Results 1 to 20 of 41

Hybrid View

  1. #1

    Default small cell research at HAS

    For anyone attending HAS who is interested, Jennifer Berry from the UGA beelab is hoping to present data from the UGA small cell research project.
    Dan www.boogerhillbee.com
    Experience is a hard teacher because she gives the test first, the lesson afterwards

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Nehawka, Nebraska USA
    Posts
    45,925

    Default Study results

    Jennifer Berry from the University of Georgia reported at HAS on a study she has done on small cell. It seemed well constructed and executed with checks to make sure the combs were drawn correctly, starting mite loads equalized etc. 40 large cell (5.3mm) and 40 small cell (4.9mm) hives. I'm not sure of the reason for 5.3mm instead of 5.4mm.

    I'm sure the results will be misquoted by opponents, but here is the synopsis.

    There was no statistically significant difference in mite counts in her study, between the large cell and small cell. There WAS a statistically significant difference in the number of bees with the small cell hives having more bees.

    There will be those who will say that there were more mites on the smaller cell bees. This is technically true, but from a scientific research perspective it is NOT true because the difference was not statistically significant. So from a study point of view there was no difference.

    It sounds as if the study will continue, and I have hopes that the long term will prove out. Survival is the real bottom line and if she keeps the 40 hives of each going with no treatments that should be the real answer to the question.

    She also intends to do some other studies on other aspects of small cell such as capping and emergence times.

    I look forward to it. She certainly seems to be taking it very seriously and it's the first time I've seen that in a small cell study on EHB.
    Michael Bush bushfarms.com/bees.htm "Everything works if you let it." ThePracticalBeekeeper.com 40y 200h 37yTF

  3. #3

    Default

    Not that its of any consequence, the two trials started with 10 small and 10 regular cell each. A total of 40 hives. As you might imagine, there have been some losses so the current total is somewhat less.
    Dan www.boogerhillbee.com
    Experience is a hard teacher because she gives the test first, the lesson afterwards

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    3,401

    Default

    Haven't read the paper yet, so can anyone say if there was
    ANY difference detected that was statistically significant
    aside from the population counts?

    The obvious next step is to swap queens between high
    and low population hives to see if the obvious is true,
    that some queens are better layers than others.

    As it stands now, she's got nothin'.
    Last edited by Jim Fischer; 07-16-2007 at 05:54 AM.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    1,933

    Default

    She measured mite levels from mite drops, alcohol wash, and examined capped cells, she also measured bee populations. I don't remember any thing else she measured? I guess I should have taken notes. The bee populations had the only statistically different outcomes. As Michael said, it look executed very well.

    She did qualify that you need regressed bees to successfully draw out 4.9mm foundation, which they did, then removed the combs and used those in their colonies made up from packages.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    1,933

    Default

    I wouldn't say that queen differences would be the obvious reason for population differences. All queens where from the same supplier. More cells, likely less food needed to feed each larvae, leaving more available for more bees seems more obvious to me. The existing cells size research that is out there shows more food is fed to larvae raised in larger cells. However, there are much easier ways to get more bees out of a hive.

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Fischer View Post
    Haven't read the paper yet
    They ran the data just days before HAS, so Jennifer could present it at the meeting. There isn't any paper....yet

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Fischer View Post
    As it stands now, she's got nothin'.
    And as any researcher knows, having nothin' is really just as good as having somethin'
    Dan www.boogerhillbee.com
    Experience is a hard teacher because she gives the test first, the lesson afterwards

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    El Dorado County, CA
    Posts
    605

    Default

    There was no statistically significant difference in mite counts in her study, between the large cell and small cell. There WAS a statistically significant difference in the number of bees with the small cell hives having more bees.

    in reading posts following the above i got the feeling folks where questioning why the numbers of bees where higher in the sc hives.
    i automatically figured it's because sc combs have more cells hence more if smaller bees
    all that is gold does not glitter

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Moore County, NC
    Posts
    208

    Default

    [QUOTE=Michael Bush;249789]

    I'm sure the results will be misquoted by opponents, . . .

    Now Michael, why would they do that? The results seem to indicate that there was no significant difference in mite count between large cell and small cell. I think that the "opponents" of small cell will properly quote this many times.


    [QUOTE]
    She also intends to do some other studies on other aspects of small cell such as capping and emergence times.

    If I understand this debate correctly, small cell proponents postulated that small cell hives had less mites because of shorter capping and emergence times with small cell. If the study showed that there were NOT less mites with small cell, then the difference in capping and emergence time (if it does exist) would not seem to cause a decrease in mite levels.

    I wish that I could have been here for the meeting. Thanks for summarizing the results. I look forward to seeing more research in this area.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    1,933

    Default

    If the study showed that there were NOT less mites with small cell, then the difference in capping and emergence time (if it does exist) would not seem to cause a decrease in mite levels.
    Well it is just one single study. If it showed small cell worked wonderfully, it would still be just one study. Good researchers are incredibly meticulous and go over things thoroughly before coming to conclusions, thus the need for more study (Such as capping times) to look at it at a different angle.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Huntington, West Virginia, USA
    Posts
    438

    Default Zachary Huang reported that there was a recent 4-year study

    He said it was done in Europe, seemed valid, and came up with the same results. That is, more mites in small cell than regular cell. He didn't say whether the difference was statistically significant. Jennifer Berry asked for the citation so she could include it in the footnotes of her study when hers is published, so you should be able to get ahold of it soon.
    In another interesting part of her talk, she has gone along for several years with 2 friends who are in the bee removal business & measured the size of feral brood comb. If memory serves, the range was from 4.9mm to 5.6mm with the average being 5.3mm. I think she says this should not be surprising since most of those bees probably came from unregressed hives.
    Back to the small cell study. It makes sense that there would be more bees on small cell because there are more brood cells.
    It was a very interesting talk and the discussion was lively afterwards.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    1,933

    Default

    Here's the referenced "study" danno
    http://freepages.misc.rootsweb.com/~...rs/Varroa.html
    They've been hacking on it over on Bee-l

    My personal OP. is that the conclusions drawn in the way they are completely undermine the whole study, which isn't much to begin with. But perhaps I'm being a little harsh.

    Not to be confused with Jennifer Berry's study which is exceptionally professional.
    Last edited by MichaelW; 07-17-2007 at 08:05 AM.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    São Paulo State, Brazil
    Posts
    55

    Default

    It's my understanding that a "not statistically different" number of mites living in a "statistically significant" higher number of bees, means less mites per bee!

  14. #14

    Default

    MB, I tried the link in your last message and it didn't work for me. Anyone else try it?
    Dan www.boogerhillbee.com
    Experience is a hard teacher because she gives the test first, the lesson afterwards

  15. #15
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    1,933

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Riki View Post
    It's my understanding that a "not statistically different" number of mites living in a "statistically significant" higher number of bees, means less mites per bee!
    Mite counts where also done by alcohol wash and capped brood. So no, it dosen't mean less mites per bee.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Ads