In part, but not entirely. See, if you keep up with the "SC" threads here on BeeSource, you'll soon see that quite a few beekeepers are convinced that cell size alone will control mite populations. Several of them are fairly strong advocates of it.
so what? you are now quoting "
several[advocates of small cell]" rather than earlier when you said:
Go through BeeSource, do a search on "small cell" and read the threads. You'll find pages upon pages upon pages of material, and most of the beekeepers advocating "small cell" make fairly blunt statements only about the sizes of the cells reducing Varroa numbers.
Since most strong proponents of "small cell" proclaim that it's simply the size of the cells that matters, that's where the research has started.
and
Since most strong proponents of "small cell" proclaim that it's simply the size of the cells that matters, that's where the research has started.
will you please stop? anyone who is really interested in sc beekeeping has read what dee has written in the pov section here...and has probably subscribed to the organic list. it isn't suprising that there are several people who misstate (or make up) the attributes of SC...just as there are on any topic in the universe.
truth is, cell size, when combined with no treatments, open mating, housel positioning, unlimited broodnest, clean wax, local environment, and a few other factors in some combination they work. people logging onto the biological forum are looking for this kind of approach (in general), so once they commit to SC (which is easy with a new package, and hard any other way), they have spent time and money, and are motivated to follow such practices...so it isn't surprising that some subset of the people who try it find success, even i they think all they are doing is "going small cell".
i don't keep up with the small cell talk much on beesource, as i'm pretty convinced that using any treatments is bad for the bees longterm, and find that the discussions are too treatment oriented at beesource.
I've read suppositions that smaller cell sizes lead to shorter capping times, which in turn leaves less time for mite reproduction.
suppositions? have you read michael bush's website?
http://www.bushfarms.com/beesnaturalcell.htm#preandpostcappingtimes
I've observed on commercial Carniolan bees and commercial Italian bees a 24 hour shorter pre capping and 24 hour shorter post capping time on 4.95 mm cells in an observation hive.
i know michael, and if he says he measured it, he measured it.
With my apologies to Dennis for dragging him into this, I think his Web site is fairly clear that "small cell is key."
so what? he's not allowed to have an opinion? he's not allowed to imply "based on the way i keep bees"? whenever he makes a statement on his own website he must justify it to you? ...and most of all, his words paint the words of "most" sc proponents?
As far as "experiences," on one hand you're telling us that the proponents of SC are simply telling of their experiences (and we're obviously drawing our own conclusions from their experiences),
for the most part, the proponents of small cell are also proponents of unlimited broodnest, no (or little) treating, leave honey with the bees and don't simply feed back sugar, housel positioning, open local breeding, etc. those that are not are not really "the influential" SC beekeepers. by far dee and michael are the most visible and influential proponents of SC...and neither of them would tell you that all you need to change, no matter what you are currently doing, is change to small cell.
and on the other, you're telling us that we should not consider the experiences of researchers who have not had the same sorts of experiences as some of the SC proponents, because, in your words, if "you can't get her system to work as a whole, how can you test for the role sc plays?"
the challenge is keeping the mite counts down, and keep the bees alive. dee has demonstrated a working system, the researchers have not (without chemical or mechanical treatment). you seem to be having good results with whatever you are doing.....and perhaps you will demonstrate that there are other factors at work, and SC has no effect...i have no bias either way.
small cell seems to work for many people...but it's not the only thing they are doing differently (or advocating)...so pay attention to someone that has a working system, on a larger scale than most studies (600+ colonies), that hasn't been treated. although changing a large operation to SC is hard, it's easier with HSC. aside from this initial cost (and perhaps breeding through some stuff, depending on the stock you start with), the rest of these management techniques are free. no special equipment, no new products, no purchased queens, no feeding, no medications, etc. this is a cheap study to run, just a little field work (dee visits each hive between 5-9 times a year).
i don't really understand why you seem to feel "duped" by people overstating the role of SC...this is common in beekeeping (more/less ventilation, wrap or winter or not, feeding, splitting, queen rearing, etc), and usually if you look to the smarter people in the room, you can figure out what is really being claimed by people who know.
You're assuming that outside funding for such projects exits.
well, you seem to be running your study...i'm working on some stuff. have you noticed that the great beekeeping books in the past were, for the most part, written by commercial beekeepers. they did their own studies to figure out what works. now, the books are written by people that work in labs. i want to read books written by people who can keep their bees alive and whos bees support them. these are the people that should be chasing down problems, as they make money from solving problems fast and for the long term.
And you're also assuming that I have not produced similar results through other methods. In fact, both SC and LC hives seem to do very well here with deliberate "mismanagement" in my efforts to increase mite populations. What does that say? Maybe beekeepers should attempt to raise mites?
that's encouraging...what do you attribute your results to?
is not a comment on the particular merits or demerits of a study. Is it "bashing?" I contend that it is.
please don't take a phrase out of context. you were blaming the fact that studies were being done on SC rather than the whole approach because
most strong proponents of "small cell" proclaim that it's simply the size of the cells that matters,
which, first of all, you haven't demonstrated at all, and secondly, my comment was designed to point out that the researchers do not need to simply follow what people tell them...their jobs as researchers is, in part, to design good experiments. in context it was:
why do those doing research have no responsibility to figure out some of this stuff on their own? are they too focused on the "trees" to see the "forest"? researchers write their own proposals...they don't simply follow what "most proponents of small cell" claim and blindly do experiments...they are supposed to use their educated brains to run good experiments.
deknow