# Small Cell Hives Surrounded



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

That's a good report Dennis. I can now rest easier knowing that you have bees again under your care. You not having bees is a wasted talent. Glad you're getting back settled and look forward to reading a page about the bees.


----------



## Jeffrey Todd (Mar 17, 2006)

Hi Dennis,

I was wondering how long those small cell hives have also been untreated. (which makes at least three variables to contend with; cell size, treatment program, migratory vs. stationary) One reason I ask is that my bees are a mix of natural size (whatever the bees choose to construct when I give them the empty frames) and standard or "large cell" from commercial foundation. They have also been untreated chemically for a number of years and continue to thrive, although I do cull out the occasional weaklings. I might add that they do receive a regular infusion of feral bee genes as I do a good number of cut-outs.
In other words, is it the small cell or is it survival of the fittest, or some other factor? 
I have read your webpages and find them to be exceedingly interesting and informative for a relative amateur such as myself.

Thanks,

Jeffrey


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

I heard from many smallcell people right here on Beesource....that mites "level out" within a yard. So I do not understand how mites can be seen only in the regular cell hives, but apparently not in the smallcell hives. No mites even found. Wow! I bet some others with this "leveling out" idea must be scratching thier heads about now. That would mean that the bees are cleaning them off at the door no less. Impressive.

Honey production (for smallcell) was as good as any hives in the yard? Not better? Hmmm.

I also wonder about comb age (Regular hives versus smallcell comb) and contamination. It sounds like a bunch of problems are happening with these hives. "Multiple treatments", outbreaks of AFB (indicating or suggesting anything from old comb to bad genetics), and a host of other issues can really make things questionable.

The comb in this commercial operation is how old? I find that comb can make or break a hive with compounding issues. I'll assume that the smallcell comb was newer or at least not past 9 years old. Can that be said about the commercial regular hives? Which to me at least, must be a chemical dump by now depending upon what "multiple treatments" are being used, factored in with AFB outbreaks, resistance, etc.

I have stated many times my splitting efforts and the different outcomes from hives sitting in the same yard. Seems everything from comb age to queen age can make drastic differences seen. I find the best comparisions are from hives that are the same age queen, the comb is similar (age), etc.

I have smallcell, natural comb, and regular comb hives. Both in seperate apiaries and in combination. I have never seen these type drastic differences before. Of course, I don't treat any of them, genetically they are similar, all the comb is clean, comb is all newer than 5 years, and I don't have AFB problems, etc. So this is interesting to me. I'm thinking that factors are at play that may be causing certain observations. But hopefully we'll see. 

As a side note....Wednesday, the state inspector was around to collect samples for a research project in Belgium. A site with regular comb hives was selected. Comb samples, and bees samples were taken. Mites counts for the two randomly selected hives were.....0 and 2. Not bad for the last week of September, with no treatments, and the hives are at least two years old.

I'll wait for the full report BWrangler, but I will have lots of questions.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

BjornBee said:


> So I do not understand how mites can be seen only in the regular cell hives, but apparently not in the smallcell hives. No mites even found. Wow!


Before a huge debate gets going from this comment, please read what Dennis wrote and don't read into it. He said, "And no visible mites", and then clarified it even more by saying, "I'll return and do a detailed mite count". From a casual observation, Dennis is saying he saw no mites. That's not the same as saying there are no mites. Yet that may be the case in the end. We'll see.


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

Barry said:


> Before a huge debate gets going from this comment, please read what Dennis wrote and don't read into it. He said, "And no visible mites", and then clarified it even more by saying, "I'll return and do a detailed mite count". From a casual observation, Dennis is saying he saw no mites. That's not the same as saying there are no mites. Yet that may be the case in the end. We'll see.



I stand by my comment. It is in fact true he found no mites in the smallcell hives.

You asking people to not read into the comments, but that is in fact what is going on with mine. 

He said he did not see any mites, and I said "No mites even found". Both comments are correct.

This little side-show I'm sure will rage on in this area of comments and based on semantics, and larger questions will no doubt be overlooked, which is usually the case.

Again...he stated "no visible mites" and I stated he said in essence.."No mites even found".

If anything, perhaps more should be obtained prior to giving us half the information and data to play with... 

My comments were in preparations to whatever the answer may be. I have lots of questions concerning the outcome regardless of what it may be. Because regardless of 2 mites or 200 mites found, it says in my opinion, nothing without a more complete picture and history of the hives.

And to make any assumptions based on a number alone, means little of value.

Based on what he finds...I want to know about genetics, mite leveling as claimed by so many right here on beesource, treatment history and comb age, and a host of other things. I hope this is not going to be one of those, "This hive has mites, and this hive does not" and some grand assumptions made due to that simple fact. We may be able to learn much from this.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

BjornBee said:


> And to make any assumptions based on a number alone, means little of value.


That's why I'm putting little value in the assumption you made:

"That would mean that the bees are cleaning them off at the door no less. Impressive."


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

As long as we both have the right to do that, than that's fine. I also realize people do that, I do that, and you also. I however, am not complaining about it.

My assumption was angled that for those who believe that mites "level out", that there must be some explanation on this matter. (I stated that perhaps they are being checked at the door) It had little to do with what Dennis said, and was throwing out the assumption that IF he does not find mites in the small cell hives.....someone's been entirely wrong about "mite leveling", to which I have said repeatedly is bogus.

So...if you want to discount an assumption that I make, and claim "little value", then perhaps it should be in the correct context, with understanding of what the assumption was to begin with. That always helps. But feel free to ad-lib on the matter.

So do tell....and you can make assumptions....if no mites are found, what can you suggest to explain no or even low mite levels, when so many are convinced of "mite leveling"...when it comes to discounting times when mite are relatively the same, such as with Berry’s study. It can not be both ways.


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi Bjorn,

>I heard from many smallcell people right here on Beesource....that mites "level out" within a yard.

And you heard a bit about it from me. And didn't like a word of it :>)))

I haven't counted any mite fall in this yard. Natural mite fall was 1 to 2 mites/week from the small cell hives before they were put in this yard. I suspect it's substantially higher now. But just don't know.

But what I saw indicates small cell hives can handle the mite loads imposed on them by being immersed in a commercial yard infested with mite infected hives. Research shows an average mite immigration of about 14 mites/day/hive in such a situation.

It has already been shown small cell yards can tolerate mites, when mite infested large cell yards are in the area. But is was doubtful, even by small cell beekeepers, that small cell hives could survive in the conditions I've described.

What did I see? Well, those small cell bees are prospering and producing, without treatment, in a situation where the large cell hives require treatment to survive and do the same.

Old comb? Sure. Contaminated comb? I bet. Every kind of vile, nasty pest hauled back from the almonds? Probably haven't left a single one behind including the new nosema cerana(we seen symptoms of it in that same yard).

I'll count a few mites. Make a few comparisons. And share. But the scientific method, I was such a slave to 15 years ago, I'll leave to someone else. I keep bees a different way now.

Regards
Dennis


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi Guys,

I've looked at those small cell hives again. The broodnest was opened up and I searched for mite fecal deposits in the brood comb. None were found. No phoretic mites were seen either. I had enough mite experience to know that this suffices for my mite counting this late in the season.

I'll probably put them on a truck for almonds and see what happens next spring.

I also closely inspected the failed tbh comb as well. The queen failed, as previously stated. No fecal deposits were found in the tbh comb either.

Regards
Dennis


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi Guys,

Back when small cell bashing was popular, some speculated that the results seen by small cell proponents were actually due to some particular or advanced beekeeping skill, isolation, less destructive mites, etc. And if small cell hives were run in a conventional manner and setting they would neither survive nor produce.

Tain't necessarily so. As I've had the chance to observe.

Some additional thoughts on mite 'leveling'. The increases(a ten fold increase in a weeks time) noted in natural mite fall that occurred when I move a heavily mite infested hive into the vicinity of a couple of small cell hives only reflected an increase in natural mite fall.

It is quite possible and I think highly probably, after these observations, that the mites were indeed being handled at the door or at least prevented from renting a room :>)

Regards
Dennis


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

BWrangler said:


> Back when small cell bashing was popular,......
> Dennis


Things have changed. I remember those days too! Today, it seems there are so many people having success without smallcell, the weekly regiment of FGMO, [edit by mod], that it seems even mentioning smallcell as some "savior" to beekeeping is not worth the time. 

It is a shame that here is another situation thrown out for us, that has been presented as one way or another, yet age of comb, pesticide use, and other issues have already been mentioned as possibly being at play.

I have inspected both large and smallcell hives for years. Smallcell alone is not the magic bullet. 

Why anyone has issues and claims of mite infested large cell, for me anyways, is a real shame. Not sure if there are reasons for it or not. But for me, mites are not an issue with the right bees, and the right management, regardless of smallcell or natural cell, or standard cell.

When so many people are having success with so many ways of keeping bees, I find this smallcell approach and promotion as "old" as those days you mention "back when". It's time has passed.

BTW....checking mites at the door or having them groom mites off after they fail to "rent a room"...is not what smallcell claims have been over the years. It's a nice observation. But that is a behavior trait that any bees can be bred for. Grooming behavior and mite fall is not the same and should not be seen or compared to the action and mechanism associated with smallcell. I know some suggest that having bees on smallcell will "magically" make them better in ways just not understood. Whatever. I'm just suggesting that many bees are great at grooming and hygienic behavior, and it appears to me on the surface that the bees are somewhat different between the smallcell hives and the standard hives. But nothing clearly has been demonstrated that its cell size alone, and other factors already admitted have not been eliminated.

As for the 10 fold increase in mites, I can show you many studies and graphs that show a huge increase in mites in September. Not knowing if your mite increase was from internal manufacture or outside influence, observations can be worthless. You need to know if the mites are from the smallcell hives with cell counting, etc. But at this point, to automatically assign this seen increase to mite leveling, is somewhat questionable.

I do know that with the same genetics in my different hives, that similar results and mite levels are seen. But as already noted, everything from comb age to queens used are the same.

Of course I would expect differences, when you take a group of smallcell hives (or any hives) that are with different genetics, comb age, contamination levels, etc., and place them into a yard of commercial hives that are different genetics, have comb contamination, and other issues at play. No surprise to me. I have seen this many times. I do not doubt what you are seeing. I just view it differently.

I just wish that so many variable would not be at play, and a more clear conclusion or "suggestion" could be had by your situation. And I wish instead of finding a reason for promoting smallcell, you could also have healthy bees on standard cells. I know many people are doing that.


----------



## stangardener (Mar 8, 2005)

bwrangler,
thank you for the update. as always it is appreciated.


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi Bjorn and Everyone,

>It is a shame that here is another situation thrown out for us, that has been presented as one way or another, yet age of comb, pesticide use, and other issues have already been mentioned as possibly being at play.

I don't see it as a shame, but rather a real world test with all the variables, relationships and conditions intact. In a migratory operation with thousands of hives, it would be impossible to get a beeyard with every hive in the same state. Comb age, genetics, etc. are as variable as can be imagined. But that variability exposed the small cell hives to the best, worst and probably the most variable conditions as possible.

>Why anyone has issues and claims of mite infested large cell, for me anyways, is a real shame. Not sure if there are reasons for it or not. But for me, mites are not an issue with the right bees, and the right management, regardless of smallcell or natural cell, or standard cell.

I'm back working with commercial bees again and mites, their treatment, the attendant fallout problems with contaminated comb/equipment, queen supercedure and mating problems are very real. In fact, the problems are worse than ever with most commercial beekeepers treating almost continuous with a variety of barnyard concoctions.

If I understand correctly, you aren't having any mite problems running your bees without treatments? That's great if correct. Or have I misunderstood? Do you treat your bees with pesticides to control mites? Is that part of the 'right management'?

>BTW....checking mites at the door or having them groom mites off after they fail to "rent a room"...is not what smallcell claims have been over the years. It's a nice observation. But that is a behavior trait that any bees can be bred for.

I sure it can be bred for. And maybe one of these days breeding may produce a mite tolerant bee. Anyone want to start, fund and maintain such a program? They've been trying that in Europe for more than a decade and have achieved some limited success.

But I've been able to take readily available US bee stock and get that hygienic behavior by placing those same bees on small. And I've been able to get it 100% of the time without any long term breeding or maintenance programs. Back to the old days. Remember all the discussions on bald headed brood? By now it's old hat with small/natural cell beekeepers. But it's a new thing to shoot for those with the breeding focus. If you're one of them. Good luck. 

Many have gone down the breeding/selection route in the US. Some have achieved limited success. But mite tolerance seems to have alluded most with most efforts fizzling after a half dozen years or less.

>And I wish instead of finding a reason for promoting smallcell, you could also have healthy bees on standard cells. I know many people are doing that.

Actually, I'm not promoting small cell. After hearing about the many people running healthy large cell bees without treating. I wondered if I had misconstrued some of my small cell observations. So, I put bees from mite tolerant, small cells hive back into clean, large cell sized comb hives. And I ran them in the same yard and the same way as the small cell hives. Those large cell hives all developed PMS and would have perished at the end of the second season while all the small cell hives remained mite tolerant. See:

http://bwrangler.litarium.com/un-regressed-bees/ 

A little more information concerning mite 'leveling'. The mite drop I shared occurred June.

I much prefer the term immigration to leveling, as leveling, to me implies that the natural mite fall in the highly infested hives would decrease and in the clean hives would increase. Mites readily immigrate from infested hives to clean hives. Studies show it's about 14 mites/day. Natural mite fall in a clean hive would increase, especially if the bees in the clean hives were effective at grooming them off. But I doubt that a heavily infested hive's natural mite fall would should any discernible decrease, as the mite load would continue to increase.

I confess I haven't kept up on the 'new' mite stuff. The 'old' stuff was working beyond expectation. It's continued to work with no effort or expense. And I just didn't need to be informed of the latest stuff. That is until I started working with some commercial guys again. They wanted to know about the latest stuff and I had to get with it to find out about it myself. 

What did I find? Other than some research concerning mite pathogens, there's absolutely nothing new in the treatments end. In fact, the US is still at least a decade behind Europe and hasn't profited from their experience. Some researchers are now call for abandoning treatments. Back in the old days, when I did that, I was labeled a menace(one of the better names).

Those of us who embarked on the no treatment approach speculated that beekeepers running on the pesticide treadmill would eventually have contaminated hives incapable of rearing healthy bees. And product contamination resulting in honey testing and a multi-tiered honey market at best. Or the destruction of honey's healthy image at worst.

Well, I know of a large commerical beekeeper who rotates 1/3 of his outfit for sale every year. It's necessary to maintain bee health in his operation. He finds this approach more economical that replacing contaminated frames/equipment. Anyone need some very good looking, almost new hives?

Anyone notice that honey has been added to the commodities mandatory testing list by the government? Or that the same government agency has found pesticide levels in beehive pollen that exceeds those allowed in food products?

Enough typing. There's 10" of snow on the ground. And I'm glad I don't have to worry about mites, treatments, etc. Or I would have missed that beautiful time on the mountain.
For me, all this mite stuff is old hat. That's why I called these observations "Small Cell - The End's in Sight"

Regards
Dennis


----------



## doc25 (Mar 9, 2007)

Hi bwrangler, I've been reading your site and find it interesting. I'm in Saskatchewan now so am sharing the same snow today. Interested to know what is your favourite hive? I'm going to be a new beek and reading your site has left me a few questions. I'm thinking straight sided tbh right now. Your opinions? I thought you were in Florida?


----------



## Jack Weston (Jan 13, 2008)

I have transitioned all my hives to small cell and do not treat. However, this year I was reading through George Imirie's "Pink Pages" and decided to treat for Nosema. I am wondering if you have ever treated your small cell colonies for Nosema or is it not a problem in your area?


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi Guys,

Favorite hive? I'm pondering that same question. My small cell hive woodenware is on its last legs. Nine years and dry rot has just about done them in. A couple of the deeps are little more than some charcoal colored wood held together by some great looking paint. I was quite surprised when I poked one with a hive tool and had to patch the hole by jamming it full of beeswax from some old tbh comb.

And it's time to replace that old small cell comb. I got enough small cell stuff to replace the small cell hives. And it would be interesting to see if they draw out small cell foundation the same way they did in the beginning. Or whether they will follow the Lusbee scheme. 

I've got a couple of empty top bar hives and would like to try a couple of vertical tbhs. Maybe I'll just shake the bees out and be done with Lang equipment altogether.
So, I'm still pondering. Will make a decision by next spring.

Concerning nosema, I haven't ever treated these hives for nosema. I've seen nosema and treated for it when I kept commercial bees. I've seen signs of the new nosema cerana in a couple of the hives in the same yard my small cell hives are located. The large cell hives in that yard have been dosed with fumidil.

Prophylactic treatments were the norm when I kept commercial bees. But I've abandoned that concept and would only treat now when a problem exists.

Regards
Dennis


----------



## JWG (Jun 25, 2004)

*no treatments...*

So I for one still am wondering: How do large outfits such as Weavers maintain their operations with "no treatments?" I don't imagine they are on SC or natural comb. Can anyone shed light on this?


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

JWG said:


> So I for one still am wondering: How do large outfits such as Weavers maintain their operations with "no treatments?" I don't imagine they are on SC or natural comb. Can anyone shed light on this?


:shhhh: There are many ways to control mites when you are constantly requeening, doing splits, etc. There are articles that touch base on such items like the "outbreeding mites" article.

ANYONE can claim no treatments. Just don't ask them to comment on losses. If a person loses 60% every year, but yet says he does not treat, and nothing more is added....sounds great huh?

I can not speak for Weavers. But the marketing ploys, half-truths, and selection of words to be used, paint pictures sometimes very different than reality.

And who says all these people are telling the truth anyways? Are they ever going to assume anyone will test their comb or queens for residue or contamination? I do not think so.

With all that said....I can show you smallcell, natural, and normal comb hives that are great and need no treatments. But I can also show you the opposite with all three combs being used.

First step for any of the above to be successful, may very well be clean comb. It's no coincidence that some who try smallcell or natural comb see huge improvements when they get those bees off the bad comb and quit using chems in the hives. This is one of the points I made earlier in questioning the reasoning of the commenting on smallcell bees that had Dennis' genetics and comb, while comparing them to commercial older comb with great contamination. You need look no further for some of this success as bees will be healthier and fend off disease and pests with the pressure of poisoning lifted off their backs.


----------



## stangardener (Mar 8, 2005)

BWrangler said:


> Hi Guys,
> And it's time to replace that old small cell comb. I got enough small cell stuff to replace the small cell hives. And it would be interesting to see if they draw out small cell foundation the same way they did in the beginning. Or whether they will follow the Lusbee scheme.
> 
> what is following the lusbee scheme? would this be drawing out the 4.9 foundation
> ...


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

JWG said:


> How do large outfits such as Weavers maintain their operations with "no treatments?"


"Over a decade ago Bee Weaver Apiaries began selecting breeders for queen production from colonies that did not need any varroa or tracheal mite treatments. Now, for years our 5000+ colonies used in queen and honey production have not needed any treatment for mites. We are not saying infrequent treatment with only approved acaricides, we mean NO CHEMICAL TREATMENT for Mites. None, Zero, Zilch, Nada. Even when treating colonies purchased from other beekeepers which were headed by non-Bee Weaver Queens, th only treatment needed was requeening with BEE WEAVER QUEENS. Our queens pull colonies out of the downward spiral which varroa mites cause."

http://www.beeweaver.com/home.php?cat=1


----------



## BjornBee (Feb 7, 2003)

Barry,
I have heard and read, many, many people who have used FGMO, smallcell, and other approaches. If I asked for testimony from those who use smallcell, or even russians, I am sure that there would be those that have success on some level.

But, I have never read a thread here about those buying Weaver queens, and having all mite issues cleared up, after installing their queens. 

So I ask, How many have had their mite issues cleared completely that no further treatment is ever used again?

And, has anyone ever done a study on such claims?

I find it interesting they do not make the claim of other beekeepers who have never had to treat. They only speak of hives they bought, requeened, and managed themselves. Which tends to make me think that there is more to the marketing story than being told.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

I didn't make the claim about Weavers, just passed on what they say as to how they don't treat. People already know about my untreated bees.


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi Stangardener and Everyone,

When I originally regressed my hives, the best of them, the Russians, would draw out 40% to 60% of the small cell foundation acceptably. The rest of the small cell foundation, they messed up by reworking to a larger size.

The Lusbee's postulated that the bees would get better at it over time and then draw it out almost 100%. That had been their experience, which they attributed to better adapted small cell bees. I think the influx of African genetics probably had alot more to do with it.

I now have a different definition of what 'acceptable' and 'natural' is. But this would be a good opportunity to see what would happen. 

On another note, I've had a little experience concerning some of the Weaver's stock. A decade before going treatment free with small cell in 2000, I embarked on a breeding/selection program to find a mite resistant stock. I obtained queens from just about every available source in the US. And I started counting mites, looking for mite damage, etc.

The best of the bunch was the Weaver's Harbo line. And overall it was the best bee for my climate. Their mite counts were consistently a magnitude below the others, including the best of my own selected from about 4000 hives. And it formed the basis for my breeding attempts. 

I bought a Russian breeder queen when the Russians were first released. Their mite count was consistently a magnitude below the Harbo line. Russians cross Harbo F1 queens were my first small cell bees.

When I requeened my small cell hives, I again used a variety of sources and found they all tolerated mites when on small cell. But the Harbo was just a much better bee for my location and they were the foundation for the mutts I run today.

Regards
Dennis


----------



## Flewster (Nov 3, 2003)

As I read this I see two sides forming and one will not accept the results of beekeepers no matter what is said.........I am not a scientist nor do I claim to be a bee expert either............all I know is what I have observed with my own bees...........

I regressed three hives (random picked)......I put 10 frames of 4.9mm foundation in from dadant and put on the feeders.......when they had drawn that out I put in 10 fresh frames of 4.9mm foundation and when drawn out I put on another hive body of 4.9mm and let them draw that out moving frames around to equalize it being drawn...........that was 5 years ago.........

We do natural requeening by killing the old queen and letting them raise new ones.......we do this early spring after drones appear and all 50 hives are still in our winter yard (by the house).........

After 5 years of no mite treatment all three hives are still strong (one is the strongest of all our hives) and consistantly produce just as much honey as any hive treated with conventional mite treatments..............

Mites are present but there is no collapse nor is there any malformed bees as has happened with "regular" hives..........we did leave three "regular" hives untreated and all three died of mites.............

So in "MY" opinion and "MY" expierement I BELIEVE in the value of 4.9mm foundation and plan on transforming all our hives in time.........

SO to you unbelievers you can kiss my rear and keep your head in the sand because I BELIEVE and I KNOW it works..........no matter what us "unscientific and untrained dummies" do you will NEVER believe us so go away and keep you comments to yourself and let us that do believe and KNOW it works trade ideas with others that do............


----------



## Baloo (Feb 28, 2006)

Part of what you are doing to combat the mites is to break the brood cycle (by killing the queen). This limits the growth of the varroa population. John Conner recommends it in 'Bee Sex Essentials'. I have had hives with mites and very little stores stop laying in the winter (in TX). I thought they were doomed, when they exploded the following spring, with no mites to be seen. I don't mean to sound like a non-believer on natural and small cell (I have been foundationless for a long time). I just wanted to emphasize this point about breaking the brood cycle.


----------



## Flewster (Nov 3, 2003)

Yes I do understand about breaking the brood cycle and the effect it will have on mites. But we treat all our hives the same in that respect and the ones on small cell (4.9mm) still do not require any treatment. I know that their drones are flying sooner than the others and IF it had to do with genetics then that shoold be bleeding over to the other hives but that has yet to be seen...............Like I said, you don't have to believe in it, or in what us are doing it believe, but I know what I see and what I expierence. I know it works. I know that I will convert and continue this to my production hives. It is fine with me if you want to keep the chemicals in your hives and feed that to your children and grandchildren that that is your decision............I want my honey to be pure and chemical free so that is the direction I am heading...........and soon I will be able to lable my honey as such!!!! Can you??

Wayne


----------



## J-Bees (Jul 12, 2008)

BW:

sure must be nice out there, 5 people per Sq. mile:}:}

what does land cost out that way??


JB:}


----------



## Baloo (Feb 28, 2006)

I have never used chemicals or "treatments" of any kind. Ever. I have only used foundation my first two years of beekeeping. Foundation is probably the greatest introuducer of chemicals into the hive. From what I have read all commercial foundation contains pesticide or miticide residues. Are there any chem-free producers of small cell foundation? I am on your side here. Have you tried using foundationless frames before? They can get tangled a bit from time to time but they are not that hard to work with and save money.


----------



## Musashi (Dec 5, 2008)

.......


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi JB,

There's not very many people per square mile. But the environment is much more harse and most land is marginally habitable as it lacks water. And it's not worth much.

Where's there's water and a view, the land is very precious and expensive. When I was a child, families like the Rockefeller's, Studebaker's, Disney's, etc owned that kind of land. Today the multi-billionaire investment banker types have chased out those multi-millionaires. And other millionaires have swarmed over the most of the remaining land with water and bought it up.

Regards
Dennis


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

No offense to either BWrangler or BjornBee, but I'd like to know how some of the rest of you square the apparent contradiction that Bjorn pointed out between these observations and the scientific studies to date. The studies by Berry, remember, actually showed a greater number of mites (but not significantly different as an infestation rate) in small cell hives, and the claim was made that drifting by workers "leveled" the mite populations.

Also, by my calculations, if the "14 mites per day" coming into "clean" hives is accurate (I'd like the citation for that figure, if possible), and we start with an assumption of 10 percent of bees from an infested hive carrying phoretic mites, then that would mean a drift of at least 140 bees per day per hive. And that still assumes that every mite on those bees switches onto bees from the initial hive almost immediately. If the transfer rate is lower -- say 10 percent per day -- then that number of drifters quickly moves up to 1400 bees per hive per day. And that's a significant percentage of a hive.

Doing detailed, frequent counts on hives, I see little evidence of "leveling out," or "reinfestation," or whatever you wish to call it.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not bashing "small cell" here. Just trying to point out that some of the claims still don't square.


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi Kieck,

I'd hoped some other beekeepers would have some actual experience to share. But I think we've scared them off. :>)

>Also, by my calculations, if the "14 mites per day" coming into "clean" hives is accurate (I'd like the citation for that figure, if possible)

I'd like to give the citation, but tossed all my mite files some years ago. It's a figure I've written down and used. But don't have the citation. Sorry.

If I recall correctly the actual figure was 11 to 14 mites/day immigration. It was a popularized report done by a least one university and I think, the ARS, to study mite reproduction rates. I'm sure it wasn't too popular with most beekeepers, as it was about 1/3 bees and 2/3 statistical modeling. Mite immigration was a side benefit used to explained some of the discrepancies in the data.

It was published in last decade in the American bee mags, the ABJ I think.

Maybe I could find it on the internet. But I'm stuck at 28800bps and will leave that to others who have faster connections and access to the inter-library loan systems that are common at most universities.

>Doing detailed, frequent counts on hives, I see little evidence of "leveling out," or "reinfestation," or whatever you wish to call it.

I'm always surprised by this statement. If it was so hard to get mites from one hive to another in the same yard, imagine what how hard it would be to get them from one yard to another, one state to another, and one country to another. If so, it would be mites, no problem man, as the contain them and kill them strategy should easily work.

Yet that's not been the historical case at all. Finding the first few mites, in a single hive, in one country, strikes terror in that beekeeping community and brings about a massive response from the governments involved. Laws are changed. Migration is restricted. Hives are destroyed. Treatments are employed. And yet, despite all man's efforts, the mite quickly spreads!

>Also, by my calculations, if the "14 mites per day..."

In a natural setting and under normal circumstances, it's probably tough to routinely get a lot of bees into each other's hives. Maybe it's a factor as to why some feral hives are survivors. 

But in a beeyard, with it's many hives and frequent disturbances, it's very common and easy to cause drifting. Drones freely drift. Wind and weather cause drift, as does any disturbance that causes bees to re-orient. And weak, possibly mite infected hives are easy prey for robbers from adjacent hives. 

Jerry B, in Montana, once displayed bee flight data from a yard of computerized beehives on his website. It was most interesting to watch the drift before a storm or during a disturbance.

Lets take the 1400 bee figure. Initially sounds like a lot. But lets pull that 1400 bees from 30 beehives in a beeyard. That's 46 bees per hive per day.

At the 140 bee figure, that's 5 bees per hive per day.

Now let's take a look at the average number of forages per hive. Multiply that by the average number of flights per day(usually about 1 per hour). And then figure what population those 5 to 46 bees/hive need to come from. Less see that's about....Nah I let someone else do that. :>)))

I do know that while counting pollen loads, in the early spring, an average hive can easily get 5 bees per second returning. I'll bet a mid-season hive could easily get twice that amount.

>Just trying to point out that some of the claims still don't square.

Square with what or with who? ;>) Contradictory scientific studies and experience exist for just about everything. But that's not all bad. For me, it's been the catalyst that spurred me on for a deeper look. First at conventional beekeeping and then at small cell.

One thing I do know. 

In my own testing, large cell hives, left untreated in my small cell yard, would have all succumbed to varroa in two seasons. Yet the small cell hives thrived without treatments and dropped few mites.

And my small cell hives, left untreated in a commercial large cell yard, thrived without any visible phoretic mites for two seasons. Yet the large cell hives there, were heavily infected with varroa, phoretic mites were visible, and those large cell hives required continuous treatment to survive.

One question I have is why Berry's study is so different from the actual conditions so many small cell beekeepers have experienced around the world. It's a rhetorical question as my beekeeping is no longer concerned with the if's on this matter.

Regards and Merry Christmas
BWrangler


----------



## TwT (Aug 5, 2004)

BWrangler said:


> Hi Kieck,
> 
> One question I have is why Berry's study is so different from the actual conditions so many small cell beekeepers have experienced around the world. It's a rhetorical question as my beekeeping is no longer concerned with the if's on this matter.
> 
> ...


and one thing to remember is she got these SC hives from Bill Owens, these hives were on SC for years, its not like they aren't regressed already, they survived and I believe they were mutts he got from removals (can't say for sure but knowing Bill they are) , she still has them I think, so we will have to see what the second year studies show, should not be to long.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

TwT said:


> and one thing to remember is she got these SC hives from Bill Owens, these hives were on SC for years,


Actually half of the bees were from Bill's small cell yards. One trial yard used 'unregressed' bees with already drawn comb and the second yard used Bill's bees with foundation.

By the way, I saw an abstract (I haven't read the entire article) from the latest Journal of Apicultural Research titled 'The effect of honey worker brood cell size on Varroa destructor infestation and reproduction.'

From the abstract:
'The "foundation" cell size had no significant effect on reproductive success of V. destructor '
It goes on to say that the number of cells infested with adult female mites was significantly higher in the 4.8mm cells.

The study was conducted by some folks at the Horticulture and Food Research Institute of NZ (New Zealand)


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

beemandan said:


> The study was conducted by some folks at the Horticulture and Food Research Institute of NZ (New Zealand)



The last study they did was laughable.

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

Wonder if they've changed.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

let's look at that abstract closely:


> The effect of honey bee (Apis mellifera) worker brood cell size on cell infestation and reproductive success of Varroa destructor in New Zealand was determined by establishing ten nucleus colonies with mosaic frames, each consisting of cells drawn from five different foundation sizes. When the brood were 18-20 days old, 1636 cells were individually uncapped and the number of adult and deutonymph female mites were recorded. The internal width of each brood cell was also measured. The data were analysed according to the imprint size of the "foundation" specified by the supplier, and the "measured" internal width of each individual drawn brood cell. The "foundation" cell size had no significant effect on the reproductive success of V. destructor, but the proportion of cells that were infested by adult female mites was significantly different. A significantly higher proportion of the cells drawn from the 4.8 mm imprint "foundation" were infested compared to those of the other sizes. "Measured" brood cell size had no significant effect on mite reproduction or infestation.


1. nuc colonies are not established colonies...studies done using nuc colonies may well not extrapolate into full sized established colonies.

2. "mosaic frames" of 5 different foundation sizes are not a situation one is likely to find either in nature, or in a kept bee hive.

3. is drone size foundation one of the "5" sizes used? if not (and i expect not), what we have is a nuc full of frames that consist of 5 different "worker sized" drawn foundation...and no drone cells. again, this is so far from a real world situation that i'm not sure how applicable the data here is.

4. note: read the end carefully....they evaluated based both on foundation size (as spec'd my the manufacturer...not as measured by the researchers!) and on actual measurements of the brood cells. read carefully! they report a "significant" increase in infestation (not reproduction) in the smaller imprint size (again, based on the claims of the manufacturer, not based on actual measurment!), but "Measured" brood cell size had no significant effect on mite reproduction or infestation."

i'd like to read the full paper...but the abstract gives us some clues.

i have no data to support this, but it is claimed by some that the manufacturers of sc foundation use "cleaner" wax for this foundation, as it is often going to beekeepers that don't use treatments. if this is true, is it possible that mites were more attracted to the comb built on sc foundation because it lacked contamination? ...seems possible to me, and it would explain the difference seen between "foundation imprint size" and "cell size".

how would the results have changed if there were 10% drone comb present?

how would the results have changed if all the foundation were milled from the same "clean" wax?

how did the spec'd foundation size relate to the measured foundation size? how did these relate to drawn comb size?

to my reading, it seems that the foundation was "drawn", and then cut apart and made into "mosaic frames". what was the size of the bees doing the drawing? were the bees doing the drawing treated? what was the relationship between actual foundation size and the drawn comb size.

the abstract does not even claim that the finished comb was of different sizes...or even that the different sized foundations measured differently.

if anyone has a copy of the full study, i'd love to read it.

deknow


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

ahhh...the same study barry (as it seems unlikely that 2 separate studies would both look at 1636 individual cells).

note:


> The South Canterbury branch supplied the 5.1mm and 5.4mm foundation, the
> 4.7mm foundation was obtained from South Africa and the 4.8mm and 5.0mm
> foundations from the United States. All international shipments were
> irradiated on arrival.


and


> Table 1. Percentage of varroa infestation and reproduction in A. mellifera
> worker brood cells drawn from 4.7 to 5.4mm foundations.
> 
> % infested cells:
> ...


so,
highest percentage of infested cells were from the foundation from the united states

highest number of adults per infested cell was highest in the foundation from the united states

offspring per adult did not correlate directly with foundation from the u.s., but comes close.

%cells without offspring was again highest in foundation from the u.s.

no data is supplied wrt the actual comb cell size.

methinks that analysis of the foundation (and the drawn comb) for contaminants would be an important next step.

deknow


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

...and who in the u.s. sells (or supplies) 4.8mm foundation?

deknow


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi Guys,

The thinking, by many with little or no small cell experience, at the time of the NZ study, was that if cell size had any effect, it would affect mite behavior. So, that's what it focused on. And it's not a bad approach from that perspective.

But others like myself, Barry, Erik O. and Thomas observed a much more complicated relationship that focused on the change in bee behavior and not only on the mites themselves. That change was seasonal, with dramatic behavior differences at the beginning and end of the season. And those changes in behavior became stronger and more efficient during the following seasons, as if the bees were learning and passing on that learning to subsequent generations of bees.

That was heretical thinking a decade ago. But with the recently emerging concepts of the superorganism, it's collective intelligence, and combining that with epigenetic like changes now being documented by geneticists, maybe some of those observations weren't as foolish as many 'informed beekeepers' thought.

And this new information has caused me to go back and look at some of the robotic like concepts I've held about genetics. Maybe I've have to tweak my concepts of comb building a little ;>) If it turns out that cell size can induce a 'cell size memory', something my previous observations failed to show, then I'll need to get back on the regression bandwagon.

I've got a little test coming up next season. I'm going to replace all the small cell comb in my hives, as it's now three times past its useful life. If those bees draw out the small cell foundation as they did before, with about 4 to 6 frames of small cell foundation accepted and the rest reworked to a larger size. I'll stick to my understanding of cell size memory and broodnest structure.

But if those same bees accept the foundation and draw it out readily, like most bees draw out large cell size foundation, then I'll need to regress myself :>)))

Regards
BWrangler


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

deknow said:


> ahhh...the same study barry (as it seems unlikely that 2 separate studies would both look at 1636 individual cells).


Yep, it looks like the same study that Barry linked. The Journal of Apicultural Research is a respected, peer reviewed, scientific journal. I guess they missed the humor.


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi Guys,

The effects of foundation contamination are very interesting. When mites first arrived here, almost 20 years ago, 2 to 4ppm fluvalinate would kill them. A few years after treatments began, it wasn't uncommon to find 20ppm in the foundation. And one study found that, in some instances, mites were actually held in check by the contaminated foundation. Others speculated about the effect.

Responding to that report. A prominent foundation manufacture stated that only imported African beeswax was used for thin section foundation. And latter for small cell foundation.

Following studies indicated that, a decade later, it took about 20ppm to kill a mite and wax was even more contaminated.

I stopped following the data after that. But I'm sure things haven't gotten any better since then. Maybe, in areas newly infested by varroa, a strip of foundation, produced where mites have been selectively breed for pesticide tolerance, would be a good mite treatment all by itself.

For those that must treat, contaminated foundation wax could be seen as an added benefit! I can see it now:

"Why buy Lowcon foundation at only 20ppm fluvalinate when you can get Hicon Plus Stealth. It contains 200ppm fluvalinate! That's ten times what you get from the wimpy competition. And for no additional cost Hicon will give you 100ppm Amitraz, 50ppm Comouphos, 25ppm Fipronil and at least two of the stealth ingredients that not even the researchers know about, but are routinely used by only the biggest and best beekeepers."

"And as an added bonus, for orders placed during the holiday season, we'll include a free bonus offer of 50 ppm essential oil of your choice. You can smell the difference." 

"Don't wait. Order today. Treat your bees. Treat yourself. Treat your family. And treat your customers to the difference only Hicon Plus Stealth can provide."

Regards
BWrangler
I obviously have too much time on my hands :>)))


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

BWrangler said:


> I obviously have too much time on my hands :>)))


I was thinking the same thing about myself. Except it came across in my mind as 'what the heck am I doing here at this computer when I've got x, y, z etc etc yet to do.'


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi Beemandan,

I've taken a little break from the computer. Snow is horizontal here. And there are 2" waves in the toilet.

Thinking I'm getting a little warmth from my old tube type monitor. Must find it comforting knowing that I must soon leave and start my driving job this afternoon.

Take Care and Keep Warm
BWrangler


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

I'm still curious about a potential explanation here on this thread:

Berry (not to be confused with Barry) found no significant difference in the numbers of mites in "small cell" and "commercial cell" treatments. The claim was that "mites leveled," and the "SC" hives would have to be kept in isolation for the size of the cells to make a discernible (statistically significant) difference.

And BWrangler reports (and I'm not doubting the report, here, Dennis, so please don't take offense by this) now that "SC" colonies -- or perhaps "natural cell size colonies" would be more accurate? -- in Wyoming surrounded by "LC" or "commercial size" hives have no apparent mites.

Why would one example be prone to drifting, while the other is not?


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

BWrangler said:


> Regards
> BWrangler
> I obviously have too much time on my hands :>)))


It's about time!! Welcome back my friend!


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi Kieck,

What I think my surrounded small cell hives are doing is handling their own mite load and the immigrant mites from the surrounding hives. How many mites are immigrant and are there enough of them to affect a leveling(I think not) I'll leave to others.

But I will propose a test. Take a heavily mite infected yard and put a half dozen clean, mite free large cell hives in there. Leave the mite free hives untreated. And manage them all the same in every other aspect. Come back two years later and compare the mite loads for each group.

Kieck, I understand that other perspective. My observations could lead to the conclusion that mite immigration isn't a problem. However, when I surrounded clean, large cell hives with my small cell hives, those large cell hives would have perished during the same time frame without treatments.

I'll let Berry's study stand by itself. By itself, it's a good start. It matches what most small cell beekeepers see during their first season. But is far from definitive at this stage and has a ways to go. I think she and her small cell beekeeping friend must have seen something that warranted further investigation or she wouldn't be using her time, energy, and money to embarrass her friend.

I always welcome another set of eyes. For they might see something I've missed or see it in a different way. Who knows, maybe we'll all get a surprise that will help us be better beekeepers.

Kieck, how are your small cell hive studies going? Have you counted a bazillion mites yet? :>)

Regards
Dennis


----------



## yoyo (Jun 13, 2007)

Dennis, I spent much of last night reading your website and I would like to thank you for sharing you experiences with us. I do have a question or two that I need clarifying. You state in several plaves that you have abandoned small cell beekeeping. You also state in several places that larger cell hives would die without treatment in yards where small cell, regressed bees would flourish. You also state that you see no difference in the size of large cell raised bees versus small cell raised bees, except seasonal differences. Just when I was convinced to try small cell foundation, you let the bomb drop. I understand that your experiments and beliefs changed during the course of your works. So if I have paid attention, then I should be correct in stating that you have experimented enough to see that neither large cell, nor small cell is the answer and that bees use a balance of each to forfill thier immediate needs, ie...natural cell. I also think that everything in nature has a balance, even to the smallest of things.To the bee, it seems there are lots of balances and its all about the timing (another thread maybe).
My question is this, how does one manage Langstroth hives using natural cell? It seems the whole purpose in the Langstroth design goes against the concept of natural cell, so how do you accomplish this? Also, how do you rotate out old comb? TBH do not seem like an effective answer for operations with more than just a few hives. I do believe you have done your part in trying to understand the ways of the bee. I compare your work with the likes of Smith, Huber, Doolittle, and Langstroth. I was astounded when I read Huber's work and the fact that they would actually count every single bee in a hive, or spend days watching a queen cell just to see the queen emerge, or build a big glass cage around a hive to try and witness the mating of a queen. I get so much more out of reading about the failures as opposed to just reading the end results. Thank you for sharing this with us, not only you , but all the others whom have taken thier time to carry the torch and share thier experiences with the rest of us.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

yoyo,

if you read langstroth carefully, you will see that his original frames were foundationless frames.

deknow


----------



## yoyo (Jun 13, 2007)

It is interesting that we re-invent the wheel sometimes without knowing it.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

And yet going foundationless in a Langstroth does require some caution. Removed frames must be returned to their original position. Removing frames for splits and replacing them with foundationless frames can result in an 'inappropriate' nest structure. For example, foundationless frames put into the center of a brood nest in early spring, in my experience, resulted, almost exclusively, in frames drawn with drone cells. Not something that is good, in my opinion again, in the center of a brood nest for the entire season.
Folks often say that the bees know whats best. I think in nature thats probably true. In a natural cavity, once the nest is built it remains in that configuration for the rest of the colony's existance. Comb from the center of the brood nest doesn't typically disappear and have to be replaced.
I think the concept of foundationless is good but management requires careful attention to the nests' architecture.....and should be used after the beekeeper has a very good understanding of how a healthy nest is organized.
All of which is my opinion only and certain to draw some contradictory ideas.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

Dennis (BWrangler),

I appreciate your response, I really do. See, while you and I might not see eye-to-eye on everything, you take a reasoned, moderate approach to this stuff. At least in my opinion, you do.

The reason that I suggest that "mite leveling" probably doesn't work out so well is that I can have multiple large cell hives sitting side by side with statistically significantly different mite loads, and those differences in mite loads can remain significantly different in the same ways over years. I've measured that. Hopefully, I can brush up the data from that pretty soon and maybe submit for publication. It should be worth publishing, I think.

The rest of the study is progressing very, very slowly. And I haven't counted a bazillion mites yet. I wish I had (sounds wierd, doesn't it?). My biggest problem is getting hives to a point where _Varroa_ are a big enough problem to start seeing a difference. Who cares whether SC or LC hives have more mites when we're talking about infestations below 3 percent? At those levels, mites are not an issue.


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi Kieck, 

That's almost a mirror image of my small cell experience. After seeing the brood cleansing, mite biting, etc. at the end of the first season, I bought a digital camera and planned to document that behavior. But mite levels dropped within the same range as your hives and stayed there.

Some hives had double the mite load of others, but were still below 5%. Mite cleansing still occurred. I'd see evidence of a few uncapped cells in the mite trays, occasionally. But nothing dramatic. Nothing to photograph. And no astounding mite count comparisons. I couldn't even find enough mites to get a good photo of a chewed up one!

So, I built a top bar hive. Took my new digital camera. And got myself into trouble :>)))

Concerning mite leveling, the rate of mite increase due to immigration versus mite reproduction would have a very complex relationship, in a beeyard with many hives, some susceptible, some not so much. But probably in every case, the rate of mite reproduction, especially in a heavily infected hive, would outweigh the effects of any kind of mite immigration. 

The only case that might not follow this pattern would be to put a mite free hive into a heavily infected yard. For a time, mite immigration might drastically outweigh any mite reproduction in that hive. 

This is similar to my little backyard test case mentioned in the leveling thread. And I think, my surrounded hives, with their low mite loads, would have been in the same situation, if the processes that kept the mites at bay were tenuous or marginal. But, so far, that hasn't been the case.

I also doubt any decrease in mite load would be seen in the other mite infected hives. They probably would import as many mites as they export. And the effect on mite increase would be negligible compared to those other factors such as susceptibility and mite reproduction rates.

Regards
Dennis


----------



## BWrangler (Aug 14, 2002)

Hi YoYo,
>...Just when I was convinced to try small cell foundation, you let the bomb drop.

Don't stop now! Go for it. Try out some small cell sized foundation. Use it to approximate the structure found in natural comb. Just remember, there's a big difference between using small cell sized comb in a hive and being a small cell beekeeper. One is not the same as the other. 

>I understand that your experiments and beliefs changed during the course of your works. So if I have paid attention, then I should be correct in stating that you have experimented enough to see that neither large cell, nor small cell is the answer and that bees use a balance of each to forfill thier immediate needs, ie...natural cell.

For myself, I've done enough concerning small cell . Others, especially the more science minded, might disagree :>)

>My question is this, how does one manage Langstroth hives using natural cell? It seems the whole purpose in the Langstroth design goes against the concept of natural cell, so how do you accomplish this? Also, how do you rotate out old comb? TBH do not seem like an effective answer for operations with more than just a few hives.

Those are complex questions and not simply answered. All beehives are really an approximation of a natural situation to accommodate a beekeeper's needs. The key is to get maximum utility for the beekeeper, with minimal negative impact on bees. But almost everything involves some form of compromise. Bees probably do best when man is completely out of the picture.

Want to run foundation based Langs? I've got some ideas toward the bottom of the page at: http://www.bwrangler.com/smus.htm

>I compare your work with the likes of ...

Oh no. Now I'm thinking I should have done a much better job of it :>) Actually what I've seen, has been seen by others before me. But it was lost or considered insignificant in the rush forward during our industrial age.

>I get so much more out of reading about the failures as opposed to just reading the end results.

So do I. And it's a good thing too, because I seem to have experienced many failures and only a few serendipitous successes. And those successes were usually the result of me tripping over my own feet while hastily heading in the wrong direction. No kidding.

>Thank you for sharing this with us, not only you , but all the others whom have taken thier time to carry the torch and share thier experiences with the rest of us.

I feel exactly the same way. Although information and help is important, I think most people come to Beesource, and other lists like it, for the sense of community. We can share ideas, help each other out, get a little crazy, show off our favorite stuff, find encouragement, argue...er..debate, find a little companionship, express our humor, etc. All of it with a bee based focus. 

And that's a rare thing, as beekeepers are born and not made. My family will run away from me, if I even look like I'm going to share my latest beekeeping idea with them. And forget about the non-beekeeping public. They think we're all crazy :>)

Take Care
BWrangler


----------

