Worldwide Beekeeping

Beekeeping => General Beekeeping => Topic started by: skydiver on January 21, 2014, 09:58:22 pm

Title: small cell bees
Post by: skydiver on January 21, 2014, 09:58:22 pm
Is anybody playing with small cell bees. I bought some last spring hoping to help lessen mite problems no opinion yet. Just wondering if anyone is playing with them? (using small cell foundation). your thoughts or experience with this?
Title: Re: small cell bees
Post by: pistolpete on January 21, 2014, 10:23:32 pm
Scientifically controlled studies have shown that small cell foundation has no influence on mite reproduction.  There may be other benefits, but mite control is not one of them. 
Title: Re: small cell bees
Post by: LazyBkpr on January 21, 2014, 11:03:30 pm
Those Scientifically controlled studies have a LOT of flaws in their "scientific" applications...   I am NOT claiming they are wrong, just that the way they were conducted (the ones I have read and seen) were pitiful excuses for scientific proof..

  There are also compelling claims with evidence that small cell helps kick in the bees resistance..  bees that were reverted BEGAN exhibiting hygienic behavior by uncapping and removing infected Larvae..   Some of the more renowned beekeepers have claimed this works for them...   Using bees with Hygienic background seems to increase the trait on small cell as opposed to large cell.....   
   :-\    CLAIMS..  on both sides.  I have watched vids of a research that Michael Bush posted on another website that seemed to PROVE beyond any doubt it works...  then scrutiny by the non believers began pointing out flaws...  pretty much the same thing the believers did with the scientific studies done that proved it didnt work...
  So I'm straddling the fence, and its painful..
   I use natural cell combs, and if its helpful for Varoa control GREAT, just an added benefit of being able to cut out queen cells, cut out old comb, Cell punch, etc etc etc...
   The argument is getting old to me. I would think someone would WANT to cover all the bases and produce definitive results.. But as stated in another thread.. what works and can be PROVEN to work in one location seems to fail in another location.....      :'(
Title: Re: small cell bees
Post by: DMLinton on January 21, 2014, 11:55:45 pm
I raised the idea of small cell foundation with a local beekeeper.  His response was pretty short and simple.  You get small cell whether you want it or not because cell size decreases with each round of brood.  If you start out with small cell, it just gets smaller quicker.

Just thought I would throw this in.  I don't have an opinion on small cell.  May be sitting on the fence like Lazy.
Title: Re: small cell bees
Post by: Marbees on January 22, 2014, 12:26:57 am
Opening a can of worms?  :)
Since introduction of varroa mites (1987 in USA and 1989 in Canada) our beekeeping reality changed completely.
In order to overcome a new problem, people were trying all kinds of different things all over the continent.
Some of them looked like good ideas, even as a solution, at the time, but all of those were short lived, some were good for certain locations, but there was no an universal solution :'(
Then Al Gore pushed for the internet, and very soon screen bottom boards, small cell foundation, small bees, increased ventilation, and some other things started clogging information super highway :) (trying to be humorous here)
Eventually some of the  "gurus" admitted scientists were right quashing their solutions as "universal"
In my very limited experience, just going into my 5th spring as a beekeeper, I came to believe, the only thing that is going to help us, and our bees is improved genetics. Selecting for hygienic, low swarming, productive and tame bees. Is it hard? You betcha. But bees can do it, if we help a bit.
Just for the record, in my books, scientific doesn't necessary means an academic.
Title: Re: small cell bees
Post by: Slowmodem on January 22, 2014, 01:14:47 am
...the only thing that is going to help us, and our bees is improved genetics. Selecting for hygienic, low swarming, productive and tame bees. Is it hard? You betcha. But bees can do it, if we help a bit.
Just for the record, in my books, scientific doesn't necessary means an academic.

Isn't that the thought process that got us Africanized bees?
Title: Re: small cell bees
Post by: Perry on January 22, 2014, 06:54:45 am
There are just too many variables in beekeeping to single out one cause and effect on almost anything. This is why finding a "cure" for CCD was virtually impossible.
I would have to say that the only sure fire way to find out if it works for you, is to try it.
Title: Re: small cell bees
Post by: skydiver on January 22, 2014, 07:06:25 am
http://www.resistantbees.com/index.html (http://www.resistantbees.com/index.html)
  This site and others is what made me want to give them (small cell) a try. I personally feel that the problem with the bee is a multi  level problem and that no one change is going to fix it . My hope is that if just one tenth of the problem is fixed with this change I'll be just that much closer. The more I think I know the more I learn I have a lot more to learn. I do believe that if I let nature thin out the weak, the stronger the gene pool will become. That is why I graft my own queens from my survivor stock and work with other beekeepers in my area trying to improve the overall gene pool for our climate.  Not trying to open a can of worms trying to put a few back in the can.
Title: Re: small cell bees
Post by: Perry on January 22, 2014, 07:11:28 am
It's a good thread Skydiver.
"The more I think I know the more I learn I have a lot more to learn"  Describes me to a tee.  :D
That's one of the nice things about this forum, we can bring topics like this up here, and not have it degenerate into a spitting match. Opinions are welcome and respected.
Title: Re: small cell bees
Post by: tecumseh on January 22, 2014, 07:13:32 am
small cell... well imho absolutely nonsense and likely pushed as an angle to validate the keeping of africanized honey bee < which I would suggest is where the idea really got it start.

a Marsbee snip..
In my very limited experience, just going into my 5th spring as a beekeeper, I came to believe, the only thing that is going to help us, and our bees is improved genetics.

tecumseh...
everyone should note that in terms of SELECTION for genetic predisposed traits if you did go to all the trouble to read any animal reproduction or genetic text you would likely never run into the term REVERTED (you might seem a somewhat similar word in the statistic of genetics.... reversion to the mean... but that is a totally different concept).

as far as my own view goes.... no it does not take an academic person to do scientific type experiments and ALL EXPERIMENT can be criticized at some level (there are different levels here of criticism and any and all don't necessarily toss out the results of an experiment).  however without a basic understanding of science and statistic the flaws in any experiment is likely to increase at an exponential rate.

Title: Re: small cell bees
Post by: Riverrat on January 22, 2014, 07:14:52 am
IMHO I put the small cell theory in with screen bottom boards.  Neither have hard scientific facts that prove there intended use. I believe if you use them and you are convincd they work then by all means use them in your operation. ;)
Title: Re: small cell bees
Post by: skydiver on January 22, 2014, 08:05:22 am
It is my understanding based upon  Ed and Dee Lusbys  research that man 100 plus years ago stretched wax foundation to in large cell size 5.4mm and that this has become the norm. Just trying to get closer to the way mother nature wanted it to be.
Title: Re: small cell bees
Post by: GLOCK on January 22, 2014, 08:31:00 am
I have most my hives with 4.9 in the brood boxes and 5.3 in the honey supers I see no difference when it comes to VARROA  plus I have some hives that are mixed with 5.3 -5.1-4.9 the bees seem to not like drawing out the 4.9 some times . but when there's a flow they draw out every thing well.
Title: Re: small cell bees
Post by: Marbees on January 22, 2014, 08:49:51 am
Not trying to open a can of worms trying to put a few back in the can.
:D :D
Title: Re: small cell bees
Post by: LazyBkpr on January 22, 2014, 09:18:09 am
heheh    Have I mentioned lately that I love this forum?
   I went to a couple others last night JUST to read...  and after about fifteen minutes I had given up.. I was kinda ticked off by the time I was did a force shutdown and quit reading..  so Once again.. Thank You Iddee!!  And Thank you to the good ladies and Gents who post here!

   I have talked in chats and over EMail to some of the prominent beekeepers who claim that they are treatment free for Varoa.  Including Dee Lusby.  Your right that there are more factors involved than just using small cell. Genetics DOES play a big part in it. Some claim a greater part than others. All claim they lost bees before they got where they are, Most lost a LOT of bees.  I can't afford to lose a LOT of bees, and most of us cant.

   So I have accepted the challenge as a part of keeping bees.  34 years ago I helped my mentor with his bees, and there was no Varoa problem. By 1982 I had gone into the service and did not return to aiding my mentor until around 2003.  I messed up bigtime, because I didnt ask enough questions. So I had a pretty big gap in my knowledge after he passed away. I did, and DO read everything I can find on the subject. Then I set about TRYING what makes sense to me, weather there are arguments against that reasoning or not. I have messed up and lost bees, and learned in the process. I would like to be able to say;
   Do THIS, and THIS and THIS and you never need to treat again .. 
   The closest I can come, is saying..  Order VSH queens, Order Wayne's Bees. Install them, DONT treat, and cross your fingers and toes. Depending on your area, the environment, the mites, the bees and your methods..  There is a chance it will work for you.  Ask me again in three years I'll tell you if it worked for me.
   With the group we have going here, I have no doubt we can eventually work out what works best overall for everyone, as opposed to what works where the weather is always warm, or where the divining rod shows two underground waterways converging.
Title: Re: small cell bees
Post by: lazy shooter on January 22, 2014, 10:34:21 am
I realize that if one uses foundationless frames the bees will draw out small cell.  My question is can one mix foundation and foundationless frames in the same super?  In other words, could you have cut comb honey and extracted honey from the same super, and if so, would it all be copacetic with the bees?
Title: Re: small cell bees
Post by: Crofter on January 22, 2014, 10:39:19 am
A bit off topic of small cell bees but still along the lines of finding a way to co exist with mites.

First I would say I dont think that "nature" can be depended upon to satisfy mans current private wishes. Nature takes no sides in the ongoing struggle and if you go back in geological time it can be shown that 95% of species that ever existed have since perished and others took their niche. It is not a given that the imported European honey bee in this country will eventually come to a balanced living arrangement with the also imported mite that had a balance with different species bee, the Asian apis ceranae.

If we left nature to its own devices the coping mechanism might select for habits similar to the asian bee that swarms often and only makes a few pounds of honey.

There is cross purpose in our selection criteria as a lot of breeding pressure comes from the almond pollinators which demands different things from the bees than what Perry and I would want for our 6 month wintering bees. There is not likely going to be one perfect bee and it is possible that we may not be able to economically put together a bee that can keep one step ahead of the varroa mite/virus partnership. There always will be parallell genetic selection ongoing in that camp too.

I think we have to be careful with our direction of genetic change. The present focus is on the Varroa Mite and its entourage of 20 or so viruses, but, if in the name of conquering immediate problem we cull out genetic diversity that has survival value for past and unknowable conquests, then would we be doing long term damage for immediate convenience.

Just for a wild thought about different approaches, how about looking for a way to innoculate mites against the viruses. I think the bees could quite handily live with the mites direct damage if it were not for the effects of the virus loads they carry.
Title: Re: small cell bees
Post by: riverbee on January 22, 2014, 11:28:47 am
"I realize that if one uses foundationless frames the bees will draw out small cell.  My question is can one mix foundation and foundationless frames in the same super?  In other words, could you have cut comb honey and extracted honey from the same super, and if so, would it all be copacetic with the bees?"

lazy, i use empty blank frames in my honey supers (mediums) for cut comb honey.  the bees draw these frames out in drone size cells, not smaller.  i place these in between frames of drawn foundation. as to the topic of the thread, like perry said, a good topic of discussion.  there is no right way or wrong way in beekeeping, if it works for you, like MM said, by all means, try it out or do it.  this is how we learn what works and what doesn't irregardless of academics or scientific study.  these are beneficial, but many times against all odds, i will try something to find or believe that it works for me, or doesn't.

we are all looking for a 'silver bullet'.  right now for me, the 'silver bullet' for mites are and have been russian bees.

sky, let me know how you get the worms back in the can........ :D
Title: Re: small cell bees
Post by: GLOCK on January 22, 2014, 04:26:19 pm
I have only been at this for 4 seasons and my first year{2 packages} I lost all hives by JAN. treatment free.  Second year treatment free  {3 local nucs} lost 0 . third year bought 3 local nucs made splits hived swarms{my own}up to 19 lost  14 total all year and this year I got my numbers up to 25 and I started treating with OAV buy AUG. and I have lost none. So my plan is to get the mites down to low levels let the hives get strong and work with what I have for now and treat as needed and see how thing pan out the next couple years I know I don't like seeing my bees die hive after hive that's for sure PMS is a pain .  And I'm not starting over every year. I have bees.
Title: Re: small cell bees
Post by: Marbees on January 22, 2014, 04:27:12 pm
Just for a wild thought about different approaches, how about looking for a way to innoculate mites against the viruses. I think the bees could quite handily live with the mites direct damage if it were not for the effects of the virus loads they carry.

It's a really wild thought Crofter :) And I really like it  ;D
Title: Re: small cell bees
Post by: Perry on January 22, 2014, 04:29:00 pm
Didn't David Suzuki or someone do something with fruit flies, like somehow caused sterility in the male flies?
Title: Re: small cell bees
Post by: tecumseh on January 22, 2014, 07:43:33 pm
A Crofter snip..
Just for a wild thought about different approaches, how about looking for a way to innoculate mites against the viruses. I think the bees could quite handily live with the mites direct damage if it were not for the effects of the virus loads they carry.

tecumseh...
well there is the product that Monsanto recently purchased the rights to which can inoculate bees against at least some virus vectors.  I also think/speculate that a lot of folks are feeding thymol in syrup to make the honeybee not so tasty to varroa < or at least the last national honeybee health data I saw seems to suggest there is getting to be a very large thymol load in the bees and in the comb.

from more personal experience when you do go cold turkey and no longer treat bees then the incident of various virus will show themselves < it is largely in this regards that I am leaning towards an intermediate course of treatment vs non treatment.  Which at this times looks like to me like one smaller set of bees to breed from and another for honey and bulk bee production.
Title: Re: small cell bees
Post by: Crofter on January 22, 2014, 08:37:55 pm
Tec, the idea of having two different groups of bees would have some interesting possibilities; not having all your eggs in one basket! Different treatment philosophy could be applied and the problems that seem to increase in successive years be reduced. Maybe its the management system is what needs to evolve, not the bee!

Interesting!
Title: Re: small cell bees
Post by: riverbee on January 22, 2014, 10:35:01 pm
this is a good article to read by randy oliver, from his website, scientific beekeeping, on honey super cell®/small cell combs.
sky, he mentions and refers to dee lusby as the 'guru of small cell". some other great info/discussion as well on small cell:

Randy Oliver:  Trial of Honey Super Cell® Small Cell Combs (http://scientificbeekeeping.com/trial-of-honeysupercell-small-cell-combs/)


Title: Re: small cell bees
Post by: LazyBkpr on January 23, 2014, 01:20:51 am
I realize that if one uses foundationless frames the bees will draw out small cell.  My question is can one mix foundation and foundationless frames in the same super?  In other words, could you have cut comb honey and extracted honey from the same super, and if so, would it all be copacetic with the bees?

   I have had all three of my different frame types in together. I had drawn comb on large cell plastic/wood and small cell all plastic. two large cell three of the small cell.. so I shrugged my shoulders and dropped it in, filling in the rest of the gaps with empty frames. The bees filled the new frames and the queen layed in both large and small cell frames..  As the bees filled the empty frames I pulled the large cell first, then the plastic, and used them in the box that went on above for their next level hiverise apartment complex.   They never complained so I quit worrying about it. If I HAVE to use a mix I do, but prefer small cell or natural.
   Bees dont "exactly" build small cell if given foundation-less frames. Generally the worker brood is 4.8 to 5.0, but as they get toward the edges the cells get larger, and some even get drone comb. If left to their own devices the majority is small cell..  One of the advantages as I understand it, is that small cell bees emerge sooner, as much as a full day sooner, and that supposedly also has an effect on Mite lifecycle..


this is a good article to read by randy oliver, from his website, scientific beekeeping, on honey super cell®/small cell combs.
sky, he mentions and refers to dee lusby as the 'guru of small cell". some other great info/discussion as well on small cell:

Randy Oliver:  Trial of Honey Super Cell® Small Cell Combs (http://scientificbeekeeping.com/trial-of-honeysupercell-small-cell-combs/)

   Thanks Mrs River!!  I will check this out!
Title: Re: small cell bees
Post by: LazyBkpr on January 23, 2014, 09:04:35 am
for those who dislike reading;

   The most notable result was the great difference in natural mite falls between the groups, which implies a lower mite buildup in the HSC colonies. At face value, this result would appear to support the hypothesis that small cell combs hamper mite reproduction, and indeed, they well may.  However, I would caution the reader not to extrapolate these results.  This was a trial of HoneySuperCell combs—not small cell per se.  There are various hypotheses as to why the HSC combs may have suppressed mite buildup—one of which is that they have small cell size.  However, it could well be that mite buildup was suppressed by some other factor or factors.




    Interesting, however, like almost every study I have seen done this one is also mostly inconclusive, and that they are looking for the right things in the wrong way.  First I am not sure why they used HSC.  Even their own study showed that using fully formed plastic cells made the bees unhappy.. 
   I do not believe it is the CELL SIZE that hampers mite reproduction, and dont understand why the researchers cant figure this same thing out???     While there may be incidents of the mites getting "stuck" in smaller cells, I believe the faster emergence times, and the triggering of hygienic behavior have a much larger effect from the use of small cell than the actual cell size....
Title: Re: small cell bees
Post by: tecumseh on January 23, 2014, 06:32:52 pm
well an alternative hypothesis lazybkpr is that with no wax there is less attraction there for the mites.  I think (can't really recall the source) that old comb is more attractive to the mites than new comb...  it is suggest that in older comb there is an increasing build up of juvenile growth hormone since this product is known to be highly attractive to the mites.
Title: Re: small cell bees
Post by: skydiver on January 24, 2014, 10:31:28 am
River thanks for the link to Randys study. It shows some encouraging results but it also shows imho that it is almost  impossible to do side by side studies with the same bee genetics because you can not regress large cell bees in one generation on wax foundation that is why he was using HSC plastic frames. The debate will just keep going on and on and on. But I think beekeeping has always been that way and probably always will. If it works for you keep doing it if it don't keep trying other things until you find your own fit.
Title: Re: small cell bees
Post by: Ray on February 10, 2014, 04:12:34 pm
Is anybody playing with small cell bees. I bought some last spring hoping to help lessen mite problems no opinion yet. Just wondering if anyone is playing with them? (using small cell foundation). your thoughts or experience with this?

Well I just received 504 medium 4.9 cell plastic frames for my 10 new packages due in April. I am pondering cutting the plastic foundation out if the brood frames for better (?) acceptance.   
Title: Re: small cell bees
Post by: LazyBkpr on February 10, 2014, 04:23:44 pm
Well I just received 504 medium 4.9 cell plastic frames for my 10 new packages due in April. I am pondering cutting the plastic foundation out if the brood frames for better (?) acceptance.

   OK, so that sort of confused me?  Are they already small cell bees?
   If not regressed why go to the extra trouble of buying small cell foundation if you plan to cut it out to regress them?
   If they are regressed then why not just use the foundation without cutting it out?
   Just a little confused.. foundation-less frames are generally cheaper than even the one piece plastic foundation/frames. You already have the frames ordered?    Please advise! 
Title: Re: small cell bees
Post by: Crofter on February 10, 2014, 04:43:47 pm
Are you thinking of cutting the 4.9 plastic foundation out of the frame and installing it in wood frame?
Title: Re: small cell bees
Post by: barry42001 on February 10, 2014, 05:05:14 pm
actually going foundationless the bees will build a mixture of cells, not necessarily 4.9  either, probably 5.3 ( I think ) then drone cells and even slightly larger storage cells. That's what a natural comb actually consists of mostly worker cells, and a mix of the others. In truth, the bees ( to a much lesser extent ) re-work foundation to attempt to do the same thing in our hives. When we porvide foundation they are inclined the draw them out true. In time they will re-work the corner and along the bottom to their liking.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: small cell bees
Post by: lazy shooter on February 10, 2014, 05:24:08 pm
Small cell bees, hmmmm,……….  How small are the cells?
Title: Re: small cell bees
Post by: barry42001 on February 10, 2014, 05:43:58 pm
4.9 mm

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: small cell bees
Post by: Ray on February 10, 2014, 05:57:57 pm
Are you thinking of cutting the 4.9 plastic foundation out of the frame and installing it in wood frame?

No, I would be using the almost empty plastic frames.
My fear is that, should the bees refuse the plastic foundation they might abscond.
I also plan on narrowing the frames to 1 3/16. 
Title: Re: small cell bees
Post by: Crofter on February 10, 2014, 06:45:58 pm
I think the cutout scenario might make for some wibbly frames. Have a look on Dave Cushmans site about cutting a whole bunch of one inch holes in the foundation. It lets the bees communicate, work from both sides and apparently they will fill the holes with same size cell pattern. Supposedly they will draw it out quicker than they would a sheet of untouched foundation. It would be easy to try. Are you starting a nuc or shaking bees onto the proposed Mann Lake Pro 4.9 plastic.

Ray are you just getting bored with the long winter and starting to do some mental gymnastics until the bees fly? :laugh: :laugh:
Title: Re: small cell bees
Post by: LazyBkpr on February 11, 2014, 08:18:14 am
Are you thinking of cutting the 4.9 plastic foundation out of the frame and installing it in wood frame?

No, I would be using the almost empty plastic frames.
My fear is that, should the bees refuse the plastic foundation they might abscond.
I also plan on narrowing the frames to 1 3/16.

   OK...  that makes it a bit more understandable..

   So... just dont give them ALL small cell at the same instant..   give them a few foundation-less frames in the mix and let them draw what they want!   Un regressed bees often dont like to pull ALL small cell, but if you give them an option of a few foundation-less frames they will do fine.   They will pull 5.1 or so cells, and the bees that emerge from those 5.1 will pull the 4.9 with no problem.
   I think it was Barry that posted it..   giving them foundation-less doesnt mean all small cell. They will pull small cell in the center of the brood comb, but they will do larger cell as they move outward and even drone comb.
  I typically have enough drone comb on my frames to fill about two frames on a three brood box hive. (Mediums)
Title: Re: small cell bees
Post by: Ray on February 11, 2014, 06:08:31 pm
Been reading too much in M. Bush's website! He makes a good argument for small cell / natural cell/ foundationless, all medium depth hives.
Contacted Pierco and got a bulk price on medium unwaxed frames (all they make is 4.9). Unwaxed because I'm going to cut them down to 1 3/16.
Title: Re: small cell bees
Post by: barry42001 on February 11, 2014, 08:42:11 pm
the first thing you have to understand that the small cell is not the natural sized cell for European honeybees, Africanized maybe not European. so if you don't use any foundation at all they will draw  cells natural to what they would have been drawing had they been in Europe. the only way you're going to get them to draw 4.9 sales is to provide them with that foundation and maybe they will and maybe they won't. at worse they strip the wax off the plastic and build the comb they wanted to build again with

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: small cell bees
Post by: LazyBkpr on February 11, 2014, 10:40:08 pm
the first thing you have to understand that the small cell is not the natural sized cell for European honeybees
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk

   According to everything I have seen with my own eyes, and read on many dozens of sites 4.9 IS the average cell size for European Honeybees, if they are left to their own designs.

   Baudoux in 1893 made bees larger by using larger cells. Pinchot, Gontarski and others got the size up as large as 5.74 mm. But AI Root's first foundation was 5 cells to an inch which is 5.08 mm. Later he started making it 4.83 cells per inch. This is equivalent to 5.26 mm. (ABC XYZ of beekeeping 1945 edition page 125-126.)

  Keep in mind that "normal" foundation is 5.4 mm and natural cell is between 4.6 mm and 5.0 mm.

The size of the hexagon shape on honeycomb foundation was artificially enlarged by the beekeeping industry in the early 1900s.  This change resulted in a bigger bees that could collect and carry more nectar for each foraging flight. 

 True feral brood comb will often measure in the range of 4.6mm to 5.0mm.

  ALL of these are from different sites, I could go on for quite a while. When its warm enough I can pull a frame of larvae and lay a ruler across it to take a picture to prove the point. I have foundation-less so the bees are not guided in any way to produce larger or smaller cells. ALL of my bees started out on "normal" RiteCell plastic foundation, and through rotation they were given empty frames. The very first WORKER cells they drew out were around 5.1, which is smaller than the RiteCell 5.4 mm comb. As more foundation-less comb was dropped in over time, they made smaller cells in the center of the frames.   Of course, the first cells they drew were drone comb, and I was terribly disappointing, until I realized it was drone comb. They had a hayday on a couple frames, then got down to business.   I make no claim that it helps Varroa etc, Only that left to their own design that they DO draw smaller cells.
Title: Re: small cell bees
Post by: iddee on February 11, 2014, 10:49:23 pm
"" Keep in mind that "normal" foundation is 5.4 mm and natural cell is between 4.6 mm and 5.0 mm.""

Please provide a link or two. My understanding was the natural size "averaged" 5.3, and it was enlarged to 5.6 for the larger bee. The 4.9, I thought, only came about after the varroa got here.

Please show me where I am wrong.
Title: Re: small cell bees
Post by: LazyBkpr on February 11, 2014, 11:09:00 pm
(ABC XYZ of beekeeping 1945 edition page 125-126.)

http://www.beesource.com/point-of-view/ed-dee-lusby/
   Dee claims it is actually 4.83mm

   http://bushfarms.com/beesnaturalcell.htm    =   Natural worker comb   4.6 mm to 5.1 mm

  There are quite a few other references..
   You can also find statements that argue this, but since I have proven it to myself I find it hard to argue against. MANY of the nay sayers I have talked to and read their sites failed to CONTINUE to allow their bees to build what they WANTED, rather, they put an empty foundation in a hive of "NORMAL" plastic or wax foundation and then measured what they pulled out, and that answer is a lot like running a test on Varroa resistance for two weeks during drone rearing season. When I pointed this out to one of those sites he threatened to charge me with harassment if I ever emailed him again...    :'(

   I will take pictures of my combs and post them as soon as I can get in the hives.

   I have aq collection of snipets from sites I read, it will take me some time to figure out where they all came from, I know the last one is from the Bee hive journal site..   http://beehivejournal.blogspot.com/2010/01/cell-size-facts-and-discussion.html

  I have just had a partial collapse of comb with brood and nectar. Took
pieces out and measured cells to be 4.9 in my TBH

We've been getting numbers in the worker brood area 4.9 and smaller. This
is from a swarm. Some of the drone cells are up
towards 5.4mm! I have to do some more measuring of the honey/pollen cells.

In nature, bees will build comb with different size cells for different
 reasons. For instance, the brood cells are approximately 4.9 mm

  what we now call “small cell” was actually the natural cell size back in
 the early 1900s. At that time bee breeders thought that they could improve
 on honey bees by growing bigger bees that would produce more honey.

   All the cell walls stand at 120º to each other, forming a perfect lattice.
  Natural comb cells for non-Africanized bees are generally 1 inch deep and
 4.9 mm wide.

  I read it on the internet so it HAS to be true right?
   

   
Title: Re: small cell bees
Post by: tecumseh on February 12, 2014, 06:06:41 am
a barry snip....
the first thing you have to understand that the small cell is not the natural sized cell for European honeybees,

another snip...
http://www.beesource.com/point-of-view/ed-dee-lusby/
   Dee claims it is actually 4.83mm

   http://bushfarms.com/beesnaturalcell.htm    =   Natural worker comb   4.6 mm to 5.1 mm

tecumseh...
so little time and so little true understanding..

I suspect with a bit of rigorous logic Barry content makes more sense than anything either of the above and questionable links might suggest.  logic inform me that since their were half a dozen or so races of bees in europe and each of these had somewhat to significant morphological difference that any mean number (average) stated would also include a greater and greater deviation around this mean.  if some author does state some mean without the deviation included it really suggest that their understanding of basic science is a bit to HIGHLY flawed.

bullet point > there is no one number which can adequately express all the variation of all the bees that originated from Europe.  then of course in some places ahb is also part of the mix.

quite OBVIOUS to me some of the above information suggest that the comb of the bees measured are highly africanized.   of course if you keep bees like this in places where state statue clearly says keeping this kind of stock is illegal (there is also added liability where ever this is a part of the legal landscape) then why not rather than call your stock africanized why not call it small cell.  clearly sounds like questionable ethics rubbing up against good marketing to me.
Title: Re: small cell bees
Post by: LazyBkpr on February 12, 2014, 10:38:03 am
Nothing I posted had anything to do with Africanized genetics. Even the black bees from germany etc are quoted to have an average cell size of 4.66mm..   I have read that AHB cell sizes differ greatly depending on the strain and cross breeding, and havent looked into them much beyond that and watching the documentaries about them.
   Almost ALL I know is from reading, and that has the inherent tenancy to be wrong, but I have measured my own combs and verified that most of what I have read was true.  Now, Understand me here..  I think the BEST way to learn is by being WRONG.. it means you remember the lesson VERY well, and I have learned many such lessons in my lifetime, and I expect to learn MANY more..
   I have nothing against learning in this way, if I did, I'd have long ago locked myself in the house so no one could prove me wrong :P
   Indeed, bees on natural comb build different cell sizes. If you measure the center of the worker comb mine averages around 4.9 with some smaller and some larger. As the comb moves outward, the cell sizes get a little larger, and naturally Drone comb is even larger. I have NOT measured Honey comb, but it is something I need to do, because I OFTEN use last years honey comb as this years brood foundation. I have learned in the last few days that honey comb often uses larger cell size??
Title: Re: small cell bees
Post by: barry42001 on February 12, 2014, 10:45:59 am
according to what I understood because most of the bee breeder yards open mate. because that is how they fertilized Queens, it's inevitable that Africanized honey bee genes will be involved in there doing pool, Africanized drones get up earlier fly further and are faster than European drones. and while relatively speaking Africanized honey bees are a relative newcomer they're spreading the southern half of the United States has been quite remarkable trying to find Africanized bee free zone would be quite difficult down south. Africanized honey bees are smaller than European bees of course you need a micrometer to know that. if you're looking for a varroa resistant bee, the only way that changes that is if the genes that go into the bees that originally made small cells ( Africanized honey bees, and Asian bees ) who have dealt with varroa, for hundreds if not thousands of years and have worked out defense is for it. European bees have not had to deal with this except for perhaps the last 35 - 40 years not hardly enough time.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk
Title: Re: small cell bees
Post by: LazyBkpr on February 12, 2014, 11:37:27 am
the only way that changes that is if the genes that go into the bees that originally made small cells ( Africanized honey bees, and Asian bees ) who have dealt with varroa, for hundreds if not thousands of years and have worked out defense is for it.

  The Russian bees have been dealing with Varroa as well, which is why there is such a movement to get them and improve them.
   As far as smaller originally??   From what I have seen they were ALL that size or SMALLER originally?  Looking for evidence to the contrary. And if that can be proven, then why do my bees prefer the smaller size to the larger cells?


   AHB has an advantage in that the queens will emerge about a day ahead of the European queens, so it is usually the AHB queen thats running about killing rivals. Add to that the smaller faster drones and yeah, you have a real problem trying to keep the ahb from taking over in rapid succession, as is quite evident.
   However, in regressed bees you also see the emergence time reduced by nearly a day, (along with the smaller drones) which is why many people are claiming it helps them deal with the varroa. Keepers of AHB colonies that put them on standard foundation claim that they STILL have problems with mites, but I don't want to get into that argument because I havent seen any drastic change in resistance with my own bees, so I cant personally say it helps or it doesnt, in fact I would claim it doesn't if forced to it.
   The last documentary I watched claims that the AHB traits are passed on by the drones, not the queens. When an AHB queen is bred by AI to a eurpoean drone the temperment calms considerably, when a Eurpoean queen is bred by an AHB drone, her offspring become hyper aggressive...  so the problem will be to somehow overcome the AHB drones.
   I would think smaller european drones might give them a run for their money??
    The National Geographic Documentary Attack of the Killer Bees is a good watch if you have the time.
Title: Re: small cell bees
Post by: Crofter on February 12, 2014, 01:35:26 pm
I know there is a big variation in size amongst my worker bees. I attribute that to the drones genetics but I do have a mixture of wax and plastic foundation and some Mann Lake small cell plastic frames. It would take a lot of work and disciplined record keeping as well as control colonies to see where they would drift size wise in their body size and preferred cell size. During that process the background of drone population could well be changing enough to skew the observations.

I would want to see if the cell size preference would transport with the queen. I would want to verify whether geographic latitude had an effect, I would want to see if so called retrogression was reversable. Many questions. I think the tests so far have not been well controlled either by the proponents or the detractors. My feeling is that if it were that simple it would be accepted practice long ago. A large number of vert good, observant beekeepers have called bunk on it. 

Confirmation bias is a powerful force.
Title: Re: small cell bees
Post by: barry42001 on February 12, 2014, 01:38:08 pm
I'm not sure precisely what you're looking for in your bees, varroa resistant strains of course do exist. by continually crossing and hybridizing strains, I do not believe we necessarily strengthen anyone given species it be. hybrid vigor is one thing, continually experimenting, and then even when less then ideal traits manifest, we continue to perpetuate the bad traits, despite the fact we haven't exactly gotten what we were looking for to begin with. yes there is an element of truth that some of the nastier bees have some qualities that we're looking for. are those qualities good enough that we went to endure the pounding we have to take to go through their colonies. personally no its not worth it. we seem to have gotten away from some very basic beekeeping. most things that affect are hives are caused by us. obviously we a small beekeepers are influenced by insecticides and things like that things we can't really control. I would think that would be more  a issue for the commercial beekeeper. but I believe we do more damage to bees by tinkering with their genetics. just my convoluted thought process.
I also believe that if you maintain truly strong colonies, not average colonies, certainly not weak colonies, but really strong colonies most of our issues would go away with regards to pests that invade the hive. say that they would go away, what they would be held in check a lot better.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk
Title: Re: small cell bees
Post by: LazyBkpr on February 12, 2014, 01:43:12 pm
I concur!

 As far as I have been able to tell, the queen size doesnt change much using small or large cell. I can only assume because they make the queens cell OFF the foundation..
   Hoping this keeps going.. like to know what everyone else has gleaned from their research, even if that research only involves reading and watching vids.

   So, with the different foundations and cell sizes, your not having any issues with them buggering up the comb Croft?
Title: Re: small cell bees
Post by: LazyBkpr on February 12, 2014, 02:02:49 pm
I won't disagree with that Barry.
   I don't like mean bees and wont keep them around any longer than it takes to re queen them.
   What i am looking for?  Honestly?  I am not LOOKING for anything. I use foundation-less because I can make it myself so its CHEAP.. (Yes i am a cheap bugger) beyond that, if the natural size cells help with diseases or mites.. GREAT.. foundation-less offers me advantages I find useful. Doing Cell punch or cutting out queen cells. Cutting out the comb instead of scraping and cleaning plastic. I can cut the old wax out and drop the frame back in the hive in moments, then melt the wax and make my wife happy when I give it to her for candles, and possibly making comb honey in the future without buying the foundation..
   Living in farm country, I try to keep wax no older than three years in the hives. i have never had the wax tested for Neonics, roundup or fungicides etc, so if nothing else, it makes me FEEL like i am doing my part to keep the bees healthy when my fields, some as close as five feet from my hives, get sprayed.
   Learning about small and natural cell came after i had already starting to convert to the foundation-less, and since I was already on that path I started looking things up and reading/watching what i could..
   BIAS is on the side of the believer, but I have also tried to look at the other side.. Unfortunately, beekeeping varies so much that it is often the BIAS of the writer that dictates the "facts"  So I post what I believe I have found to be true, and wait to be proven wrong. It has happened before, and it will happen again!
   I am happy to argue what I believe, but unlike some, I am also ready to jump ship when my beliefs are proven wrong.
Title: Re: small cell bees
Post by: barry42001 on February 12, 2014, 02:15:07 pm
my only issue with foundationless is that while it's cheap for you is the most expensive things that bees can make resource wise. I am certain you're aware the conversion ratios of nectar to honey and honey to wax. any other issue I have is even if you do provide the bees with foundation they will make changes anyway, I'm sure you have seen where they have chewed down to just wax not even the ridges of the foundation, and repurposed that area for their needs. what I didn't like about foundation is it maximizes the number of workers cells. they will still make drone cells but to a much lesser degree. unless you're doing Queen work do you really need all those drones.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk
Title: Re: small cell bees
Post by: LazyBkpr on February 12, 2014, 02:23:27 pm
Cant argue with that either, with the exception of the amount of wax saved by the foundation. Does that ounce and a half of wax makes that big of a difference in their overall production? They only have to build it once every three years in my hives. Those I still have on plastic build those plastic frames SLOWER than the bees on no foundation frames.. if I put BOTH in a hive, they will fill the empty frame before they even start on the plastic frame.. so I think there is something to be said for giving them what they want to use... does having a happy bee make up the difference in resources used??  I have NO clue!! SO I can't really argue that either   :sad:
Title: Re: small cell bees
Post by: barry42001 on February 12, 2014, 02:29:18 pm
lol I ALWAYS use crimped wire foundation plastic free

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: small cell bees
Post by: Crofter on February 12, 2014, 02:32:00 pm
Lzybkpr quote; " I am happy to argue what I believe, but unlike some, I am also ready to jump ship when my beliefs are proven wrong."

I like that line; it would make a good signature! 

The small cell plastic was a bit messed up with vertical ridges every three inches or so. They seemed to start leaning the cells like they were tight for room, then skip a vertical row and go again till they leaned too much.

I have had them draw out foundationless drone comb and that is near picture perfect but I think this next season I will drop a few more of the narrowed foundationless frames I have, down more centered in the nest to see what they draw for size. That will also be a tool toward swarm control.


Title: Re: small cell bees
Post by: LazyBkpr on February 12, 2014, 02:38:43 pm
Ahh, well i dont have any wax foundation, but that would make sense if I wasn't so cheap!  $500 or a grand on foundation i will have to replace in three years...   can be spent on more tools, or that 454 rotating assembly for my Dart little M block...  maybe time to set aside the roar of a nasty engine in favor of the hum of the bees...

     :o  WHAT was I thinking!!  I didnt just say that!
Title: Re: small cell bees
Post by: barry42001 on February 12, 2014, 02:44:13 pm
lol would rather spend those few extra dollars to a achieve a desired result.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: small cell bees
Post by: Crofter on February 12, 2014, 03:06:41 pm
Barry I have seen the biological cost of comb argued back and forth but a few things might cancel some of the perceived debit. The only difference in the required wax is that which is in the midrib. When the bees build it, it is also much thinner than what is in purchased wax foundation. I have seen the calculations of the actual amount of wax in the midrib, and it is surprisingly small. It is true that the inherent energy in wax, in strict terms of energy content, is higher but there may be other considerations in overall efficiency.

My experience is that bees will draw out a frame of foundationless quicker than they can draw out comb on wax preprinted foundation and much quicker than on plastic foundation. At times in the spring flow the foragers are held up for space waiting on comb to be drawn. If they can draw foundationless quicker and get more honey salted down I think it might greatly outweigh the bit of extra wax.

From a swarm prevention angle the outlet for the urge to make wax by the flush of young bees, seems to be relieved by putting empty frames into the brood nest. That can be done with less disturbance than the insertion of a curtain of foundation. Making wax may be for bees like sex for a teenager; no onerous task. :laugh: :laugh:

I will have all overwintered hives (if I have any at all) come spring and do not plan to increase so I will be able to play games and experiment with them. I would not look forward to going all foundationless from the get go, but the novelty of installing and wiring foundation has worn off. Unless someone were handy and liked monkeying with things, I would probably recommend wood frames and pop in the plastic foundation. Depends on the person, their abilities, and time allotment.
 
Title: Re: small cell bees
Post by: LazyBkpr on February 12, 2014, 03:30:49 pm
lol would rather spend those few extra dollars to a achieve a desired result.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk

   A desired result?  At this point I am achieving exactly the desired result. Saving myself at minimum a thousand dollars and getting nicer comb built faster than I ever did on plastic, so I suppose desired result is like beauty, its in the eye of the beholder.
Title: Re: small cell bees
Post by: barry42001 on February 12, 2014, 03:53:22 pm
I have never had with the crimp wired foundation other than perfect comb, with only occasionally gnawing in the lower corners

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: small cell bees
Post by: LazyBkpr on February 12, 2014, 04:45:01 pm
I have never had with the crimp wired foundation other than perfect comb, with only occasionally gnawing in the lower corners

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk

  Sweet! So were both happy campers then right?
Title: Re: small cell bees
Post by: tecumseh on February 13, 2014, 04:15:01 am
a barry snip...
my only issue with foundationless is that while it's cheap for you is the most expensive things that bees can make resource wise. I am certain you're aware the conversion ratios of nectar to honey and honey to wax

a crofter snip...
My experience is that bees will draw out a frame of foundationless quicker than they can draw out comb on wax preprinted foundation and much quicker than on plastic foundation.

tecumseh...
context can make a huge difference in PERCEIVED RESULTS and perceived results are not the same as the actual results (and this my friends is why science has great value).  the above sounds a bit like 'you can have your cake and eat it too..... which is to suggest that the above two snips seem totally contrary to each other.
Title: Re: small cell bees
Post by: Crofter on February 13, 2014, 07:25:12 am
I think some of the comparisons in loss of honey production does not differentiate between  the available of fully drawn out comb vs bare foundation vs foundationless frames.

In such a case the  4 days or so delay to draw out out comb and the lower honey production figure gets extrapolated as the 7:1 figure of the relative energy cost of wax production. There is no question that a colony will brood up quicker and produce more honey, given drawn comb.
Title: Re: small cell bees
Post by: Crofter on February 13, 2014, 08:09:08 am


 As far as I have been able to tell, the queen size doesnt change much using small or large cell. I can only assume because they make the queens cell OFF the foundation..
   Hoping this keeps going.. like to know what everyone else has gleaned from their research, even if that research only involves reading and watching vids.

 

LZY. What I was getting at was not the queens size being different in "regressed" bees but rather the question to me is, if you requeen a colony of "regressed" bees and put them onto all new foundationless frames will they continue to draw smaller average cell size. Also will the old queen of the regressed bees take the traits with her.

In other words, is it learned behaviour with no genetic change? Over a period of years have we changed the genetics by enlarging the supplied cell size of foundation? If so can we reverse this genetic shift in a few generations or do we have to start selecting queens whose offspring most readily "regress" and cull by some means the ones who dont?

Intuitively, my mental processes are not satisfied by what is claimed in a couple of the most touted examples of "regression" and the subsequent mite tolerance. I know that an occasional pearl can be plucked from a clam but I get weary sorting through a lot of alternately convoluted and stretched connections in their hypotheses. I guess I just have to see a strong chain of connectedness before I commit myself to it!

Oh Me of Little Faith!
Title: Re: small cell bees
Post by: LazyBkpr on February 13, 2014, 09:11:35 am
Oh OK, I think I understand...  and, I THINK I can answer, but some of that answer will be strictly from secondhand experience...
   SIZE isnt genetic.. or, I guess I should say it IS genetic, but, the genetic size and actual size have little to do with one another. 
   The SIZE of the cell on foundation is a forced thing decided on by whoever is making the foundation, the queen and genetics do not matter. If she has two cells side by side.. a 4.85 mm cell on one side and a 5.4 mm cell beside it. She will lay eggs in both. One will be a slightly larger bee than the other when they emerge. The smaller bee will emerge first by almost a day.
  SO
  Its the actual size of the cell making the determination here, not the bees or the queen or the genetics.
  The problem with regression is that bees use themselves to gauge the cell size when they build those cells, so taking a large cell bee and allowing it to make new cells with no foundation.. it will make a cell slightly smaller..  hatch a be from that new cell, and IT will build a cell slightly smaller.  M.Bush says two generations, and I believe Dee Lusby says it can be done in three generations.. but sometimes takes more.  I didnt measure or count, or even worry about it, I just continue to put in empty frames for them to draw and let them do as they wish.
   M. Bush says if your putting bees in a hive on new foundation, GIVE them small cell and they will be regressed!   I tried that with PF120's and got a mess on the foundation.  So I believe it does take natural comb and at least three generations..  I suppose if you were in a hurry, scraping off the mess and continuing to insist they do it right they eventually would..  but are we in a hurry for a reason?   Its a lot easier to slowly rotate in the new frames a few at a time.
Title: Re: small cell bees
Post by: skydiver on February 13, 2014, 09:22:56 am
Quote
LZY. What I was getting at was not the queens size being different in "regressed" bees but rather the question to me is, if you requeen a colony of "regressed" bees and put them onto all new foundationless frames will they continue to draw smaller average cell size
I am not lazy, but yes if you take bees from a standered hive  that has had 5.4mm foundation drawn for brood comb and shake them all (including the queen) from there combs into a new hive with no foundation in the frames. They will draw new comb in the brood nest area that is smaller 5.1mm on the first regression. Then do it again, after they build back up, they will draw smaller yet 4.9mm average in the brood nest area and larger cell outside of the nest. All done from bees that have been on 5.4mm foundation for years. Which shows the genetic imprint has never left the bees they just fallow ,for most part, the imprint on the foundation as long as the change is not to big of a jump. Which is why if you want to regress your bees using foundation from 5.4mm to 4.8mm you get better results going with 5.1mm foundation for a generation or two of bees, to get smaller workers from them smaller cell, and then those smaller works are able to draw the 4.8mm foundation.
Title: Re: small cell bees
Post by: LazyBkpr on February 13, 2014, 09:26:55 am
Thanks Skydiver.. you said it with fewer words and made it more understandable
Title: Re: small cell bees
Post by: skydiver on February 13, 2014, 09:41:50 am
Quote
but are we in a hurry for a reason?
If we want small cell bee quickly. One should just buy a nuc or two of small cell bees and build them up and split them to get your small cell numbers.   ;) ;)
Title: Re: small cell bees
Post by: Crofter on February 13, 2014, 09:48:41 am
It would be interesting to measure the the incubation time of bees in the process of being "regressed" to see if, or by how much it changed. It should be do able within the life span of a queen to ensure the genetics didnt change during the experiment time. It would be interesting to pull pupae from the various cells that encompass the range of sizes observed and see if the varroa #s differed. It would take some serious methods and documentation to do it, but it seems amazing that such a potentially simple solution to varroa control has not been pounced upon.
Title: Re: small cell bees
Post by: Crofter on February 13, 2014, 10:04:53 am
I think the time necessary to get either small cell or natural sized comb drawn out and every bee in the hive hatched on those cells would be quite a mission before any meaningful comparisons could begin. Most people who have dabbled with it have so many other unaccounted changes going on at the same time that it makes conclusions, such as they presently are; open to a lot of conjecture.
Title: Re: small cell bees
Post by: barry42001 on February 13, 2014, 11:03:10 am
I do believe the life cycle of a bee is the life cycle of the bee. whether small cell or anything else. once the egg is laid the clock has started. and it will take 21 days give or take a couple hours for workers.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk
Title: Re: small cell bees
Post by: LazyBkpr on February 13, 2014, 01:12:05 pm
If you look at Dee's site, Michael Bush's site, the natural beekeeping blogs etc.. you will see that the small cell bee emerges ALMOST a day sooner.. and THIS is the reason people thought it would make them Varroa resistant. the AHB on their natural cell do exactly the same thing. One day earlier, and since they were resistant to the Varroa, this HAD to be the answer.. right!! Right!!!
   Sadly... no..  It may certainly be a PART of the answer, but its not the whole answer.
Title: Re: small cell bees
Post by: Crofter on February 13, 2014, 01:23:25 pm
http://www.beesource.com/point-of-view/ed-dee-lusby/more-on-small-cell-foundation-for-mite-control/managing-colony-genetics-by-grafting-and-selecting-for-queens-with-shorter-development-times/

The bees do a very fine regulation of the brood temperature but at the extremes of outside conditions enough variation can occur to change the emergence time about a day total:where AHB genetics are in the feral bees, their slightly reduced emergence time for queens at least could give a slight nod to being the first queen to emerge. In a few generations that could lead to having "regressed" bees that readily draw smaller cell size. Hmmmmm.
 Can it be demonstrated with certainty that merely laying eggs (of certified non africanized genetics) in smaller cells will shorten the emergence period that amount or is that an explanation for other causal effects?

"Small celled bees" get much better PR than "Africanized hybrid bees". Marketing symantecs?  My jury is still in deliberation!
Title: Re: small cell bees
Post by: barry42001 on February 13, 2014, 01:39:38 pm
although it is a sloppy comparison, I kept the colony of bald faced Hornets that I captured about the size of a softball. the initial workers were rather small by Hornet standards the reason being they were fed solely by the Queen who had to split her duties between buildings cells, building the outside covering around the colony, and hunting to feed a growing numbers of larvae. as I said in the moment the egg is laid the clock is ticking. regardless of how well nourished the larvae is, after X number of days it will start to pupation. after X number of days it will emerge as an adult not a full sized adult as what will follow because what will follow will be better fed. again a sloppy comparison.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk
Title: Re: small cell bees
Post by: LazyBkpr on February 13, 2014, 02:12:06 pm
Crofter;
  Can it be demonstrated with certainty that merely laying eggs (of certified non africanized genetics) in smaller cells will shorten the emergence period that amount or is that an explanation for other causal effects?

MB:  The shorter time to emergence is a product of cell size, as I and others have observed and measured in EHB's on small cell.

  supposedly... the small cell bees that ARE regressed will also produce a smaller queen that also emerges about a day earlier, matching the AHB for emergence time..   
   I have also been reading a bit about the AHB.. and south America where beekeepers are maintaining them on STANDARD foundation, they are producing larger bees and queens that emerge a day later than on small, or natural cell..   A day is not quite right, its not quite a day. One report says about 20 hours and another says just over 21 hours.. close enough to a day for my unscientific mind.

   Personally, I feel that the resistance to mites the AHB show in natural comb is related to genetics and instincts. If we let our hives swarm two, three, or four times a year, and make new queens, the break in each brood cycle would set the mites back. Add in SOME hygienic behavior and you would have a very mite tolerant bee.
   The managed colonies of AHB that are prevented from swarming AND being raised on standard foundation are having problems with mites.

   In all the reading I have done, the tests to compare large and small cell bees for resistance were done over short periods of time, MANY of those tests also ran large and small cell foundation in the same hive to make comparisons..  Many of these hives were also Treated in various ways DURING the tests.. OA treatments for example, so the bees were never PUSHED to the limit.
   The small cell folks say it can often take as much as two years for the resistane to kick in and become evident, and they also claim that the bees HAVE to be pushed to the breaking point before the small cell bees start to react to the mites, while large cell bees would NOT react...


  blahhhh...  my head is going to explode...  Information overload on a not so bright country boy.

      So...  Keeping VSH natural cell bees that emerge sooner, doing a spring Artificial swarm split, and using OA Vapor early spring and late summer..   May?? Be enough to keep the Varroa at bay?    I think that will be my plan and see how it goes by doing mite counts every month.   Perusing a hundred articles trying to find the truth, one way or another is best left to brighter bulbs than mine.
Title: Re: small cell bees
Post by: tecumseh on February 14, 2014, 06:30:44 am
a Barry snip...
I do believe the life cycle of a bee is the life cycle of the bee. whether small cell or anything else. once the egg is laid the clock has started. and it will take 21 days give or take a couple hours for workers.

tecumseh....
I am with you here Barry, but perhaps not 100%.  Although many many text may suggest it takes 3 days for a egg to turn larval and 22 days for a worker to go from an egg to an emerged adult these are all just MEAN calculation so there is some natural variation around these stated times.   You only need to rear a few queens and pull cells religiously to find out pretty quick that all cells do not just hatch at a predefined time.  Some well respected authorities (you know the kind that have PHD behind their names???) have suggested that the transition from egg to larvae is nocturnal < so logically if the egg turned larval in exactly 3 days (72 hours) why would this all happen at night if the queen is laying all the time.

Quite obvious to me things like temperature and humidity can significantly alter these process.  again if you rear a few queens and pay any kind of attention to what is happening when the weather is coolish the emergence of the virgin queen takes just a bit longer and if temperature and humidity are optimal then the time required is a bit shorter.

snip one..
If you look at Dee's site, Michael Bush's site, the natural beekeeping blogs etc.. you will see that the small cell bee emerges ALMOST a day sooner.

snip two..
 The small cell folks say it can often take as much as two years for the resistane to kick in and become evident, and they also claim that the bees HAVE to be pushed to the breaking point before the small cell bees start to react to the mites, while large cell bees would NOT react...

tecumseh...
so how do you reckon the two 'authorities' might actually determine this difference with any accuracy?  perhaps you have reviewed each of these folks data sheet to confirm their conclusion?  if no methodology or data sheet exist then this 'evidence' is considered allegorical >which is often times where REAL SCIENCE begins. 

at the end of the day if you make these kinds of conclusion then you try to understand the MECHANISM (basically you are asking the question HOW something works) to describe what is going on with this difference.

snip two does sound to me a bit like pure rhetorical rubbish but none the less a good way to cover you tracks.  prior to the time folks began to rear bees for varroa resistance the time required for varroa to kill a hive (essentially 100% of any sub population) was two years.  ONCE AGAIN I would ask you what mechanism might be in play that it waits for two years to kick in?

sadly some years ago when I asked Mr Bush this question of mechanism directly he seem quite clueless... couldn't even compose a logical hypothesis for this difference... and in the process gave me at least another bit of evidence as to his capacity to actually conduct anything that looked like REAL science.  of course for the small cell TRUE BELIEVERS there is always FAITH <reference a good little book here by Eric Hoffer called The True Believer... pretty much explains why some mass movement persist and why some fail and it also give you some understanding of why THE TRUE BELIEVER will follow some authority right over a cliff almost without fail or consideration of how final this decision really works out.

lastly although quite often small cell phone point to AHB as a model of resistance to varroa there is really no real evidence to suggest this is true.  If the AHB actually has an advantage over the varroa I would suspect the frequency of swarming and the resulting breaks in the brood cycle has more to do with this difference than anything else.... IF this difference does exist.
Title: Re: small cell bees
Post by: Marbees on February 14, 2014, 07:09:32 am
tec, you said it all. :yah: :agree: thanks
Title: Re: small cell bees
Post by: Crofter on February 14, 2014, 09:10:24 am
tec, you said it all. :yah: :agree: thanks

I add my thanks to this; I think it is essential to have people point out contradictions or omissions in claims made otherwise there gets to be ideas considered "common knowledge" that amount to little more than highly subjective observations.

It is nice to see it done in a way that encourages rational discussion without animosity.
Title: Re: small cell bees
Post by: LazyBkpr on February 14, 2014, 09:50:09 am
hrm.. well, thats sort of what I was saying..   Theres LOTS of things to read and very few FACTS.  It is easy to write something, and not so easy to back it up. 
   As far as the difference in emergence time, that should be very easy to prove. So I am not sure why it hasnt been. I am completely confused WHY many of these things haven't been legitimately put to the TEST to see if there is even a hint of truth to them..   They design experiments and tests that.. at least to my untrained eye look like they were MEANT to fail..   When someone like myself with limited intelligence can look at these tests and see IMMEDIATELY the faults in them.. then why cant these folks with PHD's by their names see those faults?
   From what i have read, beeks usually start to lose hives to Varroa late in the second year, with growing losses going into the third year.. so.. why design an experiment that lasts a couple of months, AND treat the bees to kill the mites DURING those experiments?  Why would you put small cell foundation into a large cell hive and expect the bees on ONE frame to suddenly start resisting mites? Or for tham matter why would you even expect them to draw that frame out with small cells?   Blahhh..   Most of the research data I have read I never finished reading.. its that mind block wall that comes up when I read the METHODS used and see that they are already doomed. I can read what they did, see the faults and guess the results before I see them. So far batting one hundred.

   Resistance..   from what I have gathered from several sites and even vids, is that all bees have a certain resistance, or Hygienic behavior, but most no longer show it, or use it.  In order to bring that out, it takes pushing them to the breaking point, sometimes as long as two years before they reach that point of intolerance, that their resistance begins to kick in..
   OK....
    This makes a certain amount of sense to me. Perhaps in the past bees had some other pst they had to deal with? those hygienic traits are there buried in the past. Kind of like watching a young boy grow into a teenager and suddenly one day, he SEES GIRLS!
   However, the fact that they claim this works ONLY on small cell bees doesn't make any sense to me, and more or less ruins any further discussion.  Once my mind raises the wall of disbelief, there is nothing else to be said that I am willing to give credit to. 

   So why discuss it?  Because I want at least some of it to be true, and there is always hope that someone will step up and say HEY look at this research! These guys and gals did a GREAT job with their tests... and THIS is what they found!

   I will be paying attention this year to emergence times. I cant imagine that it would be greatly difficult to put a piece of drawn comb into a brood nest, and pull that brood comb..   ??  two hours later? Check for eggs, put it above an excluder and begin the countdown. Emergence time would have a variable of two hours.  This could easily be done in spring, summer and fall to add temps, humidity etc to the mix.

   I am not pro OR con.  While I am not a disciple, I would like to know as much as possible.  Things like Nocturnal eggs raise that wall of disbelief, PHD or not. I can't see the explanation for it?  I can sort of see where pushing a beehive to its limit would make a trait that is dormant rise to the surface.  I suspect that the egg will hatch when its ready, be it day or night. Kind of like that pot of water your watching. It WILL boil when its ready, watching or not.
"Perhaps you have reviewed each of these folks "nocturnal" data sheet to confirm their conclusion?"  heheh, sorry Tec, couldn't help myself...   
 
   Emergence time is easy to check. TOO easy to lie about.  Other claims that are less believable???  I would ask.. WHY lie about them?  What would be the point?
 So lets say I tell you ALL;
    " Put blue paint UNDER the bottom board of your hive will repel ALL varroa within two years!"
    Isn't it rather apparent that in two years your all going to know I was full of POO clear up to my eyebrows?
   Yeah, I could say you used the wrong shade of blue, or that you used flat paint instead of high gloss, but it is still too easy to test and prove that I am an idiot.

   I think it has more to do with region, climate and genetics than outright lies. What works for MB, Dee, and the others who claim success, is because ALL of the underlying circumstances added together worked, rather than any single thing they did.  I am still waiting for someone to put all of those little pieces together and say..  AHAA!

   Besides, its SNOWING like mad right now, and I AM going stir crazy. I have some interest in this so its a good discussion to see what yall believe and don't.

 
Title: Re: small cell bees
Post by: Crofter on February 14, 2014, 10:27:17 am
Keep your thinking cap on LZYBKPR even if the itch drives ya mad! On thing I would question, is the weight of  the idea about "why lie?" I think you are taking your personal feelings about being caught in a lie and supposing it is equally truth motivating for others. I personally have known at least 2 individuals who would tell the most preposterous lies, some certain to be discovered, and creatively explain them away if confronted.
Some cult leaders are notorious for this capacity. The "messiah complex" has its own reward system that we mortals might not appreciate.

I agree about how poor some of the experiments were that purported to debunk the small cell theory. Just as classic as another one that was supposed to discover the effects of a certain pesticide. It was nothing more than a self fulfilling prophesy.

That kind of very poor scientific process sours so many people that they tend to lose respect for any manifestation of "scientific" and pushes them into the embrace of other's subjective findings.

Left to our own devices, our experiments suffer the problem of "local conditions" influence and product sample size/ probability distortions. Dont even mention our own preconceptions! :laugh:

It is not easy to do good science!