# untreated bee's (poll)



## Ross (Apr 30, 2003)

I'm on natural cell size. I haven't measured it, but the bees built it. That and SBB for the last 5 years. I've gone from 6 to 32 in that time.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

For this to have any real meaning, I think there needs to be qualifiers attached. Spell out what "do not treat" means. Some think it only means hard treatments and soft ones are "not treating." What management style are you using? Replacing queens every year? Replacing any comb? Introducing swarms or cutouts into the picture? Give us the details so we know what the full picture is. I hope it's being done on LC! What a great bit of news. Then at least some have another option.

- Barry


----------



## JohnK and Sheri (Nov 28, 2004)

I agree with Barry, some qualifiers are needed here. 
While I think it is a worthwhile thing to try to develop resistant, less human dependent bees, some folks are deluding themselves. (present company excepted, of course )
I had a guy come by here the other day bragging about how he hasn't treated his 4 colonies in 4 years. Reason for his visit? To order 4 nucs as "boosters", 
Sheri


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

I agree with barry on qualifiers.

For those on smallcell, I would imagine that there are many in this group who are perhaps those who are trying smallcell due to not wanting to treat. I would imagine that most on smallcell are not using treatments, but are also the type that are very much in tune with whats going on in the hive.

What will be said, is "Look at all those who are on LC, and treat!". For the most part, this group is a large faction of people who have continued to do the same thing for year after year. Perhaps because they have a livelihood to protect, or they simply have not trusted anything beyond the standard "treat your hives!" that is promoted everywhere you turn, to include club meetings to mags.

I wonder how many treat for no other reason than its whats been done for years. I wonder how many people treat without no idea of what their mite counts are, and have no basis for needing to treat.

I'm not interested in how many treat, I'd be interested in how many don't treat.


----------



## iddee (Jun 21, 2005)

I didn't vote because I have two sets of hives. One set I soft treat, "fog", and the other I don't treat in any way.

The one I treat has no history. I try to sell them the first year. The other is 5 years with no treatment. It is on LC from Kelleys.


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

JohnK and Sheri said:


> I agree with Barry, some qualifiers are needed here.
> While I think it is a worthwhile thing to try to develop resistant, less human dependent bees, some folks are deluding themselves. (present company excepted, of course )
> I had a guy come by here the other day bragging about how he hasn't treated his 4 colonies in 4 years. Reason for his visit? To order 4 nucs as "boosters",
> Sheri



Are you saying that the ONLY reason for boosting a hive is due to mite related reasons? Did he say he had mite issues? Maybe they were for late swarms, late splits, or for a host of reasons that could include him being a bad beekeeper and not doing a whole host of things.

You don't say why he needed the booster colonies. So in the middle of this conversation dealing with mites and treatments, it will be assumed by some that his bees were weak due to mites. And that's not clear.


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

iddee said:


> I didn't vote because I have two sets of hives. One set I soft treat, "fog", and the other I don't treat in any way.
> 
> The one I treat has no history. I try to sell them the first year. The other is 5 years with no treatment. It is on LC from Kelleys.



I'm kinda like iddee. I did select LC - no treatment. But I have natural cell, smallcell, and LC. I don't treat any of them. I selected my choice based on LC being the most hives out of the three.


----------



## JohnK and Sheri (Nov 28, 2004)

I have no idea why he is boosting them and I don't know what kind of beekeeper this gent is. Your point is well taken, perhaps they are totally mite-free but he knows they will starve because they are too light to make it through winter.
My point stands, and is, some folks like to imply they are self sustainable but are not. Back in the days before mites it was common practice to be able to _split_ your colonies in the spring; you didn't have to _boost_ them. In my opinion, someone who adds a new mite-free nuc to an existing colony in the spring can not call that colony a "survivor". Yes, the 'colony' made it through winter. No, it wasn't treated....but, but, but. The devil is in the details.

Please don't get my intent wrong and/or get overly defensive here. I think working towards sustainable bees is a worthy goal, but the proponents would be doing us all a service if they would define their management techniques. There are no easy fixes to the mite problem. If folks are NOT treating and their bees are thriving, the non-treatment is not the determining factor. What ARE they doing? That is the million dollar question. 
Sheri


----------



## Dave W (Aug 3, 2002)

>define their management techniques . . .

Respectfully . . . I don’t think the "average" beekeeper "knows" what he “is doing”.
If they knew, they would be telling 

However, if a few do know but don’t tell . . . shame on them.


Another aspect that’s hard to determine is genetics.
While some bees are "tolerant", some are not.
Mites are not the same, some transfer viruses, some don’t.

With the right combination (bees and good mites) beekeeping "without treatments" becomes easy.


Now, how do we explain why NeeBees are the “only” ones that seem to get the wrong combination? 
How do they get over the “hump”? 

Hmmmmm . . .


----------



## Yuleluder (Mar 2, 2005)

*No treatments and LC*

I use no treatments whatsoever. I do use SBB, and raise queens from overwintered stock which builds up the best in the Spring. I also purchase queens from breeders using similar philosphies. I haven't really done the yearly requeening thing, as 75% of my hives are 1st year hives. However I do have (1) hive that has a queen from 2005, and (3) hives with an 2006 queens. My queens are all marked, and genetics are recorded for each hive.


----------



## MountainCamp (Apr 12, 2002)

*What is a treatment?*

We had a thread / discussion last year, I think along these lines. 

I think that this is a very complicated topic.

What is the definition of a treatment? Soft Treatment? Hard Treatment?

Screen bottom boards are used by many for increased ventilation.
Screen Bottom Boards are used by many for the reduction of mites.
Are they a soft treatment if your intention is mite reduction and NOT if your intention is ventilation? 

Smoking is used by many when they work their colonies. Smoking is also an irritant that promotes grooming and dislodging of mites. So when you smoke, are you doing a soft treatment?

Brood interruption reduces mite levels as they can not reproduce. So by doing yearly splits or allowing your colony to rear their own queens, you are performing a soft treatment. Even if it is not the intended purpose, it is a benefit.

Drone trapping is a soft treatment, but if one works their hive and removes all of the drone comb found between the frames / boxes is that not a soft treatment?

My point is that does anyone really tend their colonies without any intervention that assists the colony to survive?

I do a number of things with my beekeeping that may or may not be considered treatments. I feed, I smoke, I add Oils to my feed in spring and fall (usually 1 or 2 times), I have some SBB, I do splits, I allow my hives to rear their own queens, etc.

Are my bees kept without treatments? - No


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

Mountain,
I agree.

The problem with discussions like this, is that something along these lines usually happen....

I'll pick one of my management strategies. Say, re queening.

After much research with feral bees, the cavity size, the frequency of supersede and swarming, understanding the importance of brood cycle breaks that re queening affords, and other factors that all play out in nature, I have taken a much stronger stance on re queening.

Among other things, studies have shown that first year queens on average will swarm less, produce more honey, and overwinter substantially better than older queens. I would say that re queening is probably the single largest factor that a beekeeper could do in improving overwintering colony percentages.

I have stated this several times.

And a chorus of replies echo back in...
*I have a queen 5, 6 or more years older. (like NOT upgrading your stock over this time frame is a positive)
*I have smallcell and I don't need to requeen to see positive results.
*Your just saying that because you breed bees.
*Or some other reply that centers on a bad experience with requeening, and finishes with comments of "just let them do what they want". Thus one never actually selecting for anything positive, just taking what one is given by chance.

And that is what normally happens.

But I have stated that I split many yards in the summer. My older hives with the original queen has higher winter kill, and the new splits with first year queens will range in the 10% range. (I guess I should now include a "standard" clause I see smallcell people use) Please note...that none of the 10% hives that die were as a result of mites. An occasional failed queen, perhaps a starved hive. But nothing that I could blame on mites. 

I say all this because "requeening" was a point that Barry included on page one in wanting some guidelines on what treatments are. I feel that was a loaded question or comment. I don't see requeening as a treatment. Its smart beekeeping and pays for itself.

To consider SBB, requeening or other management strategies as a "treatment" only degrades the whole process to begin with.


----------



## Barry Digman (May 21, 2003)

Large cell, no treatments, and take this with a great big caveat. 

I would suggest that this or an ancillary poll should ask *why* one is keeping bees. To be honest, if I lost all twelve or so of my hives it wouldn't matter much to me. I wouldn't like it, and I'd be curious about what caused it, but it wouldn't change my life. For others, losing their hives would be (or IS) huge, perhaps devastating. The point here is that any poll has to be interpreted very, very carefully if one is going to base a decision on the results. If the poll is just for the sake of curiousity, then we needn't worry too much about who is doing what.


----------



## JohnK and Sheri (Nov 28, 2004)

Interesting point Coyote,
It would be interesting if the poll broke out how many livelihoods depend on their bees and correlated that with 'treat or not'. 
Dave W, are you suggesting that only newbees have mite losses? Keeping bees is easy? I think you must be that person who knows what they are doin and ain't tellin'.
Oh, and I wanna know where you get those "good mites". Those are the kind I want.
Sheri


----------



## MountainCamp (Apr 12, 2002)

>…..(I guess I should now include a "standard" clause I see smallcell people use) Please note...that none of the 10% hives that die were as a result of mites. An occasional failed queen, perhaps a starved hive. But nothing that I could blame on mites...

I may now step on some toes. Nothing personal here!!!
I have been keeping bees for only 12 years.
I live in a rural forested area of the Catskill Mountains in Upstate New York. The area has reverted from a much higher level of agriculture / farming to State Forest Preserve and Park lands, smaller number of farms, as well as homes over the last 100 years or so. This area has been settled since the 1600's and beekeeping was part of many homesteads. 
My neighbor who got me in to beekeeping himself had bees on the family farm which dates back to the late 1800's. So there had been bees kept on the land around my yards for over 100 hundred years, as well as this part of NYS.
My view is that over this time the "feral" population would have had to regress to whatever cell size that wanted. 
If cell size reduction on it's own was the "holy grail", then the woods and farms around here should be teaming with hives and swarms. They are not, I am not saying that there are no colonies, but this year I saw (1) swarm and got one swarm call from Catskill. My level of swarm activity was directly related to the guy down the road keeping bees. He stopped and so have the swarms.

>To consider SBB, requeening or other management strategies as a "treatment" only degrades the whole process to begin with. 

I don't disagree with you that management strategies and techniques being labeled as treatment will have some not use them, but in a "review" of what other beekeepers are doing and finding what works, will require a complete review and examination of what the management strategies and techniques are.

I do not and have not used Checkmite or Aspertan in over 9 or 10 years, I would have to check my notes. But, if you want to know what I do and why my yearly loses are far below the average, then a complete look at my management strategies and techniques is required.

Some will see what I do as treatments and some will not. To be honest I DO NOT REALLY WORRY ABOUT WHAT OTHERS THINK. I do what I have found works for me and my techniques have evolved over the years.


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

Mountain,
You pasted a quote from me, and then mentioned stepping on toes. Not sure if I see the connection. My toes feel fine....


----------



## REDTRACTOR1 (Dec 10, 2003)

If you ask 12 beekeepers only one question you will get 24 answers so whats the point?
Thanks red


----------



## bluegrass (Aug 30, 2006)

I think even keepers who treat have hives they don't treat...... also how do you determin how old a hive is? If the queen is replaced intentionally or naturally to me its a new hive so none of my hives are more than a season old...... I do keep records of the source of the genetic line though.


----------



## TwT (Aug 5, 2004)

this is not a science contest, It's simple, just choose the size cells you have and weather you treat or not, its not hard to know if you treat your hives for mites, desease's or not treat them.
And how do you tell if a hive is 3 years old, you have bee's live in it for 3 years, change queen's all you want, I never said if the queen was 3 years old, just has the bee's been steady living in the hive, I mean no insult to anyone but man!!! I just dont see the choices on the poll that hard to understand and pick from.... Sorry if anyone didn't understand what I meant by treating a hive. I thought it would be easy to understand, my fault!!!!


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

Ted,
What if I swapped out frames and they are less than 3 years old. Should I pro-rate to determine the age factor?

And what about hives I combined? If I take a 3 year old hive and combine it with 2 year old hive, does that disqualify that hive from consideration as the hive is now aged at 2.5 years on averaging them out?

What if I have a hive that I got from another beekeeper, but I only had it less than three years? Are you talking sole ownership for the three year requirement, or should I also count the previous owners time along with mine?


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

BjornBee said:


> I say all this because "requeening" was a point that Barry included on page one in wanting some guidelines on what treatments are. I feel that was a loaded question or comment. I don't see requeening as a treatment. Its smart beekeeping and pays for itself.


Are you picking on me again? 

Now Bjorn, I'm not loading anything. Don't take offense at this one item I mentioned. The issue for me isn't what falls on the side of "non-treatment" or the side of "treatment", but do tell us how you manage your bees so regardless of what you say you do treatment wise, we get the big picture that goes along with it. That's all. No hidden agenda. I think Sheri explained it well.

- Barry


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

BjornBee said:


> What if ...
> 
> If I take ...
> 
> What if I have a hive...


Yes, lots of what if's. Let everyone tell us what they do and let everyone decide for themselves if it's a treatment or not.

I don't consider smoking, SBB, etc., treatments. But I still would like to know this is being done.

There's no right answer or prize for the winner. Sorry.


----------



## BULLSEYE BILL (Oct 2, 2002)

>And what about hives I combined? If I take a 3 year old hive and combine it with 2 year old hive, does that disqualify that hive from consideration as the hive is now aged at 2.5 years on averaging them out?

If you combine three and two, that equals five in my book.


----------



## BULLSEYE BILL (Oct 2, 2002)

*What is small cell?*

Almost all of my hives are Permacomb. PC measures 5.0mm. Am I small cell?

I don't count mites, I don't treat in any manner and have not since 2003. I don't requeen, I do use SBB's. I will glance at the trays about once a month to get a feel of mite loads, if I don't see any I wonder if the ants are eating well. For the most part I have mites but they are not killing my hives in any significant numbers.

I have over 100 hives and I average 20% losses over winter, due to everything from mites to poor management (starvation or weak hives going into winter).

This was a poor year for making honey but I pulled about one box per production hive, all of it being late summer honey.

Still, do you consider PC as small or large cell? No, I don't wax coat PC.


----------



## bluegrass (Aug 30, 2006)

No the poll is not hard to answer, but there are so many other factors to consider that a poll of this nature isn't going to show you anything..... As of this year all of my hives are foundationless....so cell size is whatever the bees are making it. None of my hives are over a year old in the woodenware they are in right now....Some of them have come out of buildings this past summer and have not had any treatment in awhile.... I have screen bottoms except that I have just closed them up for the winter. I powder sugar treated almost all of them over the summer. I haven't used any other form of treatment, but I would if needed.


----------



## WG Bee Farm (Jan 29, 2005)

*untreated bees*

I can understand the dilemma specifiying soft and hard treatments, however; other methods using suggested IPM (IMO) should be classified as management techniques.
1.) Soft and hard treatments involve introducing "foreign or increased levels of existing chemicals into the hives" to create an accepted result- damage or death to varroa.
2.) IPM-- including but not limited to specific genetics, screened bottom boards, drone trapping, splitting, etc. are management tech.'s that do not add anything to the colony in the way of foreign chemicals. Therefore, IMO should be considered as non-treatment.


I have not treated in 5 years. 
I run solid bottom boards because that is what I have. I normally run 2 hive bodies, but not always. I use regular size cell not small cell. I have old equipment, because, I have old equipment (1980,1990,2000) still good.
Because I split the hives heavily each year making increases and nucs for sale. I nomally maintain low mite counts. If I locate a hive that has higher counts I split and introduce a new queen to both sides. 
I use queens that I raise myself from breeders from Glenn Apiaries. I have been using the 
VSH (SMR) Minnesota Hyg. Italian and the VSH(SMR) Carniolan breeders since spring of 
2000. I normally have losses in the 10-20% range until last winter when it went to 40%
??? CCD ??? I don't know. It appeared to me that they died of starvation. This years bees look the best going into winter that I have ever seen. I started winter prep's in August and I now have large clusters under plenty of honey. I normally run approx. 100-120 hives per year, depending on losses. It will take next year to get back to 120 again, because I didn't split hard on some of the hives. I did suppliment them from the 5 frame nucs that I use to raise queens. My honey production was wwwaaayyy down from the previous years , but I count this as a rebuilding year. Plus, I still had nuc and queens commitments that I had to provide for.
My 2 cents worth-
Frank Wyatt
Eden, NC


----------



## MountainCamp (Apr 12, 2002)

BjornBee, wasn't your toes I was talking about and I know you wear steel toed boots anyway. I question the premise of small cell vs large cell.

I think that we are on the same line here.

A poll is only as good as the questions asked and the information in the response. 

This topic has so many sides, views, and nuances that it is difficult at best to nail down.

Whether you consider what you do as hard, soft, IPM, management techniques, or voodoo, as long as it is laid out in full, then others can decide if it a path they want to try and follow.


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

Mountain,

I hear ya.

Oh, there's alot of voodoo out there....


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

BULLSEYE BILL said:


> Still, do you consider PC as small or large cell? No, I don't wax coat PC.


We could add to the categories and call it medium cell! 
I personally would put 5.0 in the SC range.

- Barry


----------



## MountainCamp (Apr 12, 2002)

I have a question for those who know.
If LC worker comb is 5.1 - 5.2 mm & Drone about 5.8 mm and SC worker comb is 4.9mm. 
What size cell is SC Drone Comb?


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

Heck, I hear smallcell and natural are close enough, that its not even worth distinguishing the difference anymore. Call it what you want. Smallcell, natural cell, voodoo cell...  Make the standard and the definitions as you see fit. Its all the rage nowadays!


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi Guys,

>What size cell is SC Drone Comb?

It's a good question. After regressing my bees, most of them inadvertently ended up on a box of large cell comb for a time. Having been told that small cell bees would raise drones in large cell comb, I expected to see drones in those large cell frames. Not so! It was wall to wall worker brood. And several of those hives were Lusbees. And there aren't any bees more regressed than Lusbees. Check outhttp://bwrangler.litarium.com/implications/

Bees naturally draw out various sized cells and use them as they see fit. Drones are raised in a wide variety of cell sizes. And they are often raised in smaller worker sized cells. That's the same situation for worker brood as well. I've measure natural comb drawn out in a tbh by small cell bees. These small cell bees raised worker bees in cell sizes that ranged from less than 4.6mm to 5.59mm. And drones were raised in cells from 5.25mm to 7.29mm. That's the same size range as large cell bees. See:http://bwrangler.litarium.com/natural-comb/

Small cell beekeepers tend to focus on finding the right cell size. Natural cell beekeepers focus on broodnest structure which includes more than just cell size. Both small and natural cell are a short hand that often just refers to the type of comb used. But it's also a short hand for a whole different approach to beekeeping, of which cell size is just a part.

Regards
Dennis


----------



## MountainCamp (Apr 12, 2002)

Dennis,
Thank you,
"I've measure natural comb drawn out in a tbh by small cell bees. These small cell bees raised worker bees in cell sizes that ranged from less than 4.6mm to 5.59mm. And drones were raised in cells from 5.25mm to 7.29mm. That's the same size range as large cell bees."
Your observation, is what I have thought was the case. But since I do not have any "SC" bees, I had to ask.
What has always not added up for me with the "SC" and cell size solely as the fix to mites, was that with all of the swarms issued for hundreds of years living on their own generation after generation, why did the Feral Bee population crash?

Thank you again for your information and insight.


----------



## TwT (Aug 5, 2004)

you know I have been reading these post and got to thinking, this shouldn't have been a poll, because all the questions and post about soft treatments, hard treatments and such, maybe I should have just ask who uses standard size cells and don't treat for mites in any way, all they do is let their bee's make honey, pollinate, etc.... well here I go thinking again so watch out, small cell would be considered a treatment also because you are using it for mites and what ever else just like Sbb, drone comb, chemicals and oils, etc, now if it wasn't for mites do you think you would even use SC, I think not, people would be keeping bee's like they did for decades before, so if all them others like Sbbs are treatment then SC must be counted also, that is the only way I see it...... and thanks for the questions Bjorn, answer them questions for yourself, buddy, I should be the one asking you those because you would ask more questions after that and try to pin me down, I ain't going there buddy, done seen you do that to many times, I surrender, you win, but I understand you man  , you bring up some good questions at time's!!!!!!


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>If LC worker comb is 5.1 - 5.2 mm & Drone about 5.8 mm and SC worker comb is 4.9mm.

But LC worker comb is 5.4mm and LC Drone foundation is 6.6mm

>What size cell is SC Drone Comb?

I see drone cell sizes that run from 5.4mm to 7.0mm in natural comb and drones that run from quite small to monstrous. But I'd say the majority runs around 5.8mm to 6.0mm. It's probably more consistent if you have 4.9mm foundation than if you have natural comb.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

MountainCamp said:


> What has always not added up for me with the "SC" and cell size solely as the fix to mites, was that with all of the swarms issued for hundreds of years living on their own generation after generation, why did the Feral Bee population crash?


Why didn't I think of that?????? One of the mainstays of the small cell folks is that when regular cell bees swarm from beekeepers they build new nests in their 'natural' sized cells; 4.9mm (or thereabouts). So, if small cell reduces the mite loads to tolerable levels, why indeed, did so much of the feral population disappear?


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

beemandan said:


> Why didn't I think of that?????? One of the mainstays of the small cell folks is that when regular cell bees swarm from beekeepers they build new nests in their 'natural' sized cells; 4.9mm (or thereabouts). So, if small cell reduces the mite loads to tolerable levels, why indeed, did so much of the feral population disappear?


I think the mainstay is that if bees are allowed to freely build their comb, they will reduce the cell size, not enlarge it. I also think that it has been show that this reduction doesn't happen instantly, but over time. The test by Hortresearch proved that:

http://www.beesource.com/bee-l/biobeefiles/pav/scstudy.htm

"The 4.7mm and 4.8mm frames of foundation were inconsistently drawn out with
 uneven walls and in various sizes (Fig. 2). However, enough sections with
correctly shaped cells were obtained for trial usage.

Figure 2. Frame of 4.9mm sized cells inconsistently drawn out. This frame
was not used in the trial, as there were no suitably drawn sections."

One reason J. Berry used Bill's bees. They just don't go from building 5.4 to 4.9 in one generation. As to why the feral population disappeared, I don't know.

- Barry


----------



## Dale Hodges (Jul 13, 2007)

I've been wondering the same thing Beeman, I've got a local bee tree that comes over to rob my clean up.(small black bees) They've been here for 20 + years. Last year they showed up with mites, this year I havn't seen a single bee without mites.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Barry said:


> One reason J. Berry used Bill's bees. They just don't go from building 5.4 to 4.9 in one generation. As to why the feral population disappeared, I don't know.
> 
> - Barry


Actually, I've seen Michael Bush recommend that new beekeepers go ahead and place their bee packages directly on small cell foundation. I've done it myself. It often works. Jennifer used Billy Bob's bees for ONE of the two yards, mainly, in my opinion, to eliminate any doubt about generational issues.

I do apologize for bringing this whole small cell thing up again but I couldn't resist after reading Mountain's comment.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

beemandan said:


> Actually, I've seen Michael Bush recommend that new beekeepers go ahead and place their bee packages directly on small cell foundation.


Yes, but when a swarm takes up residence in the wild, they're building their own comb from scratch, not using sc foundation.

- Barry


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

On a somewhat related subject, Jennifer Berry will be presenting at the Mississippi Beekeeper's meeting this weekend. If you are nearby and have questions this would be an opportunity.
Also, I believe that Dee Lusby is at the Florida Beekeeper's this weekend. Check the schedule before taking my word on this. I've been mistaken before.


----------



## BULLSEYE BILL (Oct 2, 2002)

>So, if small cell reduces the mite loads to tolerable levels, why indeed, did so much of the feral population disappear?
__________________

I was not keeping bees during the 'great mite die off', but I have seen a lot of wild bees since I have started keeping them.

When you have people like Iddee and myself removing 30 to 50 colonies per year and picking up as many swarms from non beekeeping areas,,, Well it shows a great resiliency built into the bees we are removing from the wild.

I don't know that it is cell size that really matters. What I do know is if you help nature cull out those that can not tolerate living with the mites eventually you will have bees that can. Look at the poll, many of us have those bees now, and it doesn't matter what size comb they are on, they are surviving without chemical treatments.


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi Guys,

Seems like most polls always get into trouble here. :>)

I think that occurs because many want a poll to provide the kind of data required by a statistical analysis. That kind of data can be useful in a narrowly focused study. Narrow has it place. But there's a better way to make a decision.

Maybe we should follow the bees and appropriate their methods of decision making. With them, there's lots of dancing, some more vigorous and longer lasting than others. Scouting. Buzzing. Sharing nectar. And eventually a consensus is reached. The best possible decision is made.

How does that dancing, scouting, buzzing and sharing transfer from the bees to the beekeepers in our beesource swarm? Polling is a great way to start the activity. And the broader the base, the better, as it allows for a wider range of responses. The rest I'll leave up to your imagination. But I've noticed that every bee is allowed to dance anyway it wants and it isn't killed by the other bees with a different dance.

Regards
Dennis


----------



## MountainCamp (Apr 12, 2002)

I am completely confused here. 

I do not have small cell bees. Well, I have never actually measured cell size so knows whats in there.

But from all of the discussions over the years of small cell, natural cell, feral bees, and survivor bees the terms were all used interchangeably. The only terms that did not fit this group were Large Cell or standard foundation / frames.

I took a very hard look at Dennis' site, and the information on Natural Cell and small cell. Thanks Dennis.

Looking at the cell size and variances shows me that there is a significant amount of size variances and overlapping of cell size. Even with SC foundation, the "small cell" bees build comb in the "large cell" range. 

If SC bees are allowed to build their own comb, they gravitate to a larger cell size, maybe not as large as the largest LC drone, but well within the range of LC Drone and LC worker cells.

If SC workers & drones are bing raised in cells of the same size range as LC. So can someone explain to me the advantage that SC brings?


----------



## danameric (Mar 11, 2007)

I'm a total newb, but doesn't the cell get smaller as the bees use it more? If so, then wouldn't a really old cell be small cell? Could you have small cell bees by just being too lazy to get rid of old comb?


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi MountainCamp,



MountainCamp said:


> I am completely confused here.
> If SC bees are allowed to build their own comb, they gravitate to a larger cell size, maybe not as large as the largest LC drone, but well within the range of LC Drone and LC worker cells.
> 
> If SC workers & drones are bing raised in cells of the same size range as LC. So can someone explain to me the advantage that SC brings?


It's hard to get out of the one cell size box. It is just so ingrained in all beekeeping literature.

Neither LC or SC bees gravitate to any particular cell size. When given the chance, they construct appropriate cell sizes that fits their needs. These cell sizes vary and are arranged into a broodnest structure. The broodnest structure is oriented to enhance differing needs at various times during the season.

Using SC foundation allows beekeepers to get maximum functionality out of modern beekeeping technology, while approximating a few critical aspects of a natural broodnest. The smaller cell size enhances several bee behaviors that are necessary for colony health.

Most of these critical behaviors aren't found in a LC hive.

Natural cell is an attempt to maintain a natural broodnest structure, with it's variable cell size/orientation. And work modern beekeeping equipment around it. Equipment functionality is sacrificed when it interferes with broodnest organization. 

Natural cell beekeepers get the best of both worlds as their beekeeping equipment is a closer match to a natural broodnest than either LC or SC.

So, why did all those natural comb feral hives disappear? That was my argument for not buying a SC sized foundation mill. And my logic for thinking AHBs might have the genetics we would all need. The truth was, I just didn't know any better. There weren't any ferals where I kept bees. And everyone else said it, so it must be true. Right? :>)

Well, I got to checking around and found out, that although the feral population had been reduced, it was far from being decimated. Anytime a parasite is introduced into a system, that system will be stressed. Some usually survive it and others won't. Some beekeepers noticed the vitality of the untreated surviving ferals and actively incorporated them into their beekeeping.

Other beekeepers, including some researchers, had documented proof of untreated feral colonies living for a decade. But when these bees were hived, they succumbed to mites as fast as any other hived bee.

Regards
Dennis


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

BWrangler said:


> The smaller cell size enhances several bee behaviors that are necessary for colony health.
> 
> Most of these critical behaviors aren't found in a LC hive.


Which behaviors are you referring to?


----------



## kc in wv (Feb 1, 2006)

The idea of small cell has interested me. I haven't tried it yet because the idea isn't complete to me. 

If the bees naturally build smaller cells on their own, then each successive swam will build smaller cells until they are back to a natural size. But as others have pointed out feral bees are not making much of a comeback. Why?

What other factors are the natural cell beekeepers using in their management that helps the bees survive without treatments?

I don't treat mine with hard chemicals unless they need it. I use SBB, powdered sugar dusting and mineral oil to help manage the mites


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

*Why did the feral bees die?*

http://www.bushfarms.com/beesnaturalcell.htm#feralbees


----------



## NewBee2007 (May 6, 2007)

*Why did the feral bees die?*

IMO I would agree with the comment:

_The bees have been diminishing for the last 50 years fairly steadily from pesticide misuse, loss of habitat and forage, and more recently from bee paranoia._

With the overuse and misuse of chemicals of all sorts, pesticides as well as other chemical are getting into the surface and groundwaters as well as the foods that we and all creatures are consuming, that are tainted in one way or another... be it as GMO's, pesticides or other synthetic chemical treatments... we have to begin to realize they will have some type of long term effects. Unfortunately our generation and our children's generation and probably their children's generation, as well as the natural world, will have been the "lab rat's" for the (?corporate) experiments that have been playing out. Having worked in a chem lab and having subsequently become hyper sensitive to any sort of "air pollution" be it cleaning chemical fumes, perfumes, cigarettes, camp fire smoke, etc...., and just speaking of my own health and the chemical sensitivities which I now have from being exposed to chemicals while working in a lab environment (-and which has never been "professionally" documented anywhere in my medical records aside from having become asthmatic-) I suffer daily from exposures to chemicals that most of you probably don't even realize you're being exposed to; yet when those of us with chemical sensitivities bring this up as I have as a workplace health & safety issue (I sit almost directly under a HVAC vent and I typically get headaches after a short time at work, from whatever is in the ventilation system...sometimes it smells of a "sweet" or perfume'y nature, other times it's cigarette smells, etc... So whatever is supposedly supposed to be clean/fresh air being transported to our office is far from it. And as it is not consistent and as I mentioned before, most of you probably wouldn't even smell it nor realize any negative physical side effects, they will not have the air quality analyzed. Instead I'm too sensitive...aduhhh...no kidding, that's exactly what and why I am saying something. I'm like the office canary. 
Similiar to the decline in the populations of the birds and the weak egg shells were a sign for Rachel Carson to write the book "Silent Springs" in 1962 to try to educate people to the negative effects pesticides (ie-DDT) have on not only the environment but on the health of the creatures living around and exposed to them. 

Now fast forward to the present. And there is the controversial pesticide imidacloprid, which is the active ingredient of the Advantage flea treatment product. "The active ingredient is imidacloprid, which acts on the nervous system of the flea to cause paralysis and subsequent death. Advantage stops biting fleas in three to five minutes and starts to kill adult fleas within an hour after application.1 Within 12 hours of application, 98-100 percent of fleas are dead." (http://advantage.petparents.com/howItWorks.cfm)

So, what do you think it will do to the bees if it's been sprayed and the residue is on the clover, or the flowers that the bees are foraging on in the area. And what about the birds that are pecking for worms in the area that was recently sprayed. Oh, but that's right, they've put up those little flags, so now they should know to be more careful. 

And, what does it say about us humans, when Roundup can be added to the seeds, which then most likely end up in the food products we eat in one form or another?
ie- current Roundup Ready crops include maize (corn), sorghum, cotton, soy, canola and alfalfa 
(as found from Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundup)

There has been such an overwhelming overuse of synthetic chemicals in our modern lives. From the soaps & shampoos we use, to the chemicals we buy to clean with, in the foods we eat, to the lawn chemicals that are used to "maintain" those thick, green manicured lawns and gulf courses.

Should we really be surprised that the bees and other pollinators have been declining and may possibly be heading for the threatened to endangered list in the future? We need to start rethinking what types of chemicals are truly necessary to help add to our quality of life as part of a broader picture. 
ie-Do we really need to have synthetic additives in the soaps that we buy or RoundUp in the foods that are sold to us?

Anyway, it's getting late and if you made it this far through my post, thanks for letting me vent about my feelings regarding the chemical industry and the state of our food industry. I just hope it's not too late for the pollinators, as well as us and the rest of the environment. It took decades to recover from DDT, so maybe there is still hope and hopefully there is still time to recover if we start to make some changes soon. In 1962 birds and fish were dying, so it was a bit more obvious to the general population that something unhealthy for the environment was occurring. But unfortunately, most people would just as quickly spray any (winged) insect because "it's just a pest", so it might not be so quite so easy to educate them on this subject since it's not a bird or fish this time around that's in danger. But maybe Jerry Seinfeld's Bee movie will help the cause 

Thanks again & good night!


----------



## MountainCamp (Apr 12, 2002)

Read the additional information cited, antidotal information, and it still leads me to the same place.

There is cell size variance in SM, Nature Comb, & LC. I have not measured cell size, but it is plain to see with the naked eye. This variance has to do with many factors including where the comb is located in the hive. 

But, we all know that the brood nest layout and location changes with the seasons. Where the brood nest is and the comb it is covering in May is not where it is in July, and by January and February when brood rearing resumes, they are up on the comb that was used for honey storage last season.

Now I can see that this may not be the completely the same with a TBH and a standard vertically laid out hive. 

However, hives in nature mimic both horizontal TBH and vertical hives depending on the cavity the hive has taken up in.

Also, the TBH cluster is going to still be on former honey / pollen storage comb rearing brood, till they start replacing the eaten stores in a new season.

There is also variance in cell wall thickness and the angle the cell walls are drawn to. This leads to the base of the cell having a larger diameter than the opening.

There are many factors that effect the ability of a colony to survive: How they are managed, where they are managed, and genetics play all major role in this.

So if genetics, management techniques, and location all factor into the ability of SC and NC colonies to survive, the same factors that play into the ability of LC bees to survive, what makes SC & NC bees different than LC bees? (Other than cell size)


----------



## Will (Aug 3, 2002)

*My small cell perceptions*

The premise behind small cell was to get people away from pesticides in their hives and into sustainable beekeeping. At the time, this was very controversial as it was generally accepted by the beekeeping community that it was impossible to keep bees without treatments and that no feral bees existed. The first step in the process was getting bees onto more natural sized combs. During the process, beekeepers noted patches of pink/purple-eyed brood or bald brood. This was the so called "hygienic" trait as being sold in only a few "patented" bee lines. Many beekeepers keeping any ole bee on small cell combs witnessed this behavior first hand. Bees were surviving in a balanced parasite host relationship. Varroa destructor was now varroa jacobsonii. As a result of bringing this information to light, beekeepers were publicly bereated and continue to be. All those who followed were stereotyped as some kind of religious zealots or cult followers. This was long before IPM had any sort of generalized acceptance. Thus the camps were divided into "large cell" and "small cell." The small cell methodology was never solely based on cell size. This continues to be one of the biggest misconceptions today in both camps. It always included nutrition, management techniques, breeding/genetics, and a cell size that had been measured in the core of the broodnest of bees found in the wild. There was only one Holy Grail, and I've never seen a silver bullet. Small cell is neither. 

As to why ferals didn't survive despite being on so called small cells. Well, the short answer is some did. Anytime an invasive species is introduced into a new environment, it disrupts the natural balance of things. The species being displaced is either able to adapt and survive or it is wiped out altogether. Think of thousands of collapsing hives due to mites and the surviving bees robbing those weakened by mites now bringing those mite loads home.


----------



## kc in wv (Feb 1, 2006)

Mountain Camp's question is what I want to know. "So if genetics, management techniques, and location all factor into the ability of SC and NC colonies to survive, the same factors that play into the ability of LC bees to survive, what makes SC & NC bees different than LC bees? (Other than cell size)"


As for Michael Bush's observations, They bring on more questions for me.

Have you studied the resurgence of feral bee's in other parts of the country? You live in an agriculture crop area where insecticides are heavily used. Here in WV there is a limited amount of ag crops grown. This is a heavy forested area for the most part. What agriculture crops grown for the most part is hay, forage and grain to be fed back on the farm. Still we had the same type of honeybee die off as the rest of the country and there hasn't been much of a recovery. 

When I first started keeping honeybees there were lots of feral bees in this area. In the early 80's when the mites hit they became fewer and fewer. Now feral honeybees are not comon. 

You very seldom see a feral hive. I have investigated several feral hives and removed a few. This spring I removed a feral colony from a house. The home owner said they had been there for around 10 years. When I actually got into the removal the brood comb looked like it was no more than 2 or 3 years old. I assumed from that, the space had been used by honeybees lots, but that actual colony had just occupied it a few years.

If you make it to HAS this coming July I hope you have a chance to see the state some. I am really curious on how to make small cell work here.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>"So if genetics, management techniques, and location all factor into the ability of SC and NC colonies to survive, the same factors that play into the ability of LC bees to survive, what makes SC & NC bees different than LC bees? (Other than cell size)"

The bees are just bees. Local survivors certainly have some desirable traits including the fact that they are adapted to the local climate and that they have proven they are not wimps. But I see no problems with any kind of bee surviving on small cell comb. Is it possible that some are just to wimpy to survive no matter what? Probably.

>Have you studied the resurgence of feral bee's in other parts of the country?

I hear from people all over the country on here. Seems like some places have a lot of feral bees still surviving. Bullseye does a lot of cutouts and sees a lot of feral bees in Kansas. I see a lot here. But there are other places that people are reporting that there are no feral bees. That's all I know.

>You live in an agriculture crop area where insecticides are heavily used.

Yes.

>Here in WV there is a limited amount of ag crops grown. This is a heavy forested area for the most part. What agriculture crops grown for the most part is hay, forage and grain to be fed back on the farm. Still we had the same type of honeybee die off as the rest of the country and there hasn't been much of a recovery.

Seems like that happened some places.

>If you make it to HAS this coming July I hope you have a chance to see the state some. I am really curious on how to make small cell work here.

I hope to be there. I have not had to MAKE small cell or natural cell work. It works quite well if you let it.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

>>when Roundup can be added to the seeds, which then most likely end up in the food products we eat in one form or another?


Better brush up on your understanding of Roundup, and its make up.
Then go talk to an agronomist, and learn how it is actuall used for incrop weed control.


----------



## NewBee2007 (May 6, 2007)

Ian,

Thanks for suggesting I clarify what I was trying to say. (It was late and it was not conveyed as correctly as it should have been.) 

The fact remains though that there is a lot of genetic manipulation of foreign materials going on in our foods 
_and very little testing was done prior to releasing RoundUp ready seeds_.

Plus, there are a tremendous amount of synthetic chemicals that we are being exposed to on a daily basis that we probably should not be exposed to. And many chemicals (especially in the case of bees, chemicals such as certain pesticides) are getting released into the environment where they can have negative effects on the organisms in and ecosystems. (Such as the the bees and other pollinators.... as well as birds, earthworms, pets and people, ground and surface waters.)

Regarding clarification of my prior comment_>>when Roundup can be added to the seeds, which then most likely end up in the food products we eat in one form or another?<<<_

The pesticide 'Roundup' works by inhibiting an enzyme that is necessary for the plant to synthesise certain aromatic amino acids, killing the plant. The targeted enzyme is called 5-enolpyruvyl shikimate-3-phosphate synthetase, or EPSPS. The genetic modification in Roundup Ready soybeans involves incorporating a bacterial version of this enzyme, (from Agrobacterium species, strain CP4) into the soybean plant, giving the soybean protection from Roundup. In this way, the soybeans and any weeds can be sprayed with Roundup, killing the weeds and leaving the soybeans. http://www.biotech-info.net/problem_with_soy.html

and here's some other interesting commentary/information regarding GM regulations and testing:

The FDA’s “non-regulation” of GM foods

Genetically modified crops are the result of a technology developed in the 1970s that allow genes from one species to be forced into the DNA of unrelated species. The inserted genes produce proteins that confer traits in the new plant, such as herbicide tolerance or pesticide production. The process of creating the GM crop can produce all sorts of side effects, and the plants contain proteins that have never before been in the food supply. In the US, new types of food substances are normally classified as food additives, which must undergo extensive testing, including long-term animal feeding studies. [4] If approved, the label of food products containing the additive must list it as an ingredient.[4] See Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA)

There is an exception, however, for substances that are deemed “generally recognized as safe” (GRAS). GRAS status allows a product to be commercialized without any additional testing. According to US law, to be considered GRAS the substance must be the subject of a substantial amount of peer-reviewed published studies (or equivalent) and there must be overwhelming consensus among the scientific community that the product is safe. GM foods had neither. Nonetheless, in a precedent-setting move that some experts contend was illegal, in 1992 the FDA declared that GM crops are GRAS as long as their producers say they are. Thus, the FDA does not require any safety evaluations or labels whatsoever. A company can even introduce a GM food to the market without telling the agency.
http://foodconsumer.org/7777/8888/L...Created_Health_Crisis_Circles_the_Globe.shtml

and

_the Food and Drug Administration has declined since 1992 to require that genetically modified food seeds be proved safe for consumption before their release into the food supply. Nor does the FDA require ingredient labels for genetically modified foods. Instead, the agency encourages producers to voluntarily submit safety data. Its rationale is that genetically modified foods are substantially equivalent to their conventionally grown counterparts. In other words, food is food, and according to food and drug law, foods are presumed safe. The flaw in this policy is that the presumption of equivalence does not rest on a substantial body of research comparing genetically modified and conventional foods. Far from being confirmed by extensive research, this presumption is challenged even by the producers themselves, notably in a study that Monsanto conducted on one of its biotech foods. Rather than prove safety, this study raised red flags that should have prompted researchers and the FDA to call for more testing. _
http://users.skynet.be/nwp/FDA Ignored Troubling Data on Monsato.htm

*My intent was just to emphasize that humans have been less than careful and thorough about using chemicals and manipulating foods and that in the end the bees as well as us humans may be experiencing long term negative effects.

Thanks again and I apologize for the mis-stated comment last evening! *


----------



## Keith Benson (Feb 17, 2003)

NewBee2007 said:


> Thanks for suggesting I clarify what I was trying to say. (It was late and it was not conveyed as correctly as it should have been.)



Let us continue in that vein.




> The fact remains though that there is a lot of genetic manipulation of foreign materials going on in our foods.


 
I think I know what you mean, but read at face value the original sentence doesn't actually say much unless I assume I know where you are coming from. We are not so much manipulating the foreign materials as the crops themselves, specifically their genome and subsequent phenotype yes? True we are occasionally altering these "foreign" substances as well, but the premise of GMO doesn't necessarily include that little bit and is really concerned with altering the organism itself.
_



and very little testing was done prior to releasing Round-Up ready seeds.

Click to expand...

_I hear this a lot. What is "very little"? What would be enough? What level of testing would satisfy you as to the safety of this stuff? I ask because the answer is very telling. *Really, if you do nothing else, please answer this question.*

Realize that I am not saying that enough testing has been done, but I think you better have a good idea what "enough" testing is enough, before you suggest that someone else's threshold is inadequate.



> Plus, there are a tremendous amount of synthetic chemicals that we are being exposed to on a daily basis that we probably should not be exposed to.


Indeed. There are a lot of things (chemical and otherwise) we should limit our exposure to, many of them are perfectly natural. Excessive sunlight for instance. If I might ask another question of you: please define a synthetic chemical. Just trying to define terms here, it helps with the communication.


> Regarding clarification of my prior comment_>>when Roundup can be added to the seeds, which then most likely end up in the food products we eat in one form or another?<<<_
> 
> The pesticide 'Roundup' works by inhibiting an enzyme that is necessary for the plant to synthesize certain aromatic amino acids, killing the plant. The targeted enzyme is called 5-enolpyruvyl shikimate-3-phosphate synthetase, or EPSPS. The genetic modification in Roundup Ready soybeans involves incorporating a bacterial version of this enzyme, (from Agrobacterium species, strain CP4) into the soybean plant, giving the soybean protection from Roundup. In this way, the soybeans and any weeds can be sprayed with Roundup, killing the weeds and leaving the soybeans. http://www.biotech-info.net/problem_with_soy.html



Yah yah we get how roundup works, it can be found all over the net and I would bet my 4 year old could likely recite the thing darn close to verbatim. However, how does the above statement clarify the statement that needed clarification? It is more information, but it is not the right information. 

I think you are confusing roundup ready crops with the additions of fungicides and insecticides to seeds. Maybe not, but perhaps you might look into the actual practice of using roundup and compare it to say, Imidacloprid treated seeds, the things that tends to get some beekeepers knickers in a bunch.

If I might make a gentle suggestion, read what you wrote, look into how roundup is used and then try to clarify. I think Ian was right, you have a little research to do. Each of these substances has a very specific action and set of parameters, it helps to be as precise as possible to have a meaningful dialog about them, unless your agenda is to merely suggest that all "chemicals" are bad, in which case meaningful debate is virtually impossible.

*



My intent was just to emphasize that humans have been less than careful and thorough about using chemicals and manipulating foods and that in the end the bees as well as us humans may be experiencing long term negative effects.

Click to expand...

*You may well be right, and I would argue that this is in part because we want cheaper food available at all times of the year and that there is an economic incentive to move people away from food production and into more important things . . . like designing video games, professional sports, lawyerin', you know, all those things that enhance human survivability. Yes I was being sarcastic.

There is a reason the present 

Keith


----------



## mac (May 1, 2005)

Keith, (Yah yah we get how roundup works,) That’s a bit rude don’ you think ??? 
I thought the Beatles reunited. I for one did not know how Round Up works. Now I do. So if the genetic modification in Roundup Ready soybeans involves incorporating a bacterial version of an enzyme, (from Agrobacterium species, strain CP4) into the soybean, Roundup ready crops have been genetically altered, the genes (Levis I presume) that protect the plant from being killed by Roundup must have been inserted into a seed at some point so that the gene would be passed onto successive generations. If the gene has thus been passed on from generation to generation when you eat the seed, you eat the gene. So over time we will all be Roundup ready. I can’t wait. How this will affect human health I don’t think anyone knows. But it must be safe cause they said it is.

(Above statements have been genetically modified with the humor gene.)


----------



## jjgbee (Oct 12, 2006)

I have one hive on large cell pre built comb. The bees have some African genes. They seem content to live on large cell as they have not torn it down. They are hardy, don't tend to swarm. Are a small bit cranky. I have used NO mite treatment for the past three years. Average honey yield is 60 lb yr. Nearest nectar in the past 2 drought years was 1.5 miles down wind. Average summer wind here is 30 mph. This is a torture test for bees and yet they survive. This is an experiment in progress. Forgot to mention screen bottom summer and winter.


----------



## allrawpaul (Jun 7, 2004)

A better question might be; "In what way do you treat or not treat for mites, how successfull is your strategy? What number of mites are currently in your hives?Your mite drop? How does this number change seasonally as you treat or dont treat?" In my case I am in the process of switching to small cell. I monitor levels with screened bottom boards. When I find the drop to be over 10 pr day I fumigate with oxalic crack pipe, three times, at 7 to 8 day intervals. My queens are all first year. I think its pretty successfull as I lost no hives last winter, and If I lose any this winter it will be because I let the numbers build up significantly in late summer before I fogged them., which means their last brood cycles may have been pretty weak. I have a few hives that now have very low mite drops-20 a week or less. Most are between 20 and 60 a week.


----------



## allrawpaul (Jun 7, 2004)

Another important question is how many losses did you suffer from mites before you implemented your new strategy? What do you feel you were doing at that time that let the mites kill your hives? I lost 2 of 3 over the winter before I learned about varoa. I tried apistan for a couple years and still lost 30 %. Never had sbb's, didnt monitor effectively and didnt understand brood cycles or mite cycles and apistan resistance was a factor probably. My queens are all muts and I think we have the bad mites here that prefer to kill their hosts rather than co-exist.


----------



## TwT (Aug 5, 2004)

interesting results, almost as many THAT dont treat TO THOSE that do treat on LC,


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>I have one hive on large cell pre built comb. The bees have some African genes. 

Pre built? Like PermaComb? PermaComb is not large cell. If you take into account the cell wall thickness and the taper of the cell, it comes to about 5.0mm. With small cell at 4.9mm and large cell at 5.4mm that's MUCH closer to small cell.


----------



## Jim Williamson (Feb 16, 2006)

1. I think it is an interesting poll, TXT. I have 15 hives, all on large (regular) cell foundation-based combs. I haven't treated for three years. I lost a hive to simple starvation in early Spring (should have fed them during the first warm spell but didn't ... shame on me). All 15 are one screened bottom boards. I raise my own queens now, but my stock came from four different breeders (three from South Georgia and one from Ohio. My guess is there is little genetic difference in any of them). I requeen when I feel it's necessary, but if a queen is laying a good brood pattern and everything is on the up and up, I let her be. As a fellow beekeeper likes to say at meetings, "If I feel like I've done everything I can to provide for the bees and they die anyway, well, it's their own danged fault." I plan for losses, don't move my hives all over the countryside, and consider myself fortunate when bees come flying out of the hives on a warm day. I still get excited about catching a swarm and I still like to believe the swarm isn't from my own hive. 

2. I don't know how this thread got on Round-Up, but I have no use for the stuff around food crops. Just because "they" are able to coax a corn stalk to stand the stuff doesn't make me want to eat it. Apologies to the Round-Up Ready addicts, but that's the way I see it. Choose your poison.


----------

