# Small Cell...Silver Bullet?



## pahvantpiper (Apr 25, 2006)

So, is small cell a silver bullet or is it just part of good managment using a complete IPM system? Are hygenic/SMR(VSH)/Russian bees, screened bottoms, rotating out old comb, etc. in one's IPM system just as important as small cell or is small cell the most important and can it alone keep a hive from failing?

I know I'll get different answers from diffrent small cell proponents but am interested in your opinions/experiences. I'm still planning on helping Kieck out with the small cell study he's doing in the spring and am just curious what many of you think. Thank you.

-Rob


----------



## db_land (Aug 29, 2003)

In my experience the jury is still out as to whether or not small cell is a silver bullet or even a significant factor in controling varroa. Genetics (both bee and varroa) and rotating out old comb are probably just as important in an IPM system. I've got about 50 hives mostly through the 1st regression (although there are large variations in terms of progress) and some of these (based on cell size measurement) are already at the 4.9 small-cell point. Of these, I can usually tell which are fully regressed by checking the SBB insert for mites and by the size of the bees (some are very small - a few can squeeze through #8 hardware cloth).

The most significant regression factor may be the new combs the bees are forced to draw. For the study, I wish you and Kieck would set up a control group that only gets new wax foundation (large cell).


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>So, is small cell a silver bullet or is it just part of good managment using a complete IPM system? 

Even small cell proponents would say you need good stock and good nutrition. But I think small cell is key. With those three I do nothing else. I do have SBB but that's mostly for ventilation and being able to monitor success. Monitoring has become less important as the small cell has succeeded.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--So, is small cell a silver bullet or is it just part of good managment using a complete IPM system?--(P)

Small cell and good stock are the silver bullets. 

--Are hygenic/SMR(VSH)/Russian bees, screened bottoms, rotating out old comb, etc. in one's IPM system just as important,,,,--(P)

Im small cell, and I do not do any of the above except for hygienic behavior found naturally in the ferals in my area.

--is small cell the most important and can it alone keep a hive from failing?--(P)

Small cell alone can keep a hive from failing, providing good beekeeping practices are followed.

--I know I'll get different answers from diffrent small cell proponents but am interested in your opinions/experiences.--(P)

Success came quick when I started with ferals on small cell. Now Im not saying ferals are the only answer, you can also have great success with good domestic stock. 

IMO, when I started using ferals, I shortened my regressing and stabilization time, because they were already regressed. And I also gained a several year advantage because the local ferals were already acclimatized to my area and surviving with varroa. 

Best of luck to you and Kieck with the small cell study.


----------



## pahvantpiper (Apr 25, 2006)

"I wish you and Kieck would set up a control group that only gets new wax foundation (large cell)."

As I understand it (Kieck is the scientist) we will have two control groups. One will be started on either new wax or new plastic foundation. The other control group will be started on drawn comb that is only one year old and has only been used for honey.

Thanks for the input, I'm eagerly looking forward to this spring to get this experiment kicked off. I'm just not sure spring will ever come with this cold weather we've been having. It's been at least -10 degrees F at night for almost a week now and there's no end in sight. 

-Rob


----------



## peggjam (Mar 4, 2005)

If you look at the parisite/host relationship, most parisites do not cause the death of the host, as it would most likely also cause their death. Taking this into account, and that varroa usually only reproduce in drone cells in the wild, it would seem that due to our larger commerical size workers, that there would be some confusion concerning which class of bee was fair game.

I think sc is a start, and that it will help restore the natural balance between parisite and host, but that it is not the complete answer until sc users are in the majority. As long as there are large numbers of beekeeps still using large cell foundation, the breeding ground for mites will continue to be large, and so will the mite populations even in areas where sc use is preveniant.


----------



## drobbins (Jun 1, 2005)

>I think sc is a start, and that it will help restore the natural balance between parisite and host, but that it is not the complete answer until sc users are in the majority. As long as there are large numbers of beekeeps still using large cell foundation, the breeding ground for mites will continue to be large, and so will the mite populations even in areas where sc use is preveniant.


gee, there's an echo in here









Dave


----------



## Dave W (Aug 3, 2002)

I think the "silver bullet" lies within your bee stock. When you read the reports here and elsewhere of how beekeepers use all sorts of things that each believes is making a difference, the one and only thing that seem to be common, is a bee-stock that IS resistant.

If you use FGMO and have the right bees, you'll have success w/ FGMO. If youre using SC and have the right bees, you'll have success w/ SC. If youre using Essential oils and have the right bees, you'll have success w/ oils. If you have feral bees and they are resistant, then you'll have success. If you dont treat at all and have the right bees, you'll have success. I've talk to "true-keepers" don't know what V-mites are, they have bees, and they are somehow resistant. There are "wild" bees living without help that are resistant. Once you have these "magic" bees, EVERYTHING you do from then on seems to work too, could it be because you have the "resistance" bred into your stock. 

It's funny how the right bees make all the difference no matter what you use or do. If you DO NOT have bees that are already resistant, youre doomed. Sooner or later, we'll all have resistant bees and Varroa will just go away. It'll be a mystery that will get pondered for years.

[ January 18, 2007, 02:35 PM: Message edited by: Dave W ]


----------



## BULLSEYE BILL (Oct 2, 2002)

>Sooner or later, we'll all have resistant bees and Varroa will just go away.

I doubt that the varroa will go away, but more so that the bees will be able to live with a certain amount of varroa in the hive.

If the bees can not adapt to a certain varroa level they SHOULD perrish and we will keep the bees that can.


----------



## flathead (Nov 1, 2006)

Bullseye says:
<If the bees can not adapt to a certain varroa level they SHOULD perrish and we will keep the bees that can.>

I have one frame of 4.9 foundation in each of my seven hives right now. We are committed to small cell using russian stock base that (conventional wisdom around here)have some promise for dealing with V-mites.

My belief is that niether, small cell or hygenic stock is the answer in itself.

My gut tells me we should fog, dust or fume to help them while they regress. I mean we won't get much 4.9 drawn if they collapse, right? 

My head says don't prop them up, go all the way now and don't look back. No need to keep stock around that we have to mite-sit.

Not sure what we will do at this point.


----------



## wade (Apr 1, 2006)

Nothing other than a hunch, but I suspect that all chem-free based success is largely a result of Darwinism. Looking at Lusby's success objectively it stands out clearly. Although- she goes further than I because I'll treat chemically until they're either regressed, or its a captured feral line.

Do any of you folks know of anybody, that loses sleep over losing a colony, once they stop using chemicals? I'm saying that its expected. 

If SC truly turns any bee regardless of genetics into a smaller bee that has a more rapid development rate as a result, to the point of throwing the varroa off-balance, then its a silver bullet. I'm banking on that being the case, based on Michael Bush has found. However, the jury is still out because those little black bees of his might be smaller anyways or develop faster anyways, given free reign on cell size. Which leads me to the practice of regressing a colony and once that is achieved, letting them decide what cells to produce. To me its all just about giving the bees a chance to do what they would naturally do then propagate the survivors. 

Unless there are undeniable breakthroughs I suspect that 5 years from now my beliefs will be more arguable and more firm but objectively, still just a hunch. It quickly becomes obvious to a newcomer such as myself, that there are many ways to go but its important simply to choose a path and take it.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

<<However, the jury is still out because those little black bees of his might be smaller anyways or develop faster anyways, given free reign on cell size.>>

Not really, mine are far from black and they do fine.

- Barry


----------



## wade (Apr 1, 2006)

<Not really, mine are far from black and they do fine.>

That's cool to hear Barry and there is a lot of that. But can you dispute the point about natural selection? And if so, please expand on it. Also, without serious scientific studies, statements like yours are simply anecdotal and fit into the realm of "it works for me." Note that I didn't say its invalid.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Wade -

I think you should do just as you are planning to do. Many have already done this for themselves and it remains anecdotal. You will soon join the rank of anecdotal beekeeping and be very pleased. In time, there may be scientific input on the matter, but till then, we speculate and enjoy our bees.

- Barry


----------



## BULLSEYE BILL (Oct 2, 2002)

>Do any of you folks know of anybody, that loses sleep over losing a colony, once they stop using chemicals? I'm saying that its expected. 

How true it is for me! No, I don't loose any sleep, and yes, I do expect to loose a few colonys during the winter. And when I don't loose as many as expected, it's a gift from God.


----------



## wayacoyote (Nov 3, 2003)

> But can you dispute the point about natural selection?

I'll leave that to those who are more capable and qualified than I.

Wade, you mention letting bees have "free reign on cell size". A number of people who are reporting using SC are actually doing just what you mention since they use only starter strips or foundationless (Michael Bush's "little black bees" being such an example.)

And Dee Lusby does stand on a soapbox labled "Small Cell Beekeeping", but a listener would hear that her message is "1/3, 1/3, 1/3" where she emphasises a balance of cell size, genetics, and feed.

Waya


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> In time, there may be scientific input on the 
> matter, but till then, we speculate and enjoy 
> our bees.

There has been considerable scientific input,
but it has been ignored or dismissed by those
who _want to believe_.

To each his own, but I think enough studies have
been done to state that a pretty clear consensus
has formed. Time will tell, won't it?


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi Guys,

>Time will tell, won't it?...

For some of us, who are going on 8 seasons, it already has!

And for others who watch the clouds, and treat, treat, there will never enough time. They spend much of it search for and reading the latest mite research. And the rest of their time trying to keep all their empty boxes stocked with bees. Not to mention, a constant lookout for the bee police :>)))

Regards
Dennis


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

<<To each his own, but I think enough studies have
been done to state that a pretty clear consensus
has formed.>>

Of the studies done by the lab coat guys, the consensus is they don't know how to put together a very good study on this topic. Of the studies done by beekeeper yahoo's, just anecdotal nonsense. I have found the anecdotal nonsense has worked for me.

- Barry


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> Of the studies done by the lab coat guys, the 
> consensus is they don't know how to put together 
> a very good study on this topic.

No, that's your argument in dismissal of the
results as they stand, a position that, once
again, borders on denial of science itself as a
whole. Funny that you depend upon the fruits of
science for your living, and use some of those
same fruits to make your views known, but positions
such as the stance you take here are always
inherently riddled with contradictions like this.


----------



## Fusion_power (Jan 14, 2005)

That depends on whose consensus is under consideration Jim.

I've got bees on small cell that are over 2 years untreated and have negligible mite counts. I have absolutely no doubt that genetics is a big portion of the reason. I also have no doubt that small cell is playing a part.

I've looked at the small cell evaluations done to date. None of them stand up to serious scrutiny. Its not a matter of believing what I want to believe. It is a matter of watching my bees fly and build up and seeing that they don't die from varroa. I compare the actions I had to take to get my bees on small cell. The "serious studies" so far have not taken the appropriate steps. They put some bees in a box on small cell foundation and then found out that the bees still had mites. Well guess what? Thats what happened to me too. What did I do? I checked all my colonies for the ones that had the fewest mites. Then I split those colonies and got rid of the ones that had heavy mite populations. Now I have bees that are alive and thriving and they have not been treated in any way with any chemical. The best colony I have right now is on 4 frames with brood in 3 and the brood pattern is solid. I found 1 mite on one bee when I inspected them 2 weeks ago. I went through every frame and scrutinized every bee. I uncapped brood so I could see if the mites were hiding. No mite except that one. Other colonies next to it have modest mite populations.

I plan on drawing out at least another 100 combs of small cell this spring.

I'm a person who believes in results. If you tell me a cow gives milk, I want to stand by while you milk her and weigh the milk to be sure just how much she gives. Small cell may be a gimmick to you, but others have tried and proven the results.

Darrel Jones


----------



## wade (Apr 1, 2006)

Darrel, I'm not here to dispute the efficacy of SC in fact I hope there is something to it. But from where I sit your experience would possibly work the same regardless of cell size because its selection in its most basic form.

There are so many confounding factors a series of pros in white lab coats needs to get involved or we can discuss this 'til we're blue in the face. But then this is beekeeping. Its mindboggling the extent of study that would be required to put a nail in this.

Jim, can you please cite some indisputable studies on SC? Orat least one that put a nail in it for you. When I was in college I participated in a couple of 400-level seminars whereas we got together once/week and shared cited studies which we thought supported our prospective thesis'. I can tell you- its very difficult to plan and execute a valid scientific study, barring no topic. Add in there a couple of serious confounding factors and we each need to decide for ourselves.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

<< Funny that you depend upon the fruits of
science for your living, and use some of those
same fruits to make your views known, but positions
such as the stance you take here are always
inherently riddled with contradictions like this. >>

The workings of the Internet as a whole is beyond my own personal knowledge and experience so I do depend on the scientific fruit for this. However, when I do have personal experience and knowledge of SC and I see science producing bad fruit, I'll say so.

- Barry


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

I think that it is important to highlight the idea that science is a system of *methods*, not a system of *belief*. It is entirely possible to find no scientific evidence of SC reducing varroa, while individual beekeepers find, or believe the opposite to be true. Ignat Semmelweis practiced aseptic surgery decades before Pasteur, Koch and Henle proved that microbes cause infectious disease.


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> Jim, can you please cite some indisputable 
> studies on SC?

No study is "indisputable", _everything_ in science
is subject to massive revision in light of new
evidence - that's why is it called "science"
rather than "dogma", "myth", or "mysticism".

I'll not argue with those who report that their
hives can survive "without treatments", as I am
sure that, like Fusion_power, they have seen 
apparent success. I'm not calling anyone delusional.

And I'll also not argue with those who think that
small-cell has been subjected to inept attempts 
to "test" it, except to note that this is a bit
of a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the foot,
given that one "proves" something by documenting 
it well enough so that any random person of 
journeyman skill can reproduce the effects claimed
to result from the practice(s)/method(s).

But I must point out the obvious - that if "small
cell" is only *half* as good as it is said 
to be by this one and that one, that the person
who does document the process sufficiently to 
allow "just about anyone" to reproduce the results
is destined for fame, if not a small fortune in 
speaking fees, royalties from books and articles,
and so on. The fact that no one has taken on this
clear-cut and easy-to-execute task implies that
no one is willing to stand up and take the risk
of saying "this is how to do it".

In other words, no one is sure that the short-term
results they are seeing are a result of their own
work, or just plain luck, which is why I have 
suggested several times that the first step would
be to take a small number of "SC hives" and simply
place them in a location where they can be tended
by a competent, but impartial party who is trained
in things like gathering data, analyzing results,
and so on (a technician or scientist).

But no one is even willing to loan a few of these
hives out for a season. Funny, as the hives
certainly would not be lost even if neglected if
they are even half as disease and pest resistant
as claimed.










So, I fall back to a "debunker's" viewpoint, as
one of the big warning signs of bogus science
is a "development" that is claimed to be a
"breakthrough" but is kept close to the chest,
hard (or impossible) to reproduce, and claimed
to require the involvement of advocates for
the benefits to be gained or perceived.
Look up the history of "N-Rays" for a classic
tale of how a large number of intelligent and
well-educated people were just as insistent
about "N-Rays", a complete Fig Newton of their
collective imaginations, as some folks are about 
"Small Cell".

When something can be made to work as reported
by someone who has no prior exposure to the
"techniques", or better yet, someone who is 
inclined to phoo-phoo the notion itself, THEN
you have something.

> The workings of the Internet as a whole is 
> beyond my own personal knowledge and experience

Oh heck, I go back to the days when my e-mail
address was "att!research!unix!jim", and a
"fast" connection was 300bps rather than 110bps,
and even is those much simpler times, when the
internet was just a small circle of friends, no
one person really understood it all. Everyone
had a layer or three of abstraction between 
themselves and the details of this or that.
But one does not have to understand everything
down to the bare iron to be able to admit that
it (like everything from fire and the wheel
forward), was research and science-driven, where
people fully documented their work.

I'm still trying to convince you guys to save
the lab-coat guys several years of work that
they don't have the funding to do themselves
because I so passionately want this all to be
true.

_I want to believe_ but the actions 
(and inaction) of the self-proclaimed 
advocates would make any reasonable person 
doubt the credibility of the claims and
anecdotal reports.


----------



## wade (Apr 1, 2006)

Jim, this is a lot larger deal than you're indicating. There needs to be a valid study concocted and managed by a team of well-funded hero white coats. It needs to include a huge population of colonies that are randomly and blindly assigned to groups, evaluated blindly, and preferably taking place at many locations throughout the country. That is the only way to eliminate the many confounding factors. Then, the methods and conclusions of the study must be scrutinized by egghead professors that may or may not know anything about bees. Until this is done folks will be beating one another up because really, we don't know.

I like Aspera's microbe example.


----------



## Barry Digman (May 21, 2003)

> I want to believe but the actions
> (and inaction) of the self-proclaimed
> advocates would make any reasonable person
> doubt the credibility of the claims and
> anecdotal reports.


The "reasonable person" term is an interesting one. I would think that a person using reason would come to the conclusion that if those claiming to have successes with SC are reporting results accurately, have decades of beekeeping experience under their veils, and are considered by those who know them to be honest and truthful folks that the use of SC is then a valid and useful approach.

It seems to me that only an "unreasonable" person would not take into consideration a person's experience, knowledge, and character when trying to decide whether or not their findings are worthwhile.

I know that's not the scientific approach, but just because results aren't presented in the proper format doesn't mean they didn't happen as reported.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

> I'm not calling anyone delusional.

Sure you are.


----------



## tony350i (Jul 29, 2005)

hello Jim,

do you believe sc/natural cell works 

A simple yes or no will do 

Tony


----------



## Fusion_power (Jan 14, 2005)

Jim is all large cell and has previously posted his intent to stay on large cell because small cell is just a blip on the radar screen.

If he really wants to know if it works, he can easily set up 10 colonies on small cell and another 10 colonies on large cell. If he collects the data, maybe he would get that attaboy he mentioned in his post. Just takes 2 years Jim.

Like I said, I look for results. If it works, I'd like to know why it works, but I won't lose any sleep over finding out why. I still don't know why Buckfast bees are resistant to tracheal mites. But I know they are resistant because they don't die from the mites where most common Italian strains are still susceptible. In the same theme, I don't know why bees on small cell survive, but I do know that mine are living where all of my large cell colonies are dead.

Small cell is not a silver bullet. It seems to be just enough of a step in a positive direction to tip the balance of survival in the bees favor. Getting the right genetics is another major factor. You WILL lose colonies until the susceptible are dead. Then the remaining colonies will start to show survival traits in the face of mite pressure.

Darrel Jones


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

I am soooo glad that Fusion_power/Darrel Jones 
knows so much about a person he has never met
(me) that he can "explain" my motives, plans,
and point of view!










> Jim, this is a lot larger deal than you're indicating. 

No, it need not be. You'd be surprised how 
few colonies are required to study such things
when actual studies are done. The power of 
statistics, don'tcha know.

> ...have decades of beekeeping experience under
> their veils, and are considered by those who 
> know them to be honest and truthful folks that 
> the use of SC is then a valid and useful 
> approach.

Read up on "N-Rays". All the folks that were
deceiving themselves were ALSO men of good character,
honest, experienced, well-educated, and so on.
Didn't help.

>> I'm not calling anyone delusional.
> Sure you are.

No, I said I'm not, and I'm not.
It is easy to be adversarial, but that sort of
tactic does nothing but emphasize the basis for
concern on the part of a reasonable person.

> do you believe sc/natural cell works
> A simple yes or no will do 

What I "believe" is irrelevant, as one must
abandon quaint concepts like "belief" in the
absence of compelling evidence if one wants
to find the truth in a rational way.
The mere fact that I said _"I want to beleive."_
should be a clue as to where the evidence
stands in terms of being compelling.

> I still don't know why Buckfast bees are 
> resistant to tracheal mites.

As are about half of the bees bred by all
producers of bees these days. In fact, anyone
who sells you bees that are not tracheal mite
resistant is demonstrating that they are 
incompetent in the extreme, as breeding in
t-mite resistance is old hat by now.

> If he really wants to know if it works, he 
> can easily set up 10 colonies on small cell 

...and be critiqued as having not said the 
correct magic incantations if my results don't
turn out to be as wonderful as claimed? 
I think not. I'm not that stupid, and neither
is anyone else, which explains the lack of
interest in doing any more formal work in this
area. Who wants to work hard and then have
rotten tomatoes thrown at them for their trouble?


----------



## Joel (Mar 3, 2005)

{Small cell is not a silver bullet.}

Jim is dead right on this one. Both studies and actual use (talk with Bob Harrison)indicate small cell does not do what proponents say it does, at least not in the manner they say it does. Does that mean it doesn't work? It means it does not work in the studies. I would purport their are other circumstances at play in addition to the small cell that in combination get a result. Those factors may include africanized genetics (Lusby and Wrangler) isolation from large populations of commerialized bees (Lusby, Wrangler, MB, Pcolar), Feral genetics caused by isolation(MB, PColar), Cleaner brood nests from new comb resulting from regression (MB, Lusby, Wrangler, Pcolar), difference in foraging behavior ((Erickson, et al., May 1996 ABJ). We can point at small cell studies and say it does not work, and we would be right. But if we take a combination of managment factors including small cell then we may start to find some real answers.

That's why I'm looking forward to a class on this at the convention!


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--Many have already done this for themselves and it remains anecdotal. You will soon join the rank of anecdotal beekeeping and be very pleased. In time, there may be scientific input on the matter, but till then, we speculate and enjoy our bees.--(Barry)


Hello Barry!
Anecdotal Beekeeping (AB) has worked well for thousands of years. 

In a quote by Andy Nachbaur:

We all know that we beekeepers are not in the same class as some of our public servants, such as the so called Beekeeping Scientist (BS). (Andy Nachbaur)

Who cares anyway?, well I am sure the beekeeper's involved who have spent several generations working in their bees and first noticed and brought it to the attention of those in the Beekeeping Industry and Beekeeping Research at the USDA that the cell size of our foundation is too large, and have themselves been using smaller sized foundations for years (Andy Nachbaur)

http://www.beesource.com/pov/andy/andy9.htm

Perhaps, by sticking with beekeeping practices that have worked for thousands of years based on anecdotal beekeeping will keep a beekeeper well ahead of the BS.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--Both studies and actual use (talk with Bob Harrison)indicate small cell does not do what proponents say it does,--(Joel)

Hello Joel!

I do not believe that Bob as done his test yet, I think he has it scheduled for this season. But Bobs plan to insert 2 only frames of small cell into the center of his large cell colonies and NOT regress the other frames is not in accordance to the recommendations by those having years experience with small cell. 

--Those factors may include africanized genetics (Lusby and Wrangler)--(Joel)

Dennis keeps Africanized bees? 

--isolation from large populations of commerialized bees (Lusby, Wrangler, MB, Pcolar),--(Joel)

Ahh, commercial bees the problem then? 

--Cleaner brood nests from new comb resulting from regression (MB, Lusby, Wrangler, Pcolar),--(Joel)

Much of my comb is 5 years old. But isnt rotating your comb part of good management practices? 

--But if we take a combination of managment factors including small cell then we may start to find some real answers.--(Joel)

I AGREE!!!
Actually, that is what small cell beekeeping is all about. Small cell PLUS good management practices are always stressed as the key to success. We call it Whole Bee beekeeping, but most of the focus seems to be placed on cell size for some reason.


----------



## flathead (Nov 1, 2006)

It seems to me that the bees have the answer and we should let them show us.

Why would I continue to insert LC foundation into a hive(brood nest) that, when left on their own, draw smaller size cells naturally? 

Or is natural size Vs 5.4MM in dispute still?

I mean, why would one do this? Is it economics? Even if I considered lining up behind the blue-shop-towel crowd, seems like a more natural brood nest arrangement(including cell size) would be the way to go directionally.

Until I find that more natural cell size hurts the bees, I choose small cell.

We(my operation) apprieciate that there are many other choices coming our way like continuing hard treatments or not, trying OA, FGMO etc. Plenty of opportunities to make mistakes.

We don't see how small cell will be a mistake and it might be just the edge the bees need.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Or is natural size Vs 5.4MM in dispute still?

By the BS (Bee Scientists) yes. If you ask one of them what size worker brood comb a European honey bee will build they will say 5.2mm. If you ask them what size worker brood comb the bees raised on 5.2mm will build they will give you a blank stare. I've tried this experiment several times and always with the same results.

>I mean, why would one do this? Is it economics? 

Theory. The theory is that bigger bees can carry more honey therefore they will be more productive. The theory has been around for well over a hundred years not.

>Until I find that more natural cell size hurts the bees, I choose small cell.

It's pretty doubtful that natural cell size will hurt the bees, now isn't it.







And if you let them build their own comb without any foundation it won't even cost you anything to try and will actually SAVE you money on foundation.


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

There is a fine line between skepticism and
willful ignorance of basic tools used to
differentiate between chance outcomes and 
statistically significant outcomes.


----------



## tony350i (Jul 29, 2005)

Jim you do make me laugh  

And by the way, how is that secret small cell hive of yours getting on.

Tony


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi Guys,

>africanized genetics (Lusby and Wrangler)--(Joel)

I don't have any AHB genetics in my small cell hives that I know of. But I have run all the various selections Harbos, Weavers, Miksas, Strachans, Koehnens, Bollings, Glenns, USDA Russians, and my own mutts on small cell comb.

I also ran a couple of Lusby queens but culled them from operation, after a couple of months, back in 2002.

>-isolation from large populations of commerialized bees (Lusby, Wrangler, MB, Pcolar),--(Joel)

My bees are at the complete other end of the scale. Within a 2 mile radius of my beeyard, over 400 migratory, commercial beehives are dropped and spend the summer.

At slightly over 2 miles, a holding yard exists for over a thousand hives that are loaded and then again unloaded for the almonds. They spend about 2 to 3 week there in the spring because of the pollen resources.

And there are few to none feral bees in the area. But there are about 5000 hives of those commercial bees. And with they are densely packed into the few acres of bee pasture that exists here.

>--Cleaner brood nests from new comb resulting from regression (MB, Lusby, Wrangler, Pcolar),--(Joel)

This is a big factor!. But I must confess that I haven't been doing much rotation of my small cell comb. And some of it is going on 8 years old. I haven't noticed any negative effects yet. It takes alot longer to contaminate comb when treatments aren't used.

Regards
Dennis


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi Guys,

I seem to hear much of the same kind of rhetoric from the science camp, as that which comes from the small cell camp.

I doubt, if it only pertained to keeping bees in a box, it would generate such heat.

So, I think it has everything to do with faith, belief, trust and personal validation/vendication on both sides of the aisle.

Regards
Dennis
Whose untreated living, thriving bees are just the result of a delusional belief in the power of wishful, positive thinking. Hey, maybe I don't really need the small cell :>)))


----------



## Fusion_power (Jan 14, 2005)

"I am soooo glad that Fusion_power/Darrel Jones
knows so much about a person he has never met
(me) that he can "explain" my motives, plans,
and point of view! [Smile] "

Jim

I don't know you from Adam, but I value your opinion. I love to see a good polarized argument like this one here on the forum. Thats what we as beekeepers need. We have something to think about and something to plan for next spring. Now that the formalities are over, maybe you would care to post your plans for putting a few colonies on small cell just to see how they perform.

Seriously, can you find one thing about small cell that is a problem? Is there anything damaging to the bees about using small cell comb? If its not damaging to the bees, then why not give it a try and see if there is a benefit from using it.

I almost forgot, I learned a long long time ago that N-rays were what catalyzes the cold fusion reaction. Just look it up, you'll see!!! Sheesh, the things they don't teach in physics these days. When you're bad, be very very bad!

Darrel Jones

[ January 21, 2007, 03:26 PM: Message edited by: Fusion_power ]


----------



## peggjam (Mar 4, 2005)

Something else to stir the pot....who benifits from knocking sc? Why the very sciencests that develop new treatments for mite control. They have an income to protect.....if sc is effective, then we wouldn't need their treatments. So getting an unbasied study done by lab coats proably won't happen anytime soon.


----------



## Sundance (Sep 9, 2004)

Studies would be fine but I am "delusional"
enough to use SC.









If I were on "the other side" of this I would
run at least one hive on SC just to see. It
doesn't cost anything to speak of....


----------



## NewtownBee (Jan 11, 2007)

I'm also interested in hearing what the down-wide to using small cell is. As a newbee, I've noticed that all the catalogs say sc is "for the experienced beekeeper only" but I haven't seen anything to indicate why that might be. I'm open to any thoughts!


----------



## Sundance (Sep 9, 2004)

IMO there is no downside. Especially if
you dump packages on fully drawn Honey
Super Cell.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--I'm also interested in hearing what the down-wide to using small cell is. As a newbee, I've noticed that all the catalogs say sc is "for the experienced beekeeper only"--(NTB)

Hello NTB!

I dont know of a down side to using small cell, but there are mistakes that can be made when regressing, which is probably why they state it is for experienced beekeepers only.

Mistake #1 
is to forget to use an excluder when shaking down a colony onto small cell. I have heard of cases of beekeepers loosing several colonies this way. 

Heres a 10 pound swarm that decided to take up and leave when I shook them down without an excluder:

http://new.photos.yahoo.com/naturebee/photo/294928803752010084/77

I did manage to retrieve the swarm.










Mistake #2
Might be to place foundation too early in the season between capped brood and splitting up the broodnest causing stress, maybe chilled brood and opens the colony to disease

Mistake #3 
might be to push them too hard throughout the season trying to draw out cells, this can cause stress, chilled brood and opens the colony to disease.

Mistake #4 
might be to add small cell during the summer causing them to not draw the foundation OR draw drone cells.

* All of the above can leave a colony short on stores come fall and undrawn frames here and there can all cause problems for wintering bees.

A beekeeper has to know when the time is right to add foundation, and when it is NOT so as not to do harm. They need to know the best time for drawing the smallest cells is the days going into the early flow, later times results may vary. They need to be able to identify when weather conditions warrant that the procedure be abandoned for the season. 

Most mess-ups when regressing will lead to stress, and early indicators that you are pushing too hard is the appearance of chalk brood, (not a big deal as it will usually clear up on it;s own) which is more common than not when regressing. 

Mistake #5
Might be failure to removed badly drawn small cell frames in a prompt manner, causing problems later.

Mistake #6 
Might be failure to implement effective varroa control procedures while regressing such as removal of capped drone brood.

Probably more,,,,


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>I've noticed that all the catalogs say sc is "for the experienced beekeeper only" but I haven't seen anything to indicate why that might be. 

I wondered that as well and after doing a search on the web, it's mostly the reason I found Beesource forums. I first found Beesource for the plans section and didn't realize there were forums.

I think the manufacturers (and resellers) of small cell just don't want to try to explain regression.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>A beekeeper has to know when the time is right to add foundation, and when it is NOT so as not to do harm.

Which they also need to know even if they just want to rotate old combs out of their large cell hive with new large cell foundation or simply prevent swarming by keeping the brood nest open.

It is a skill they need to develop anyway.


----------



## JWG (Jun 25, 2004)

Questions:

Natural cell: AKA "foundationless" or TBH -- Michael, do you say that all of your colonies on natural combs have survived, year after year, with no treatments whatsoever? How many colonies, and for how long? BWrangler's pages would indicate that natural comb contains large and small cell, together. So there is still quite a major difference between SC and natural cell. Also, since in a natural cell situation there is bound to be more drone comb, and then more drone brood, would this not lead to more proliferation of varroa? The foundationless idea is attractive in that it doesn't require the expenditure on 5.1 followed by 4.9, and all the retrofitting, but it doesn't put you in a SC situation.

Small cell: Why the drastic colony crashes when converting to SC? I recently read of one UK beek who supposedly converted and lost over 100 colonies. Is selection for mite tolerance actually what is going on here, regardless of cell size? 

The Norwegian comm. beekeeper who is now using SC and seeing decreased varroa is also using the Elgon bee which is an African/Buckfast hybrid. Maybe small cell size is working, maybe it's the bee. Maybe both.

Finally, PMS: Various viruses involved. As I understand it, it is not necessarily related to mite loads. Correct me if I'm wrong. Other things must be going on here too (stress?), since PMS symptoms are often lessened or eliminated by feeding sugar syrup. 

If SC results in shorter post-capping times, then this benefit could not be realized to the same extent in a natural cell situation, which provides a natural mix of SC and LC. Also, an 8 hour difference in post capping time is not much, compared to days in the case of African bees, and wouldn't the mites with their own biology be apt to make a corresponding adjustment before too long?

I'd be grateful for any comments. Trying to put together all this information, like everyone else, and planning for next season. Meanwhile 16 LC colonies are all wintering fine, 3rd year with only Sucrocide (yes, lol) and requeening of PMS colonies. But I'd love to be able to go to no treatments long term. Thanks.


----------



## fat/beeman (Aug 23, 2002)

hello
beekeepers seem to be takeing advantage of the bee source to make up there on minds on this.
to me I see bees that was purchased with the chem's in while be raised if not maintained by same means chem's seem to crash or die 6 mo. to yr.
just my opion for what's its worth
Don


----------



## BULLSEYE BILL (Oct 2, 2002)

Don, could you re-type that? I'm not sure what your meant.


----------



## Fusion_power (Jan 14, 2005)

Translation of Don's post above:
<<
Beekeepers are using Beesource for information to make up their minds on use of small cell.

I see bees being purchased that were raised using chemicals, and if they are not maintained with chemicals, they crash or die in 6 months to a year.
>>

Tell us if I got it wrong!

Darrel Jones


----------



## tony350i (Jul 29, 2005)

Don sounds like a good drop of nectar you are on, any chance you could send me some   

Tony


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

Just out of curiosity, how large are the cells found by those of you doing removal of gentle, clearly non-Africanized feral colonies. Wouldn't this give a good idea as to the natural size of European cells. After a few months, all of the bees should be emerging from foundation free cells.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Natural cell: AKA "foundationless" or TBH -- Michael, do you say that all of your colonies on natural combs have survived, year after year, with no treatments whatsoever?

All? No. Most, yes. Some have not been treated since 2002. None have been treated since 2004. The ones in my beeyard are inspected every spring and I have the inspection certificates for anyone who would like to see. I know I have varroa, I find dead ones on the trays, but in the Spring when they are inspected there are no detectable amounts. The Inspector has found none for the last three years.

>How many colonies, and for how long?

Right now I have about 46 hives. It's been somewhere around 50 between three yards for the last several years. Only the queen yard gets inspected.

> BWrangler's pages would indicate that natural comb contains large and small cell, together.

It varies in size.

> So there is still quite a major difference between SC and natural cell.

Other than the variety of size, no. Small cell is 4.9mm Natural cell that I've measured in the brood nest runs between 4.4mm and 5.2mm with the core running usually around 4.8mm to 4.9mm.

> Also, since in a natural cell situation there is bound to be more drone comb

Yes.

> and then more drone brood

No.

> would this not lead to more proliferation of varroa?

The bees will raise the same amount of drones regardless of the amount of drone comb.

> The foundationless idea is attractive in that it doesn't require the expenditure on 5.1 followed by 4.9, and all the retrofitting, but it doesn't put you in a SC situation.

It takes care of the Varroa.

>Small cell: Why the drastic colony crashes when converting to SC?

IMO it's because many do shakedowns. Also they are doing a cold turkey withdrawal from all the chemicals that have been keeping things under control. I quit doing shakedowns and stopped having problems with that.

>I recently read of one UK beek who supposedly converted and lost over 100 colonies.

Of course there is the period of regression where you don't have small enough cells for control yet. During that time you should monitor the Varroa and do something if it's out of control. Drone trapping, powdered sugar, something.

>Is selection for mite tolerance actually what is going on here, regardless of cell size?

I had no big crashes when I stopped doing shake downs.

>The Norwegian comm. beekeeper who is now using SC and seeing decreased varroa is also using the Elgon bee which is an African/Buckfast hybrid. 

Monticola may be in Africa, but it's a far cry from a Scutella or a Adonsi.

>Maybe small cell size is working, maybe it's the bee. Maybe both.

Try measuring capping and post capping times on small cell and you'll stop being confused.

>If SC results in shorter post-capping times, then this benefit could not be realized to the same extent in a natural cell situation, which provides a natural mix of SC and LC. Also, an 8 hour difference in post capping time is not much, compared to days in the case of African bees

Huber's observation on natural comb with European bees was 18 1/2 days. Mine was 19 days. That's a lot more than 8 hours.

> and wouldn't the mites with their own biology be apt to make a corresponding adjustment before too long?

How? They have less time and less room to reproduce. The bees didn't make an adjustment, they are just being allowed to have their normal time instead of a lengthened one. The bees have been on large cell for decades and they didn't adjust.

>Just out of curiosity, how large are the cells found by those of you doing removal of gentle, clearly non-Africanized feral colonies.

The biggest problem with the answer is that it's a range. The core of the brood nest is the smallest with increasing size as you work out.


----------



## Jeffrey Todd (Mar 17, 2006)

>Just out of curiosity, how large are the cells found by those of you doing removal of gentle, clearly non-Africanized feral colonies.

Last year, here in Central Texas, I removed 8 well-established (over 1 year) wild colonies. I consistently found the cell size to be in the 4.9 mm range in the center of the broodnest, and up to 5.3 mm in the outer areas. I cannot say with 100% certainty that none of these bees had ANY African genes, but every one of them had good temperment, and I brought each one back to my home yard without reservation. Interestingly, they all had stored excess honey in a time of extended drought, when the majority of my colonies (albeit located in vastly different pasturage) did not store excess honey.


----------



## odfrank (May 13, 2002)

I cleaned up today two small cell deadouts. One from foulbrood, second this year, I evidentially took the divides off a foulbrood hive as it died first. Second hive appears to be mites. Was a feral baited onto SC spring 2005.


----------



## JWG (Jun 25, 2004)

Thanks for the further insight, Michael. The info is both interesting and encouraging. Sounds like drastic shakedowns are a bit risky, so a more gradual approach might be worth the wait.


----------



## naturebee (Dec 25, 2004)

--Sounds like drastic shakedowns are a bit risky, so a more gradual approach might be worth the wait.--(JWG)

In looking back with my experience with small cell since 2001, and talking with others that have regressed. This assumption that a shakedown is any more risky is IMO a misinterpretation of the information. A shake down is less risky because it gets your bees to a cell size that suppresses varroa much quicker than the gradual methods, resulting in less time spent in the riskey cell sizes that contribute to varroa to reproduction.

Remember now, that shakedowns are nothing more than making your own package bees, and this has been a successful practice for many years. This leaves improper management as the factor potentially causing these reported failures. Most failures I have looked at were IMHO, simply the result of the failure to implement a varroa monitoring and control strategy during regression when it was needed. Or proceeding with shakedowns during times when the local forage is less capable of supporting combuilding and colony growth, OR pushing too hard to draw cells at these times. This can happen with BOTH shakedowns and gradual methods, and is the cause of poor management decisions. 

Many times, the beekeepers doing the shakedowns are experienced beekeepers that get a bit over confident of their abilities to make assessments at the colony level, and sometimes fail to implement procedures when the need arises due to this over confidence. That is, the beekeeper identified that there were high levels of varroa during the regression process, but failed to implement a control strategy on the advice those encouraging them to cold turkey the process, or a personal goal of wanting to do the regression without treating the bees. 

Because the failures were the result of the beekeeper NOT reading the colony stresses correctly and taking appropriate actions, this makes the cause of the failures poor management decisions.


----------

