeter rule ready to print at this site:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3H7Ru-k1dP3RXVCem9HRG5tdjA/edit?usp=sharing


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

JWChesnut said:


> Square Peg,
> Could you post a pix of a representative comb, with the short edge of a business card pinned to comb, or a ruler attached. Short edge of biz card is 5.1 cm so is a great over-under gauge.
> 
> I am collecting scalable comb images, as a research interest.
> ...


youbetcha. as stated in my last post, all comb is in use at this time, but i'll likely have a sample or two this winter jwc, and i'll be happy to get some pix to you. have you collected many images so far? if yes, what are you finding?


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

squarepeg said:


> do we know where the numbers come from?


That is the million dollar question LOL

However from anecdotal chat with various beekeepers around the world it does seem those in cooler climates tend to have larger natural core brood nest cell size but that's just the few I've discussed it with.


----------



## masarin (May 7, 2012)

Thank you for your replays!

I called my suplier and actually the cellsize was 5.1, so no go there.

There are foundation molds to buy, with 4.9mm cellsize. but quite an investment..

What about the rite cell foundation? what cellsize do they have? I could not find any info about cell size on Manlake website.

This winter I bought a few Manlake PF-### 4.9mm and cut them to fit my Swedish boxes, and the bees build them out just fine, but it was a lot of work to cut the frames and i'm looking for an easier alternative.

I think I't would bee easier to cut rite cell foundation and use with hoffman frames.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Masarin how long have your bees been treatment free for?


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

masarin said:


> What about the rite cell foundation? what cellsize do they have?


rite cell is standard size, 5.4 i think.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> Peter, the fundamental error you are making is the naive assumption that the proponents are interested in science testing their theory.


I know. I uncovered the error in measurement a decade ago but no one cared then either.



> MINNEAPOLIS (The Borowitz Report) — Historians studying archival photographs from four decades ago have come to the conclusion that the U.S. must have believed in science at some point.
> 
> According to the historian Davis Logsdon, who has been sifting through mounds of photographic evidence at the University of Minnesota, the nation apparently once held the view that investing in science and even math could yield accomplishments that would be a source of national pride.
> 
> ...


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

"It's deja vu all over again."--Yogi Berra 

It's easy to resolve the issue of cell size. Stop using foundation. The bees will sort it out.


----------



## D Semple (Jun 18, 2010)

JWChesnut said:


> Square Peg,
> Could you post a pix of a representative comb, with the short edge of a business card pinned to comb, or a ruler attached. *Short edge of biz card is 5.1 cm so is a great over-under gauge.*


Good to know, thanks for the tip.

I don't really care about SC per say, I just find it as a very nice reference to quickly know when I've caught feral swarms. Like the business card tip, I'll carry one with me.

Did a cutout on a very gentle and big two year old colony last weekend with some of the smallest bees I've ever seen. I didn't measure these but their comb had to have been in the 4.5 - 4.7mm range. Queen was very small also.

Don


----------



## Saltybee (Feb 9, 2012)

"he attributes some of it to the liberal views of the President at that time, Richard M. Nixon."

Really? Your backing up your argument with (Nixon the liberal president). Thank you I'll tune out any conclusion along those lines.


----------



## Juhani Lunden (Oct 3, 2013)

masarin said:


> I live in Sweden and the smallest cellsize I can find for plastic frames in my frame format is 5.0
> 
> Would it still give the benefits of small cell, or is it better to go with 4.9mm wax foundation.
> 
> ...


Hello Masarin, as a Swede you propably know Erik Österlund, he is using small cells. He has to treat his bees. 

I use 5,3mm cells, and I don´t have to treat. Looks like there is something wrong with the cell size Erik is using. 

Elevation and latitude...


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

peterloringborst said:


> Didn't you guys get the memo? Smaller cell sizes for varroa control has been completely repudiated. Not only does the technique not work, but the theory behind it has been falsified:
> http://www.ibra.org.uk/articles/natural-cell-size-fatal-error


1. 'Falsified' is either the wrong word (discredited would be a better word for what I think you are saying, or a pretty bold claim coming from you.

2. Did anyone actually read this paper? The last time Peter trotted out a 'new paper' that 'proved' small cell didn't do anything, it turned out that 'small cell' was 'HSC' compared to normal wax comb, and the hives in his part of the country don't even try to raise drones...now _that_ would be worth studying, no?

3. Ok, to the paper....

I've never understood the rhombic measurement stuff (you will note that I've never posted or talked about it...because I've never understood it, nor have I taken the time to try).

I'm not sure what the paper is actually claiming other than the rhombic measurement is a faulty way to measure comb (I have no opinion one way or the other).

What the paper _does_ do is support the historical record that worker cells were significantly smaller. You don't believe me? Read the paper!



> Last, but not least, while all the cell widths were correctly reported in the first publication of Erickson et al . (1990a) in a table named "Cell Tell" and correspond closely to the data found in the literature, the spuriously converted cell widths reported later by Lusby (1997b) in the "Square Decimetre Measurement Conversion Chart" gives a series of distorted cell widths, reduced by approximately 0.4 mm as compared to the figures published as cell widths in the original reports of the early authors. For instance, while Swammerdam and Reaumur published average cell widths (and not cell densities) of approximately 5.15 and 5.31-5.36 mm respectively, their figures have been improperly converted as explained above to 4.7 and 4.9 mm in Lusby's (1997b) "Square Decimetre Measurement Conversion Chart".


Most of us that bother to measure any comb at all do so by measuring cell width. Note in the quote above that ONLY in the 'square decimetere measurement conversion chart' does the paper allege any kind of 'distortion'....it states clearly that the cell widths reported by Lusby and Erikson 'correspond closely to the data found in the literature' (if there was a quantifiable distortion here it would be noted...I think we can take that statement to be an endorsement by the paper's author of the cell width data).

So, look at table 2 from the paper...and feel free to ignore the 'cell density rhombus (old world)' collumn (the one that the paper claims isn't accurate)...note the numbers....

Pay attention to the following:

1. The data on the left (Lusby/Erikson) includes both average cell width and worker cell width...the 'newer' data on the right only includes average cell width...comparing these two numbers has always been a confusion for those of us that have tried to look at cell sizes, but I think it can be considered a 'fact' that 'average worker cell size' is _always_ smaller than 'average cell size'.
Again, this can be difficult...how do we know that someone reporting 'average cell size' doesn't mean 'average worker cell size'? Well, I think that is (in part) the point of this review paper...and table 2 clearly shows 'accurate data' showing worker cell width to be:



> 4.7
> 4.58/5.0
> 4.9
> 4.9
> ...


The paper comes across as a bit convoluted to me (I've only quickly scanned it, but found the text to be a bit confusing at times)....but as far as the width of worker cells, it seems to support the historical record of worker cells being much closer to 4.9 than to 5.4...or even to 5.1.

deknow


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

peterloringborst said:


> I know. I uncovered the error in measurement a decade ago but no one cared then either.


Right, because in the old days, no one could measure an inch on a ruler and accurately count to 5 at the same time?
Virtually all the 'classics' of american beekeeping literature (Root, Langstroth, Dolittle, Miller, etc) cite 5 worker cells to an inch (5.08) or 5 worker cells within an inch (less than 5.08).

deknow


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

When I read the below, I feel like I should share the following (I've posted aboutt it before).

Several years ago I was sitting at dinner with our club officers and guest speakers...which Included Marla Spivak.
Long story short, we were talking about cell size, and she stated plainly that, "non AHB won't build small cell comb without foundation even if regressed".
She continued with, "We have shaken bees from LC comb and they build 5.1mm" (this is also my observation, and I knew that Michael Bush had had a similar conversation with her in the past).
I asked if she knew what _those_ bees would do if shaken down (I asked this specifically because Michael had told me he asked her the same thing)...her reply was no, she did not know. I asked if she would like to know...she said no.
She was speaking to our club the next day...I was running sound and had to be there early. I told her that I had foundationless comb built by non AHB (the bee inspector was at the table and confirmed that our bees were perfectly gentle and not suspected of AHB at all) that was 4.9 (remember, she had told me that this couldn't happen)...would she like me to bring some to the meeting tomorrow so she can see (so the scientist can see/evaluate evidence of something she claimed was not possible).
"No".

So, I've got something in my hives that a scientist (one who was about to recieve the Macarthur Genius awars) claims doesn't exist....and she doesn't want to see it or evaluate it, she just wants to continue to believe that it can't exist.

When people start to throw around words like 'cult' in this context it is hard to take seriously. It's even more difficult when they (JWChestnut in this case) asks for photos of smaller cell sizes to document...when the same poster has tried to discredit the idea that bees build small cells by posting photos of fresh comb full of fresh nectar at 5.4mm.

If you don't like 'feeling rejected', you might have better luck if you stopped accusing those who you feel of rejecting you to be 'non-rational' or cult members.

As partially documented above, I have tried to talk to scientists about this topic....and it has been the scientists that have been the ones persecuting and rejecting the evidence.

And if you want to blame 'proponents' for not designing and deploying good controlled trials that is fine...but I would point out that many in the 'research establishment' have spent time and money doing their trials (so clearly they thought it was worth doing trials)...yet they have universally been poorly designed and didn't test what had actually been reported anacdotally as successful....with names like Seeley, Berry, Ellis, etc....good researchers with reputations for doing good work...professionals who are paid to do good work. So someone like me or Michael Bush (who do not do research for a living) should be criticized for not designing, setting up, funding and executing good research...but the professionals who are supposed to be the cream of the crop in this area (and who found this a worthy research avenue) are given a free pass?

deknow


JWChesnut said:


> Peter, the fundamental error you are making is the naive assumption that the proponents are interested in science testing their theory. They have steadfastedly refused to design or deploy a controlled trial that might elucidate the various effective components of their system.
> 
> You should observe the sub-culture as an anthropological case study in magical beliefs. Like many non-rational beliefs, such as the Earth was created 6,000 years ago or a South Seas Cargo Cult, repudiation by the mainstream only reinforces the adherence, since the dominant rejection generates group solidarity and a sense of persecution. It is the belief in a system, contrary to evidence, that justifies the adherent in the purity of his faith.
> 
> The difficulty I have in my own region, is the faith-cult has become the pre-dominant norm of belief, and I feel persecuted and rejected for questioning the catechism with evidence.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

Here is a short clip of Dr. Erikson talking about cell sizes.

Peter, of particular note for you (and the prime reason I'm posting it here) is that he talks about feral hive density as being as high 15-20 colonies /KM2! ...and yes, that was before 'AHB' in Arizona.


----------



## Saltybee (Feb 9, 2012)

I hope I have the wisdom to not hit reply; though I seldom do.

After another decade and the question of what happened in 1880 (pre varroa) is settled;

The question is not what size is a cell within a frame of SC, or what the average should be, or how many cells should be counted before averaging.

Let's move on to an argument that also has no answer; What percentage of the brood nest is SC? Three frames of SC out of 5 is one thing, out of 14 it is another.
Foundationless will be a wild variety of sizes per frame, no scientific answer will ever come out of that road.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Saltybee said:


> Foundationless will be a wild variety of sizes per frame, no scientific answer will ever come out of that road.


Not only that, but there are dozens of good reasons why foundation was invented in the 1800s. To not use it is (to me) like refusing to use power tools. Why make things more difficult? The hard plastic foundation is the best thing since the wooden frame. No wiring, no sagging, no problems. I just bought three colonies from a beek who didn't use foundation. What a hodge podge.


----------



## masarin (May 7, 2012)

As I'm in a varroa free zone I have been treatment free for the four years I've been keeping bees.

Started out with one Top Bar Hive, then i built a couple of Long-hives for regular frames.
Then I found out that the bees here like to have empty space underneath (swarm prevention). With Long-hives I kan not add boxes under the brood, so now I'm konverting to regular langstroth style beekeeping.

Three of my twelve hives have been on Manlake PF's 4.9mm this summer and next season I will start to feed in foundationless in the broodnest.

I will try to do some messuring this fall to see what my hives build in those foundationless frames.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

...the problem is that the conclusions and claims don't fit the data.

The abstract of the paper that Peter cites ends with:


> In conclusion, the claim that cells were smaller in the past is not only not supported by the historical records, but rests on a distortion of the historical records resulting from an incorrect transformation of the original data.


...this is also Peter's often claimed position.

...but the paper (and the historical record...including Peter's own analysis of the historical record) cite worker cells at or smaller than 5.08mm across.

That is NOT what you find when you measure cells from comb made with commercial foundation (unless it is small by design).

I find the cubital stuff to be a distraction...both in this paper and in Peter's own analysis (written 4 years ago, 6 years after he discovered the error...yet he continued to use the data to try and make his point).
http://www.beesource.com/forums/sho...t-Small-Cell-Studies-quot&p=504313#post504313

But take out your rulers or business cards. If cells used to be 5.08 or below (closer to 4.9 by the data in the paper Peter cites), and the cells are bigger now, and we know that bigger cells makes bigger bees. Only when one starts transforming measurements between linear and cubital (where everyone is claiming innaccuraces slip in) does anyone claim that there 'distortions' in the data...so forget about it and do what everyone does, measure linearly, and poof....bees are bigger than they used to be.

deknow


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> Your backing up your argument with (Nixon the liberal president). Thank you I'll tune out any conclusion along those lines.


The only conclusion is that you didn't get the joke.


----------



## Saltybee (Feb 9, 2012)

peterloringborst said:


> The only conclusion is that you didn't get the joke.


Probably not. 40 years ago, calling Nixon too liberal would have been a joke. Today it is a fact for some.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>You should observe the sub-culture as an anthropological case study in magical beliefs. Like many non-rational beliefs, such as the Earth was created 6,000 years ago or a South Seas Cargo Cult, repudiation by the mainstream only reinforces the adherence, since the dominant rejection generates group solidarity and a sense of persecution. It is the belief in a system, contrary to evidence, that justifies the adherent in the purity of his faith.

"People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it." - George Bernard Shaw 

No one who actually knows me would ever accuse me of believing anything simply because someone else does. I was born a skeptic and have never considered changing that view of things.

I fail to understand how you insulting people who have different experiences from yours helps this discussion.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Saltybee touched on a rarely mentioned elephant in the room.

In a lot of this argument about how small the cells have to be, used to be, or whatever, small cell proponents tend to focus on cells they measured in what they call the "core broodnest". 

Where this does not reflect the full reality in a natural hive is that the "core broodnest" might only be a small % of the "total broodnest" during the season, ie, most of the bees are being raised in larger cells than "core broodnest".

Interestingly, exactly the same thing can be seen if you dig up a german wasp nest. At the first part of the nest the wasps started building the cells are small. As things progress and the nest gets bigger and more established, they build larger cells also. Thus, early season wasps are noticeably smaller than those that come later despite still being workers. German wasps do not suffer from varroa mites so it's not about varroa, it's about practicality at various stages of nest building, ie, in the early stages getting more wasps out per square inch.

If comb foundation is used, it is impractical for a manufacturer to sell a multiplicity of sizes for one hive, one sheet being for core broodnest, some other sheets outer broodnest, etc.. Thus, comb foundation is largely not produced at core broodnest size as it would not reflect what the bees want as an average across the hive. Which explains the difficulty small cell beekeepers often have in making their bees build on their small cell foundation "properly". All this being breed and climate dependant of course.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Saltybee touched on a rarely mentioned elephant in the room.

I don't see it as the "elephant in the room". We have been talking about it since at least 2002... well over a decade...

>In a lot of this argument about how small brood cells have to be, used to be, or whatever, small cell proponents in their eagerness to prove their case tend to talk about cells they measured in the "core broodnest". 

Because that is what seems to matter in success against Varroa. It's not so much an issue if you're on foundation, but in natural comb it's the tipping point. Dennis Murrel mapped the distribution of cell sizes out a decade ago.

>Where this does not reflect the full reality in a natural hive is that the "core broodnest" might only be a small % of the "total broodnest" during the season, ie, most of the bees are being raised in larger cells than "core broodnest".

In the middle of the season. But the beginning and the end may be the more crucial points.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Michael Bush said:


> We have been talking about it since at least 2002... well over a decade...


I was not talking about you in particular Michael, more these discussions in general. "Core Broodnest" measurements are mentioned over and over.




Michael Bush said:


> In the middle of the season. But the beginning and the end *may be* the more crucial points.


Emphasis *may be*. Who would really know?



Michael Bush said:


> Because that is what *seems* to matter in success against Varroa.


Emphasis *seems*. However small cell *seeming* to be the solution to varroa is becoming less and less what *seems *to matter. How can the largest treatment free queen breeder not using small cell be explained, along with all the other treatment free beekeepers who do not use it?


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

Oldtimer said:


> I was not talking about you in particular Michael, more these discussions in general. "Core Broodnest" measurements are mentioned over and over.


...well, isn't it important to distinguish between 'average cell size in a hive' and 'average worker cell size'? They are never the same, even on foundation (they are the same on fully drawn plastic comb perhaps).

I'm not sure why anyone should or would be criticized for being specific about what they are measuring....all data that states 'average cell size' without qualification is as likely to include drone and honey cells as not.

If the cells in the middle of the broodnest tend to be smaller (they do) than cells not in the center of the broodnest...and tend to be smaller than the average cell size in the hive, I'd say that those who aren't specific about what they are reporting (average cell size vs average worker brood cell size vs a single measurement from the center of the nest) are the ones muddying the waters in any of these discussions.

Remember, Seeley measured 10 cells in the middle of a frame and called it the mean cell size for both sides of the frame (I'm not kidding)...what are we supposed to assume has been measured if it isn't described...at least Seeley tells us what he is using to determine the mean (and because we know that these cells in the center are smaller than the average cell size on the frame of LC comb from foundation, we know that this is nothing like a 'mean' even by accident...it is ten cells that are likely to be among the smallest on the comb):
http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/01/00/35/89/PDF/hal-01003589.pdf


> We measured the mean width of the cells in each hive by measuring the width of ten cells in a straight line (inclusive of wall widths) in the center of one side of each frame of comb.


In fact, although they describe doing this on all the combs, they clearly didn't do this with the HSC comb (the small cell comb in the study)....such measurements would not yield correct results (HSC is 5.4 center to center and has very thick cell walls...it would measure 5.4 using the method described).

So, what am I supposed to think 'average cell size' means if it is not qualified more carefully? 

deknow


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

...my point is that you have to measure something if you want to talk about cell size.

You can't measure everything (all cells in a hive).
Measuring the largest cells (for drones and honey) doesn't tell us what we want to know (or at least it doesn't tell me what I need to know).
You can't measure the average cell size, or average worker cell size without measuring all the cells or all the worker cells.

So measuring the cells at the center of the broodnest is as close as we can practically get to determining the worker cell size.  Again, at least it is specific and descriptive. OTOH, the same measurement (the core of the broodnest...10 cells at the middle of a frame...a frame with 8000 or so cells) described by a PHD scientist as a 'mean' of cell sizes on a frame is far from clear (or even remotely true).

deknow


----------



## ToeOfDog (Sep 25, 2013)

*Petition to the Beesource Website Moderator.*

Petition to the Beesource Website Moderator.

My apologies in advance for hijacking this thread.

There are those who are interested in intellectual discussion of small cell theory including dissent and then there are the firebombers who want nothing more than to preach to and expect the conversion of the ignorant masses back to "normal LC thinking". I practice SC theory based on a simple premise. The bees survived millions of years when they chose the cell size and after a 125 years of man choosing the cell size where are we now?

I come to the Treatment Free subforum to learn about that subject and not told by a fanatic that he is smarter than I. 

Moderator, Let's make a new subforum. Call it what ever you want. Here are some suggestions, The Superiority of Large Cell, Debunking Small Cell Theories. Give the puddin' stirrers a forum so they won't use this one


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

*Re: Petition to the Beesource Website Moderator.*

I'm glad this paper got some exposure....it makes we wonder if it is April 1st again.

deknow


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

deknow said:


> ...well, isn't it important to distinguish between 'average cell size in a hive' and 'average worker cell size'?


Absolutely, and this often gets lost.



deknow said:


> I'm not sure why anyone should or would be criticized for being specific about what they are measuring


Agreed, doubt anyone would do that.



deknow said:


> If the cells in the middle of the broodnest tend to be smaller (they do) than cells not in the center of the broodnest...and tend to be smaller than the average cell size in the hive, I'd say that those who aren't specific about what they are reporting (average cell size vs average worker brood cell size vs a single measurement from the center of the nest) are the ones muddying the waters in any of these discussions.


Quite correct again. That's why people should not say things such as "my bees built cells at 4.7" but forget to mention this was "core broodnest" only.

To the guy who thinks I am a fanatic. I am a beekeeper, good enough to make a living at it, a realist, and I have both large and small cell hives. If you are so far removed from me that you think I am a fanatic, it says more about you. And so does your predisposition to name calling in the absence of any intellect. Apologising to the moderator before commencing your rant does not really excuse it. Why would there have to be a separate forum for treatment free beekeepers who are not small cell? This is the treatment free forum, whatever size the cell, your point is mute.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

Oldtimer said:


> Quite correct again. That's why people should not say things such as "my bees built cells at 4.7" but forget to mention this was "core broodnest" only.


Well, in the abstract I would agree with you.
In practical terms, "my bees built cells at 4.7" is an accurate statement. I'm not sure there is anyone claiming 4.7mm cells in anything but brood comb....or as an average with drone and honey comb included...I would take it for granted if a random or unknown beekeeper/source stated exactly "my bees built cells at 4.7" that they were talking about brood from the center of the broodnest. 

The core of the broodnest is where there is consistent worker cells in a foundationless hive. Root observed that worker cells on frames with drone/honey/transitional cells tend to be larger than worker cells on frames with only/mostly worker cells.

I'm just saying that it is the most relevent reasonable measurement of cell size...it seems to me that anyone interested in some kind of absolute value in cell size would measure the worker cells in core....so why point out that people reporting small brood cells are generally reporting from the core (and perhaps not always being specific that it is the core they are measuring), and not point out that the _problem_ is people applying "average cell size" as an equivelent without even knowing what average cell size means.

Is there another measurement you think would be a better comparison for these purposes? The size of workers on a frame with 70% workers and 30% drone/honey comb?

deknow


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

deknow said:


> Well, in the abstract I would agree with you.
> deknow


Well hey there's a first for everything LOL



deknow said:


> Is there another measurement you think would be a better comparison for these purposes? The size of workers on a frame with 70% workers and 30% drone/honey comb?
> 
> deknow


No, provided understanding is given where the measurement was taken I have no problem. Although there is an issue that nubees think these measurements apply to all the cells in the hives, even I thought that when I started my first small cell hives, so that shows that was the impression I gained from what I read.

But back to your question, there really is no perfect answer as to how & where things should be measured, or in fact there is, but it would be too impractical. Thing is, for many beekeepers who think they are treatment free and small cell, they are not. If they actually took measurements from their naturally built comb from several places around the brood nest they would find the average brood cell is bigger than 4.9, even though they may find some at 4.9.

Then there are beekeepers whose bees really do build cells at 4.9 and some even smaller. But this does not in any way validate the 4.9 small cell argument, it is negated by all those treatment free beekeepers whose bees have an average brood cell size bigger than 4.9 but they are still treatment free.

But hey why all the focus, and even name calling, on me? I just asked a couple questions and pointed out a couple facts. If I have to be demonised well it's just not a big enough issue for me to suffer the crap.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Emphasis may be. Who would really know?

I put the "may be" there on purpose. I think you will find I choose my words to be as precise as I can. But that number is what it appears to those of us who have regressed a lot of bees and watched the Varroa problems go away. At what point? Somewhere around when the core of the brood nest hits 4.9mm give or take .1mm. It's hard to be precise when there is a variety of cell sizes exactly what the size was when things got better, but I think that's an accurate range. Smaller doesn't hurt. But that is just the core. The edges of a given frame and the outside frames are somewhat bigger, but still usually not standard 5.4mm size.


----------



## Saltybee (Feb 9, 2012)

Thank you OT.
I am not really sure of how Michael gets his bees to draw SC except for starting on plastic is easiest. It is pretty obvious that how you have bees draw comb (and when) determines the mix of the final sizes. Putting all empties in the core will get you a very different overall pattern than putting them all on the fringe. Having drawn in a packed nuc will get you a different result. Suspicion is that narrow frame, density of bees, flow, season, all with the same regressed bee will give a different end. 

Methods frequently determine success or failure, and it is the micro methods not the macro methods that count. Never had much luck learning the micro methods other than direct observation and patience.( Then only mixed results) Always had more luck with"how can I understand the process, then improve it" than; "tried it, did not work, can't be done". 

All I really care about are the methods that get a large enough percentage of frames in a tight enough package to yield the desired result. Just to be mean; I want the debate to focus on the average diameter of the internal diameter of the cells, not the external. Then we can debate at which depth the cell should be measured, I'm sure there is a vast variation in the taper of cells, though we may be lacking in historical taper references.

As to whether it works or not and the "proof" that it does not, I will repeat my observation that until all the factors are known, they cannot be controlled and "proof" of failure is an illusion. (I do not know what I do not know), maybe some posters do.


----------



## Saltybee (Feb 9, 2012)

Oldtimer said:


> Then there are beekeepers whose bees really do build cells at 4.9 and some even smaller. But this does not in any way validate the 4.9 small cell argument, it is negated by all those treatment free beekeepers whose bees have an average brood cell size bigger than 4.9 but they are still treatment free.


True, if the argument is SC is the only method that works.
Not true, if the argument is SC is a helpful method.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

:thumbsup:


----------

