# Small vs Larger Bees



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

You are askIng good questions, many of the ones I asked when I was early in the game. However one thing you have that I did not is archives. Many of these questions have been asked many times over the years. Some have been answered, and some like #1 cause massive arguments still today. Take some time and go treasure hunting. If you thirst for information, I think you'll enjoy it. You'll get some answers here, but not as many and as quickly as you will find in the archives.


----------



## RAK (May 2, 2010)

Organisms in the North tend to be bigger than the south. Your Natural bee size would be very large than 4.9mm. It is why Russians in the north have huge cells for their bees. 

I don't think size of bees will matter on amount of honey. If there is a good honey flow and both a small bee(4.9) and large(5.3?) are placed and both are strong then both should produce the same. 

This is also a topic that could be going for pages. So please do read the archives...they will inform you more about this topic.

Also my suggestion is to try small and big cells and see what works best for you...


----------



## pascopol (Apr 23, 2009)

As a new beek I am not concerned at all if "large" bees will outproduce "small" bees, my primary concern is about pest, deseases, bees health and colony survival.

As a new beek I am open to new ideas, and also pay attention to history of modern beekeeping started by Lang revolution.

Many blames extensive and invasive manipulation and alteration of bees by beekeepers in last 100+ years for current status of bees worldwide.

There is many valid points to that thinking.

The indisputable fact is that bee cells were made larger by comb producers with hope that larger be will be a better bee and bring in more honey. 

The indisputable fact is that bees left to their own comb drawing will draw smaller cells, and eventually regress to 5mm or less (worker combs).

Use your brains and draw your own conclusions.

Personally I like Michel Bush's ideas and I followed his idea of small cells from the get go. So far so good no mites and 3 healthy and growing colonies my first year.

Many hardcore old beeks will not agree with any unorthodox thinking including small cells (you can not teach old dog new tricks).

Also I did notice that beekeeping classes associated with Universities or any form of Government have hidden agendas either bowing to commercial interest or/and toward treatment industry.

They will tell you that it is not possible to have treatment free bees, and in my State (Fl) official line by authorities is not to catch wild swarms cause they may be "africanised" or carry a decease. 

Never mind that all those swarms are survivors and they've been living in the wild for who knows how long, they learned how to deal with the newest bees enemies like SHB and Varroa mites otherwise they would be long time DEAD.

Nobody treated them with any drugs or chemicals them neither Gov licensed them or regulated them but they are well and alive.

I am fortunate to be able to attend a small local beekeeping group led by 35 year beekeeping experience beek, friendly and helpful to new beeks, and the only agenda of this group is to share experiences and help new people to enter the mysterious and wonderful world of beekeeping.


----------



## beeware10 (Jul 25, 2010)

rather than improving the honeybee you would better benefit yourself better to learn good basic beekeeping. most of the theorys about small cell bees cannot be proven by research labs. I,m not saying the people that advocate it are wrong but when universities like cornell cannot see a difference its time to just do good beekeeping rather than reinventing the wheel. good luck


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>1. Does a hive full of small bees produce the same amount of honey as a hive full of larger bees?

According to any research I've heard of small cell will produce more. My experience is that I can't tell any difference, so I think that's the more likely answer.

>2. If larger drone comb is usefull for controlling varroa wouldn't smaller comb size mean less varroa after a while?

My experience is, once I got them down to small cell and natural comb (some of both) I have had no Varroa issues. No losses from Varroa. No explosion of Varroa population in the fall as i did every year on large cell even when treating.

http://www.bushfarms.com/beesnaturalcell.htm
http://www.bushfarms.com/beessctheories.htm

>3. Wouldn't a larger amount of small bees bee able to survive easier in the winter compared to fewer larger bees?

Comparing pre varroa large bees to post varroa small bees, I don't think there is really a lot of difference other than the Varroa issue. But that is a reasonable theory. They certainly do better because of less Varroa. I don't think it matters otherwise, myself.

>I imagine nucleus of small bees in the winter would be able to fit tighter and stay warmer. I also think that
each large bee that dies in the winter makes a bigger gap in the nucleus than a small bee dying.

I think natural spacing makes more of a difference here than bee size. Natural spacing is 1 1/4" while a typical hive is 1 3/8" and some people space them 1 1/2". Any gap is quickly filled however large or small it is.

http://www.bushfarms.com/beesframewidth.htm

>I do know that larger honey comb size makes it easier to harvest the honey. 

Well, if you're on that track, just put drone foundation in the supers and use an excluder... or use the Honey Super Cell mediums that are 6.0mm (the queen doesn't like to lay in that size) with fake eggs in them (to further confuse the queen). But I don't have any problem harvesting small cell.

>I'm not knocking large bees.
I'm just wondering what are the differences if any? I wonder if there will be smaller queen excluders made?

No need. the queens are no smaller. A queen cell is larger than the queen can grow to, while worker or drone cell is filled to capacity.

>I can see a 4.9 mm queen going thru a regular queen excluder.

She will not any more than any other queen. Any queen can get through one if she is determined enough. Smoke a hive really heavy and there is a change she will go through it.

>most of the theorys about small cell bees cannot be proven by research labs. 

I would agree that some research has failed to and some research has shown it worked. "Cannot" is not a word I would pick to describe the current situation. "Has often failed to" might be close to correct.


----------



## Lost Bee (Oct 9, 2011)

Mr. Bush, I thank you for for dropping by and giving us your input.
You do have a nice web site and that book of yours is on my to do list.

I hope I'm not mistaken by what you just wrote. So do correct me if I'm wrong. 

It seems that you say that the queen stays the same size even with smaller than 
normal comb sizes. It's just the workers and drones that get smaller. If so that would 
be better than I could have imagined. This would allow one to see the queen even 
easier than before even if she's not marked as a result of the increased size differences.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Post voluntarily removed by poster


----------



## pascopol (Apr 23, 2009)

beeware10 said:


> rather than improving the honeybee you would better benefit yourself better to learn good basic beekeeping. most of the theorys about small cell bees cannot be proven by research labs. I,m not saying the people that advocate it are wrong but when universities like cornell cannot see a difference its time to just do good beekeeping rather than reinventing the wheel. good luck


I never implied in my post that "I am trying to improve" the bees. And I do not trust
Universities and even more the Governments of all kind. 

Universities are corrupted by commercial interest, and Governments are trying to grow like a cancer and opress the people they "govern".

All any University lab needs to do to find about small cells is to take piece of comb from the established wild colony and measure the cells to prove that size of the cells and bees was pushed up by beekeeping industry in the last 100 years. This is not a rocket science.

I do learn "basic beekeeping" so far I found the less I interrupt them the better they do.

Funny thing is many beeks question small cells "theory" but nobody can deny that survivor wild colonies live and sustain themselves without human intervention or treatment with poisons.

LOL


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Post voluntarily removed by poster


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Post voluntarily removed by poster


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Post voluntarily removed by poster


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

beemandan said:


> Jennifer Berry at UGA measured the cell size of brood comb taken from 150 bee removals. Less than 1% were 4.9mm or smaller (actually only 1).


Hi Dan -

Not sure I understand this statistic. Does the 1% represent number of colonies or number of cells in each colony? Either one would be suspect to me. I've never seen comb from a cutout be uniform in size. Always a range, and always some cells 4.9 or smaller.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Barry said:


> Hi Dan -
> 
> Not sure I understand this statistic. Does the 1% represent number of colonies or number of cells in each colony? Either one would be suspect to me. I've never seen comb from a cutout be uniform in size. Always a range, and always some cells 4.9 or smaller.


Hi back to you Barry,
When conducting this trial Jennifer was actually hoping to verify the efficacy of small cell. She looked for the smallest and the largest cells and was using comb from the broodnest. From samples taken from 150 different nests, only one sample had any cells measuring 4.9 or smaller. So, the 1% is actually less than 1% of the 150 nests contained anything 4.9 or below. It might make you happier to know that she found the same number at 5.4 or above (excluding drone cells).I can't explain why her results were different than yours.


----------



## beeG (Jun 18, 2011)

From your second post it looks like you already made up your mind, and are challenging someone to change it. As a child I was one of those weird little girls who played with bugs. Bees were my favorite to catch. My family did convince me to release them  but I would keep them for part of a day and study them. I also made my own science projects from wasps nest. That said. I remember honey bees being larger then what I see now some 40 years later. I too went to a bee class that stressed strongly against commercial bee treatments it even went as far as blaming CCD on commercial bee keepers. I paid for the class and found some valuable info, but I was also instructed methods that almost lost my first hive. But, I over came that. When our instructor was preaching the anti big gov, anti large corp and farming, anti treatment Anti anything but natural. I took it with a grain of salt knowing there is a movement of wannabe farmers who without first hand knowledge think they can feed the nation on a few acres doing it like they did hundreds of years ago. Not taking into account that we have millions of more people then we did back then. I love my fellow humans ( most of the time  ) even the ones I do not agree with. I am amazed what we have done, and grown to such populations, and constantly improving the living conditions of our fellow humans and the animals we keep. Our forefathers if allowed to step into our world of plenty many would consider this heaven compared to what they had. 

When I first saw my bees, my first impression was OMG they are so very small. I am originally from Florida so the bees I saw did not suffer the size increase by being up north. I am up north now in Missouri and those bees were painfully small. I have no clue who the breeder of my bees were, but being that they came from the people who put on the class. It was most likely a no treatment breeder, and now learning about natural comb most likely smaller due to natural comb. 

My bees may have come to me natural. But if I were dependant of them producing food for my family. We would starve to death.

when farmers make changes and the changes stick and become the norm. It is mostly due to a great success. People who farm for a living are not of the sort to jump on band wagons. They sit back and wait quietly until something is proven to work. 

If I were to base my judgement on natural comb form the bees I purchased. I would never use it. But I will be due to the fact of the cost of the foundation material . Now, if I have negative results. I will be paying for foundation again. One bee keeper mentioned he wishes he never went without foundation. I asked why and did not get a clear answer. I will not do my entire apiary that way, and may stick with foundation for brood chambers.

As for all the new bee keepers going to classes like I did and meeting up with these very aggressive anti commercial beek people. I think the new comers need to settle down and realize that there is a movement (in my opinion kept rolling by people with too much time on their hands) That this movement is highly against all commercial farming. There is a lot of disinformation out there. And they attack through striking at public emotion. They may appear to have facts. But these facts can never be openly proven it always circles back to emotion and conspiracy theories and if you are in the so called know group. Now again I am not attacking home grown farmers who raise for their own. I happen to be one of those myself. I am on 50 acres and plan to be self sufficient. Because I believe a bit different then many on here. I believe if there is a conspiracy theory . The perp is not large corps that feed the world and give jobs to the world. The perp is those who are trying to destroy our ability to feed the world. By banning farming practices that are attacked purely on the emotional level. By showing videos of slaughter houses causing public out cries to close them down. I see them working and I feel our food will raise so high that our eating habits will match that of starving nations. Some of you know the orgs attacking commercial farmers. PETA ,HSUS and so on. But then as they blame PETA and the like they turn around and do the same thing by attacking commercial entities themselves. The commercial farmers across the board are attacked by PETA and other animal rights activist groups along with being attacked by the all natural and small farmer groups. If commercial farmers are put out of business life substaining foods will be too expensive to buy. And hunting will be banned and god forbid they ban home grown farmers which could happen. big corp feeds off of consumers they need consumers to survive. Anti corp well their agenda they do not even know. They just want to end big corp with no way of supplying jobs and food if they win.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Dan -

Was there any way that she determined the age of each hive comb? Darker vs. lighter? I would assume she had a wide sample with 150. Less than 1% of cells does seem extremely on the low side. Talking with other's who have measured "feral" comb find more in the 10 - 20 percent range.

To complicate the matter even more, I know that one can measure a cell (or a row of 10) in one direction and get one size only to measure it again using one of the other two angles and get something different. Most cells aren't a perfect hexagon. I don't suggest she was not honest. Just don't understand the different findings. I guess we all agree on bees naturally building a range of cell sizes.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Barry, 
The brood comb from those removals was supplied to Jennifer by Cindy Bee, if my memory serves me. There was no effort to choose old vs new nests. They came from Cindy's removals. Some were new nests, some old and some in between. 
As an addendum, I started ten foundationless hives a few years ago and didn't find any cells smaller than 5mm...and I looked. I've also added foundationless frames into existing broodnests and haven't found more than a couple with brood cells in the 4.9 or smaller range.
Again, from memory, didn't Dee say that as one gets further from the equator organisms get bigger? Or is my old brain failing altogether? If I'm right, wouldn't natural cells up your way be even larger?
Best to ya.


----------



## beeG (Jun 18, 2011)

sorry double post


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Beemandan,

I was going to google up the study you referenced, then when I went back to your post for the name, your post was removed. Could you either re-post, or pm me the details?

In any case, thanks for providing some real world balance to this discussion. So often we see, as in this thread, newbies with little experience talking about their over simplified views on how bees and beekeeping should work, according to what they learned in their book, group, or whatever. Then after a few years they are disolutioned from their bees not doing what they "should", and end up leaving the hobby frustrated.

A bit like you, I've almost never found any wild comb getting near as small as 4.9, although I'm further from the equator also. So not sure about the supposed long term wild survivor hives that are "better" than commercial bees and have small cells.

As per beeG, the small cell theory has not to date been able to be proved under proper controlled tests. However there are people who have success with it themselves, although defining success can be difficult, as one thing I notice about some of these people is they are often making lots of splits, just to stay where they are. 

As it's just not possible to get, from the net, the real story, because of the many conflicting "undesputable facts", I have launched my own investigation into small cells and natural cells by experimenting on my own bees. However it will likely be years before I can really reach a reasonable conclusion. To say your bees survived one year without treatment proves nothing.

It does prove one thing though, sometimes even an old dog can be prepared to learn new tricks!  Even those "hardcore old beeks" that get such a bad rap. 

I'd also say to newbies with less than a years experience, who think they know everything. Don't close your minds just yet, be open to wisdom from people with a lot of experience, but only if they have productive bees. Don't buy into books, groups, ot whatever, who focus on painting anybody with a different opinion to theirs, as the enemy. We learn by being open minded, not by blindly following the first persuasive argument we hear.


----------



## pascopol (Apr 23, 2009)

I do not want to insult or offend anybody, just use your brain and "think outside the boX"/

Yes I am a nebeee. But I have an open mind.

By the amount of deleted posts here I see there was some insulting posts by hardcore oldtimer orthodox hardcore beeks who insist that orthodox (last Century way of keeping bees is still a way to go).

So again, show and prove me (as a newbee) that invasive methods of keeping bees including extensive manipulations, chemical and biological threatments, are a winning way to keep and SUSTAIN bees, inspite of indisputable worldwide losses and decline of honey bee.

Again wild survivor colonies are a living proof to the contrary, but you guys do not want to acknowlege it.

The Government is trying to maintain a grip on their "subjects" you and me. 

And the Universities are corrupted by commercial, really pharmaceutical lobby.

Can you imagine they'd promote "treatment free beekeeping'" ????

Treatment free idea would stop founding and support of many powerful forces wanting to keep current status quo. 

If in doubt just check the money trail.

LOL


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Oldtimer,
I’ve followed your thread with interest. 
The data I reported were collected during the small cell study conducted at UGA several years ago. The cell size measurements were not a formal part of that study but were measured in a effort to verify the often stated idea that 4.9mm was the natural cell size for honey bees. While these data were not reported as part of that study I’ve had personal communication with Jennifer Berry regarding them. I’ve also heard her report these numbers when she’s spoken at various meetings.
If it is important to you I’d be willing to follow up with her to see if they are in any publicly accessible documents.
Best to you from another oldtimer.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

pascopol said:


> I do not want to insult or offend anybody
> 
> I see there was some insulting posts by hardcore oldtimer orthodox hardcore beeks who insist that orthodox (last Century way of keeping bees is still a way to go).
> 
> And the Universities are corrupted by commercial, really pharmaceutical lobby.


Whew….it’s a good thing that you didn’t want to insult or offend anyone


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Thanks Beemandan,

No need to follow up, I thought there might be a link to something she published.

Just should clarify also, as I was partly involved, that because of some totally closed minded assumptions that have been said about your posts, that I read your posts before you decided to delete them, and there was absolutely nothing insulting in them at all. 

Sorry some people who have closed minds can only respond to anything other than their own opinion with abuse.


----------



## pascopol (Apr 23, 2009)

Whew... I am still waiting to confirm or deny that beekeeping industry in the last 100+ years
years pushed for larger bees by promoting larger bees and larger cell foundation + promoted chemical and pharmaceutical treatment through all those years (Again follow the money trail LOL).

And still no comments why we have wild bees who survived and doing well without any "experienced beekeeper interventions"

Can we play straight?

Instead of beating around the bush and claiming: " I,ve been around the bees much longer much longer than you" so I am right and you are wrong, let's discuss

who's ideas and deeds are accuntable for indisputable bee decline worldwide????

Surely not mine since I am a new beek.

LOL


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Oldtimer said:


> Don't buy into books, groups, ot whatever, who focus on painting anybody with a different opinion to theirs, as the enemy. We learn by being open minded, not by blindly following the first persuasive argument we hear.


I couldn't agree more with this wisdom. Be passionate about what/how you view/work your bees, but don't see everyone else that does it differently as the enemy. If a good workable change to the norm works, it won't need arm twisting and put downs to win anyone over. It will attract naturally. This is one major element that I can not, and will not, embrace with the "organic" crowd. Having no tolerance for treatments is one thing, but extending that to the personal side is not constructive IMO.


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

The level of civility has been severely lacking in this thread in the last day.

Keep it civil and keep it on topic or face post deletion.


----------



## odfrank (May 13, 2002)

"Again wild survivor colonies are a living proof to the contrary, but you guys do not want to acknowledge it."

I set bait hives in a redwood forest wanting to catch some of those wild survivor mountain bees. I caught swarms from my buddy's last years package bees flying from more than two miles away. Good luck proving you have found wild survivors.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

OK I'll give it another shot.



pascopol said:


> Whew... I am still waiting to confirm or deny that beekeeping industry in the last 100+ years
> years pushed for larger bees by promoting larger bees and larger cell foundation + promoted chemical and pharmaceutical treatment through all those years (Again follow the money trail LOL).LOL


You are more or less correct, kinda.

Once people discovered how to make comb foundation, experiments were conducted to find the "ideal sized" cell. Trials done at the time indicated the larger celled hives, made more honey. So over a few years, most beekeepers converted to a cell size within a mm or two of 5.5. 
Just for the record I'm not saying larger bees made more honey, I'm saying that's what they believed based on their experiments, back then. 
As to the statement about chemicals through all those years, I wouldn't know, the beekeeping industry in my country was completely chemical free until eleven years ago, when varroa mites arrived. Since that time the government has allowed chemical treatment to kill varroa, I wouldn't say it's been "pushed", and I know nothing about "money trails".




pascopol said:


> And still no comments why we have wild bees who survived and doing well without any "experienced beekeeper interventions"
> 
> Can we play straight? LOL


This subject has been discussed on this forum _ad nauseaum_, so I didn't bother going into it again, it's better for you to do a search. In my country there are no wild survivors. All wild hives died out when varroa mites arrived.



pascopol said:


> who's ideas and deeds are accuntable for indisputable bee decline worldwide????
> 
> 
> LOL


No idea. In my country there is no indisputable bee decline. Never had CCD here. The wild and unmanaged hives are all gone, but properly managed hives are doing fine, there is also quite a hobbyist beekeeper revival going on. Long as people manage varroa mites properly the bees do fine. Some things are media hype.

Haven't heard much about CCD from the rest of the world lately either, interesting.....


----------



## Roland (Dec 14, 2008)

Last fall I went to the Beekeeping Museum in Cassville Wisconsin to measure the cell size of a foundation mill donated by my Great Grandfather in 1924. The measurements of that mill, another on site, and 2 in our museum do validate the claim that numerous sizes of foundation have been used in the past. If I look, I should be able to report back with my findings.

As to the survivors, and the reason why, the experiment done on a Swedish(?) island showed a decline in colony numbers for several years, until the numbers settled at a stable but low density. No one bothered to study the genetics of the mites to prove that the bees adapted and formed a stronger bee, or the mites developed a weaker mite. Peter Loring Boarst's(sp?) experience has been that survivor hives from the wild perish quickly when set in a high density apiary. This would tend to support the hypothesis that is the mites changing more than the bee.

Crazy Roland


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Good points Roland. That scenario has been shown a number of times. A good example I read about was an island off South America where there is a thriving _apis melifera_ population being managed by local people. The bees have varroa but have not been treated ever, and are thriving.

A bunch of these hives were moved to the mainland in the hopes they were a varroa resistant strain. But over the next year or two they all died of varroa.


----------



## Delta Bay (Dec 4, 2009)

The varroa that infests the bees on the island off the coast of Brazil are the less virulent Japanese genotype. The Japanese varroa was displaced by the more virulent Korean genotype on mainland Brazil. The big question in my view is why they where displaced. Could this have come about because of varroa treatments which in theory favor a more virulent pest?

In North America we have both genotypes floating around and I don't think anyone is really following their distribution. So maybe there are pockets of the less virulent mite infesting some of our feral bees?


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Yes I'm pretty sure that will be why some people have varroa and see things like DWV but don't lose the hive, and you are correct, it's not being followed a whole lot. In my country, we only have one kind, unfortunately the more virulent. We have not so far been able to produce any "treatment free" bees, all hives must be treated, or die. I have some hives that are chemical treatment free, but I have to do other things such as drone brood removal. 

Probably one of the first steps to going treatment free, is to go chemical free, because some of the residual chemicals in the comb cause bee larva to take longer to reach adulthood, thereby giving the varroa longer to breed. So eliminating chemicals that are residual in the comb will be a first step towards helping bees tolerate varroa. But more than just that is needed. BTW some chemicals such as Formic Acid are not residual in the comb long term, so are OK to use when the long term goal is total chemical free combs. 

But just going chemical free, and having natural combs, is not enough to have bees survive the type of varroa we have in my country. If it was, we would not have lost all the feral hives when varroa arrived.

An interesting thing about small cell, is that the old theory is wrong, that the cells are too small so suffocate the varroa, has been proved not true. But what could be more likely, is there is some anecdotal evidence that the bee larval period is a bit faster in a small cell, giving varroa less time to reproduce.
However that too is a theory, some people have observed a particular cell and recorded how fast the larva developed, but there has not to my knowledge been a proper study on it involving a large sample and control. 

Re the Brazilian thing, I doubt it would have been caused by treatment, as the whole purpose of moving the hives was to try to get varroa resistant bees, so they wouldn't have treated them.


----------



## Delta Bay (Dec 4, 2009)

> Re the Brazilian thing, I doubt it would have been caused by treatment, as the whole purpose of moving the hives was to try to get varroa resistane bees, so they wouldn't have treated them.


Did they bring in whole colonies or queens only?

The Germans tried the same thing when they imported queens from the island and introduced them into colonies that where infested with the Korean mites which they also only have in Germany. They found that the island queens had no special mite tolerance against the mites in Germany and perished about as fast as the local bees. 

Seeley found the same thing when taking queens from the Arnot Forest and introducing then into colonies in his home apiary but as far as I know mite genotype has never been tested for on the forest mites. Would be interesting to know for curiosity sake.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

According to what I read, they took whole colonies, as nucs.

Could be many reasons how / if they were contaminated with other mites, or could it even be a climatic thing.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Delta Bay said:


> So maybe there are pockets of the less virulent mite infesting some of our feral bees?





Roland said:


> or the mites developed a weaker mite.


Tom Seeley has suggested the same thing.
Going from memory here. Seeley located feral bee colonies in a remote area of the Arnot (?) forest during the late 1960s (pre varroa). A few years ago he returned to determine if the feral population had recovered. He discovered that it had. On closer inspection he found that the colonies were severely infested with varroa….and yet they thrived. He speculated that the mites were less virulent.

Part of the same study, I believe.


Delta Bay said:


> Seeley found the same thing when taking queens from the Arnot Forest and introducing then into colonies in his home apiary but as far as I know mite genotype has never been tested for on the forest mites. Would be interesting to know for curiosity sake.


----------



## beeG (Jun 18, 2011)

odfrank said:


> "Again wild survivor colonies are a living proof to the contrary, but you guys do not want to acknowledge it."
> 
> I set bait hives in a redwood forest wanting to catch some of those wild survivor mountain bees. I caught swarms from my buddy's last years package bees flying from more than two miles away. Good luck proving you have found wild survivors.


From what I have read established feral bees have died out. And I assume what most bee keppers are cathcing are bees escaped from other bee keepers not established races which survived from the begining of introduction to America. This is an interesting thread. ( without the wild out of the box into another insults) So many post point to bees being bigger due to foundation size and bees being smaller due to natural comb. I am learning here and very interested in what the more experinced bee keepers have to say. With todays economy it would be nice to not purchace foundation. So if it is not better for the bees to buy foundation and use it why would the commerical bee keepers use it after all?


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

beeG said:


> From what I have read established feral bees have died out.


There are plenty of opinions on both sides of this but, to my knowledge, they are all only conjecture. Dr Debbie Delaney has begun formally investigating this question. Unfortunately she won't likely have any results for a year or so.

http://www.savethehives.com/fbp/Research.html


----------



## Beregondo (Jun 21, 2011)

beeG said:


> So if it is not better for the bees to buy foundation and use it why would the commerical bee keepers use it after all?


I haven't a lot of experience as a beekeeper, but I have a lot of commercial experience as a business owner.

Commercial beekeepers are going to do what is best for themselves commercially, even if it is not the best thing for bees.
When my bees draw comb, they draw it plumb--straight down toward the center of the earth. If a hive is not plumb, that comb will be drawn right off the side of the comb, and if the hive is badly tilted into the space within the bottom of the empty comb next to it.
It takes time (read MONEY, commercially) to level the hive, straighten the comb, and secure it in the frame. 
It is my understanding that while having a level hive is still important, foundation is more forgiving if the hive is a bit tilted. If it saves fixing a couple frames per super, the foundation would pay for itself, I think.


----------



## Beregondo (Jun 21, 2011)

My hive is foundationless. I collected my bees from a cutout in the wall of an unheated, unoccupied hose down the street from my home.
The entrance had been busy from early spring until October each year for the last several [years].

I believe the colony had continuously inhabited the space during that time. I understand that if one believes that no feral colony can survive without treatment, and that there are no longer any feral colonies, that it can’t be so. I understand that bias and some of the reasons for it.

I just trust my observations over that bias. I could be wrong. I have been before.

You may not call a colony that has lived wild for several years without human care feral, but I do. In fact, in my language system, that is pretty much the definition of feral.

I don’t have much beekeeping experience, so I am not an expert on the subject, nor much qualified to speak to beekeeping in general. 
But I AM an expert on my observations of my hives in my location.

When I collected the bees, they were various sizes, but almost all of them are much smaller than bees in my friend’s commercially purchased bees on commercial foundation.
I haven’t measured cell size. It’s noticeably small than that in my friend’s hive.

I did not observe any mites when I collected them (ether jar test). I did observe one in August. I did a sugar shake the next week, and haven’t seen any since.

The hive has done grown through the dearth this summer, and built up very well both in numbers and stores on the goldenrod flow before the population reduced as the flow stopped and it got colder. Still no mites observed.

I don’t recommend all foundationless BTW. Next year I will alternate foundationless frames with small cell foundation and/or straight drawn comb to keep the combs straight. All foundationless was a pain in the neck this year.

So I have a hive of small bees, captured after swarm season that has had no disease problem and a low mite load up to now, on foundationless comb. It has been treated only once, with a single sugar shake.
I intend to split half of the brood to nucs next spring, and then split the original hive in two next year just before goldenrod flow. I don’t intend to do anything other than splits for mite control, absent emergency.

I’ll let you know how it turns out. 
So far it looks promising.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

beemandan said:


> didn't Dee say that as one gets further from the equator organisms get bigger? Or is my old brain failing altogether? If I'm right, wouldn't natural cells up your way be even larger?
> Best to ya.


Yes, I guess 5.0 would be the median size in my area according to her chart.

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


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

Where's the cutoff line between the south and say Missouri? She didn't draw the states in. I'm in there somewhere.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

I wouldn't get too worried about a cutoff line. Many things have an influence, be better to look at it as areas merging and blending. The info on that map is not correct for my country, for a start.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

I believe Lusby's arrived at their numbers from reading [old] literature. Any idea where they would have gotten the size for your area?


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Me or Sol?

If me, I don't know where they got it from. However, she does say right below the map "Cell sizes are recorded in general for zones, and where altitude and higher latitude occur, use Humbolt’s Law for deviations", so that's allowing some leeway.

She also says "Special Note: After studying correlations, we believe brood 4.9 mm cell size could be the upper limit for cell size control for mites worldwide".
Interesting comment. That means according to her, my 5.00 mm comb won't work.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Yea, you.

I think what she means in that last comment is that 4.9 will work in all areas worldwide, but if the map shows a bigger cell size, that will work as well.

How are your smaller cell bees coming along?


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

They are coming out of the winter the hive is not as strong as the others but it didn't go into the winter very strong either. It literally got down to a fistful of bees at one point. However it's a mostly carni queen and just started showing that explosive carni spring buildup in the last few weeks, it wintered in one box but has now filled it & beginning a second box added. 
Did a drone brood sample of maybe 100 or so larvae just a few days ago, couldn't find any varroa.

I recently contacted the guys that made the sc foundation, they have around 80 sheets left and no plans to make any more. So I bought all of it. Once the bees are ready I'll split the hive into 5, which will end up with 2 brood boxes each, and due to lack of foundation, will have to do natural cell for the honey boxes. Don't want to use normal foundation for the honey boxes because I don't want any chemical contamination. The sc foundation I bought was organic. 

They will be in their own yard with no other hives, and we'll see what happens.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

Solomon Parker said:


> Where's the cutoff line between the south and say Missouri? She didn't draw the states in. I'm in there somewhere.


Just dont try some sort of Missouri Compromise we fought a war over that one already. Actually the simplest indicator is the use of the word (words?) y'all or y'alls.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>It seems that you say that the queen stays the same size even with smaller than
normal comb sizes. 

That is my observation.

>It's just the workers and drones that get smaller. 

Yes. The queen has a "oversized" cell and grows to whatever potential she can. The drones and workers totally fill the cell and their size is controlled by the limits of the cell.

>If so that would
be better than I could have imagined. This would allow one to see the queen even
easier than before even if she's not marked as a result of the increased size differences. 

I wouldn't count on it.  Better to depend on how the bees around her move and how she moves.


----------



## Lost Bee (Oct 9, 2011)

Hey Mr. Bush,

If I use less diluted honey will it make a smaller bee when I squeeze the drones
to collect the semen? Like you mentioned in my queen thread. How much should 
I use?

:lpf::lpf::lpf::lpf:


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

Maybe if you squeeze the drones really hard you can make them smaller...


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

In my professional opinion, I believe Mr. Bush is correct.


----------

