Beesource Beekeeping Forums banner

Small Cell... Just a thought

16K views 81 replies 17 participants last post by  Keith Benson 
#1 ·
I have been thinking hard about small cell lately and got some small cell frames and will shake some packages into them this weekend.

Anyway.... I have been thinking that since varroa is less present in small cell, that will decrease stress which might decrease other diseases, etc.

Do you all think there could be a link like this? Less varroa mites=less stress=less disease

My line of thinking is that when we are working a lot for example and when we get stressed, sometimes we get a cold or sore throat which causes more stress which can lead to more of a sever cold.

What do you all think?
 
#6 ·
> I have been thinking that since varroa is less present in small cell...

There's only one problem with the above - your basic premise is
flawed.

The two studies done so far on the issue, the UGA (Jennifer Berry) study,
with both small-cell and control hives in the same apiaries, and the Florida
study, still onging, which puts the two types of hives in different yards,
had very similar results.

The small-cell colonies have more mites per 100 brood cells sampled, even
using "established" small-cell colonies.

While there has been much discussion of the Berry study intended to
disparage the findings and/or the author of the study, the essential
critique was that small cell colonies were somehow showing higher mite
counts than the nearby control colonies due to some sort of robbing or
drifting mechanism that was neither explained nor documented as to
how this might result in higher mite counts than the source colony or
colonies.

The Florida study cuts the critique off at the knees, by keeping
the small-cell bees far away from the controls.

The good news is that both studies should be published soon, which will
allow us to move on to the actual factors at work, if any.

As far as "stress" goes, using the term at all is a hand-waving attempt to
create an excuse for bee diseases, pests, (and, sometimes, beekeeping
mistreatment) that cannot be subjected to testing and objective metrics.
It is a sloppy term for saying "we have no idea what the problem is". It
presumes that things that bother people would also bother bees, which
is the worst sort of anthropomorphism.

Anything said to "reduce stress" on bees should be examined with the
same critical eye that one would examine something said to "build
up the immune systems" of bees. Neither claim can be verified, so
both are the language of charlatans and snake-oil salesmen.

Bees suffering from varroa infestation are suffering from varroa infestation,
and need no additional terminology to explain the pathology or the
symptoms. The mites spread viruses, all well-known as to their own
symptoms and pathology, and the mites weaken the bees through the
non-viral aspects of parasitism.

Bees are simple creatures, yet beekeepers still argue over basic
principles, like "hives in full sun" versus "hives in shade". Each camp
argues that the bees are "stressed" by situating the hives "wrong",
even though each camp suggests the exact opposite placement
in terms of something so basic, so simple.

Yield per hive varies under the two conditions, with a slight advantage
being given to the "full sun" camp, but there are simply too many
variables in play to ever settle this "for certain". Breed of bee,
local bloom schedule versus ambient temperatures, there's too many
variables to make any useful statement about more than any one
specific yard at a time.

I, for one, want my bees to maintain a sense of urgency about their
situation, as it tends to result in more foraging and less goofing off.
Anyone with an observation hive can confirm that bees are nowhere
near as busy as one might think, taking one foraging trip, and then
goofing around the hive, even "sleeping" head-inwards in a cell for
much longer than the time spent on the foraging sortie.
 
#11 ·
> I have been thinking that since varroa is less present in small cell...

There's only one problem with the above - your basic premise is
flawed.
Both of your premises are flawed, unless CI is meaning "eventually" there is less varroa present.

In time, there is less varroa in SC, just not the first year according to the data Jim sites.

OK, now I really mean it, I'm staying out of this one!
 
#7 ·
Fewer mites == less stress on beekeeper

At least for me there's a lot less stress!

I know small-cell, or the process of moving to small-cell, or mite resistant bees or a combination of factors (not all of which are known) have reduced if not eliminated the mite problem for me.
 
#8 ·
Issac,
The jury is still out for me. I started the regression process last season. I am still working in foundation to have the bees draw it out well. Some hives do better that others in drawing it out. Move badly drawn frames to the outside then up into the supers and finely cull them as the bees regress down in size. Do not mix large cell in with the SC. The bees really make a mess of the SC if you do. Any way I can talk to you more about it if you like when I pick up the nuc from you. Scott.
 
#12 ·
Jim:

Thank you for your input. I really appreciaite it a lot. Thank you for all your hard work. I have a few side questions for you and feel free to answer in a PM is you would like so we do not curve this forum away from the topic too much at least :)

You contribute to this site a lot but I havent seen you take a stance on what YOUR opinion is on how to deal with varroa mites. What is your stance on it?

For me, I am looking for options and possabilities. I hate using chemicals. I am breeding local queens and bringing in new stock that contributes to hygenic behavior.

This is the reason for wanting to try small cell. I have talked to a lot of people and I am willing to give it a try.

I do think there could still be a link between stress and diseases. You say bees are simple and I remember one of my professors saying the same thing about humans.

I think this (small cell) is something I would like to try. Why not? I am not going by anyones findings.. .why would I? I have some frames, some extra packages and will give it a try.

I know one thing is that I dislike the thought of using chemicals.
 
#14 ·
Ok here is what I am finding. I did a cut out 2 months ago there brood cells measured 4.6mm there pollen and stores measured 5.0mm. These guys had been up in that old house for at least 2 to 3 years with no treatments and no intervention whats so ever. They have no mites even 2 months down the road mite counts and pulling drone still show 0 mites. They are natural small cell. Thoses genes if I can afford queen grafting stuff there will be queens made from this hive for splits.

Now the recent 3 swarms I got they are drawing out anywhere from 4.7mm to 4.9 and are on either small cell 4.9mm starter strips or are on Mann Lake pf100 and pf120 and they are showing no mites they are also very dark bees and tiny bees much smaller then my packages.

My 2 packages I am doing rapid regression with one where it is on Perma Comb Mite counts on these after first brood hatch is 0 mite drop on stickey board. hat does not mean that thy dont have mites. It just means that none fell. Even though I did a powdered sugar shake to check for drop as well there was 0 mites.

The other package is going much slower with drawing out the Mann Lake PF120 and PF100 which is 4.95 all messed up. If it doen not have stores or eggs in it I have been scraping it off and allowing them to re draw. They are going slow due to this. Once the perma comb hive is slowly moved over to small cell 4.9 starter strips the perma comb will be moved over to the other package. They will slowly as they regress have no room in the cell to house the mites and there for will be mite free. And over years you will see healither hives. The organic beekeeping forum is where I have learned alot of stuff about small cell the the bennifits of it with people who have been using it for years and have done the slow regression way and have seen first hand the difference it does makes in the bees health. Just dont mention anything to do with feeding artificaly or medicate and you get all sorts of posts bad mouthing it and telling you to not mention it again as it is not allowed on the forum. Are they are for all natural which also means no esentual oils. Which I use them as well as powder sugar shakes. I just keep my mouth closed over that one. But it is a good place to learn about small cell. Also read all of the stuff on the honey super cell page about the bennifits of it and what not. I will be doing all larg cell bees I come across into a more natural cell size.



Angi
 
#16 ·
Barry said:

> Both of your premises are flawed, unless CI is meaning "eventually"
> there is less varroa present.
> In time, there is less varroa in SC, just not the first year according
> to the data Jim sites.

But Barry, you've not yet seen the data, have you? You've certainly
seen and heard some presentations from Jennifer Berry, but the final
data from both studies have yet to be published, and the list of
pre-print recipients has been very limited.

Fair warning, the attempt to claim that the data is only "first year"
will result in egg on the face of anyone who makes the claim.

Most of all, the rabid reaction to any questioning of "small cell" is
around here getting more any more amusing as time goes on.

Here's an idea - examine the data, and THEN comment on the studies.
How's that sound? It would work a lot better than randomly making
what amount to accusations about studies one has not yet even read.
 
#17 ·
Barry said:

> Both of your premises are flawed, unless CI is meaning "eventually"
> there is less varroa present.
> In time, there is less varroa in SC, just not the first year according
> to the data Jim sites.

But Barry, you've not yet seen the data, have you? You've certainly
seen and heard some presentations from Jennifer Berry, but the final
data from both studies have yet to be published
You're right Jim, I haven't read the final papers. However, Unless Berry was lying at her presentation (which I have no reason to believe she was), her study did not cover a period of several years. The one in Florida you mention is still ongoing, so we'll all have to wait and see what pans out. I won't use information that is held confidential between a select few to support a position. Until a paper is made public, it is of little value.

My statement primarily reflects my own firsthand experience and the experience of many who also have firsthand experience. Sighting a paper that contradicts a reality for me and others will not make it any less a reality.

Here's an idea - examine the data, and THEN comment on the studies.
Sure, will do. The data that has been made public, I've commented on.
 
#18 · (Edited)
Although I would've phrased it differently, I agree with Jim for the same reasons which he cites. Small cell may have benefits, but it is not clear what the benefits are or how they occur. I suspect that chief among the benefits/hows are increased comb culling and encouraging beekeepers to rely less on non-sustainable use of "hard" treatments.
 
#20 ·
I suspect that chief among the benefits/hows are increased comb culling and encouraging beekeepers to rely less on non-sustainable use of "hard" treatments.
Suspecting doesn't change the facts, at least the facts about what I've done with SC. I haven't culled comb in the last 7 years. Before that, I culled comb that wasn't drawn properly. There was no "less" use of hard treatments, there was only no use of any treatments.
 
#54 ·
You are quick to site papers. Do you believe everything you read?
Why do some people persist in automatically linking the giving of weight to peer reviewed scientific literature to a proclivity to believe everything one reads? It is almost the opposite - if you read them correctly that is. IF you aren't picking it apart as you go, then you are not getting much out of the experience.
A quick question if I may: How do you know Dee's and Michael's bees are doing well?

wait for it

wait for it

Because you READ it here? ;) (of course I am playing with you a bit because for all I know you have been to both of their places.)

Just because someone says their bees are healthy doesn't make it so. Just because someone who has healthy bees says it is because of this manipulation or that, doesn't make it so.

Have YOU actually TRIED small cell?
I dunno about Jim, but I have, for several years now. I see no real downside to it, but am not certain I see the upside yet. In fact, if you run the numbers my LC hives have done better. Don't bother with the numbers though, the N is way to small and there are confounding variables that render any reliance on my sample to ask the question of SC efficacy totally irrelevant, if not misleading.

So basically you (excuse me... the papers) are disproving what others say have been working for them.
Yep, it is a common theme in science. History is replete with people who thought they knew how the universe worked . . . and were wrong.

If one of the things Michael touted was to sprinkle gold dust on your inner covers by the light of the harvest moon, would you go for it? Even if his bees are doing well he says and that it is GD that is doing it? Nope, you wouldn't. Just because SC sounds more reasonable than GD, the principle when asking the question is the same: Is this factor one of the reasons why their bees do well? Do you want to know, or just know what some other folks think?

I wouldn't argue about whether or not Dee or Michael's bees are healthy, I am happy to take them at their word that they are. The question is, what parts of their operations are important to emulate for the same results, and what parts are irrelevant and a waste of time and energy?

Keith
 
#22 ·
I appreciate science and common sense

Hello advocates of chemicals for treating honeybees in order for them to "survive". Go ahead and spend your money on these pesticides, pollute your honey and contaminate your beeswax. I do care, I want beeswax I buy to be free of pesticide residue. Scientific studies are very interesting and I believe they can help us to understand many things. But if science tells me that the sun is the moon and the moon is the sun -- thank you very much, but no thanks.

As for me and my bees, we will continue as we always have, no chemical treatments, just healthy, vigorous bees.
 
#23 ·
Hello advocates of chemicals for treating honeybees in order for them to "survive".
Just so I understand your statement. Are you suggesting that everyone who doen't embrace small cell are 'advocates of chemicals for treating honeybees in order for them to "survive"?'
 
#24 ·
testing small cell by itself is missing the point.

watch the video's i've posted of some of dee's bees. these bees are the result of her management practices...which includes small cell, open local mating, clean foundation, no inputs at all, feeding back honey instead of sugar/hfcs, being largely left alone, unlimited broodnest, unrestricted drone production, and a few more things that are not at the top of my head first thing in the morning.

i'm also working on some tapes that were filmed in officially recognized (and sampled) ccd yards....those that survived are doing great, and most of the deadouts were made up with splits (early, before the first real flow).

if one were going to try and determine "what makes a healthy human", they might look at a healthy population, and see a balanced diet, exercise, job satisfaction, rewarding hobbies, love, a not polluted environment, etc. would a "scientist" determine that a balanced diet does not lead to a healthy human because testing of balanced vs unbalanced diets didn't show a difference in health between humans that live in a sewer pipe? that job satisfaction doesn't contribute to health because humans who go from a rewarding job to a 6'x6' home cubical are not healthy?

this is the kind of thing being studied by berry et al....and by a lot of other "scientists".

dee's operation is the subject of many arguments...but now the videos are online, and you can see for yourself....these bees are healthy, and they have not been treated.

imho, the first step is to replicate this operation as closely as possible. clearly what she is doing _is_ possible, so it should be reproducible by any competent beekeeper who follows her program. then, you can try to eliminate variables (what if we put these bees on lc comb, what if we use factory queens, what if we give them apistan).

the proof is in the pudding...and dee's got the pudding! you want to debunk her? you've either got to claim she is lying and is actually using all kinds of treatments and packages from austrailia (i've been through every inch of her workshop and outbuildings...the strongest "chemical" there is a 20 year old bottle of bee-go that hasn't been used in years), or you've got to admit that some aspect(s) of what she is doing works.

replicating what the "big boys" do is hard, as their methods are closely held secrets (and by all accounts, often illegal and dangerous)...but dee has layed this all out in the pov section....step by step. there is no excuse for there to be no studies/trials trying to replicate "the whole" of what she does with the bees.

this is a no-brainer...and any scientist worth the air they breath should be able to see this without me pointing it out...why don't they?

deknow
 
#25 ·
there is no excuse for there to be no studies/trials trying to replicate "the whole" of what she does with the bees. -deknow
Most of the experiments along those lines that are currently in progress are trying to tease out which parts of some of these sorts of programs actually have an effect on Varroa mites, and which do not.

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.

you've got to admit that some aspect(s) of what she is doing works. -deknow
Sure. . . maybe. See, when "new" pests appear in an area, they tend to cause real problems for a while, then kind of reach a balance with their hosts and may cause fewer problems. That initial surge as the pest invades may be far more significant than they will ever be again in the future, even if nothing is done by humans.

And some LC beekeepers report good success without treatments, too. So, are you suggesting that a beekeeper who has changed nothing, suffered heavy losses to Varroa initially but now loses bees rarely to Varroa, and uses no pesticide treatments is lying?
 
#26 · (Edited)
Most of the experiments along those lines that are currently in progress are trying to tease out which parts of some of these sorts of programs actually have an effect on Varroa mites, and which do not.
...yet, they ignore the possibility (the strong possibility) that it is a combination of management techniques that helps. before you can do a good experement, you need to be able to maintain a good control group. in this case, a control group would be bees kept as dee keeps them, as that has been proven to be successful. you simply cannot test one variable at a time to disprove that an integrated system works.
varroa mites are a small part of the problems that are being faced by beekeepers. when there is a model that clearly demonstrates overall colony health (in a way i doubt any of the bee labs can demonstrate with their colonies), why focus on varroa? fwiw, going through 500 of dee's hives, i saw one varroa on a drone pupa, and one on an adult bee (in the same colony) in a photo after the fact.

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.
first of all, i don't know who the "most" is you are referring to, but the most visible, and most successful "proponent of small cell" (dee) has never said so....and you would probably know that if you had read her pov section on this very website. and even if what you state above were true (it isn't), 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.

Sure. . . maybe. See, when "new" pests appear in an area, they tend to cause real problems for a while, then kind of reach a balance with their hosts and may cause fewer problems. That initial surge as the pest invades may be far more significant than they will ever be again in the future, even if nothing is done by humans.
yet our bees are less healthy than they have ever been...or do you disagree? most beekeepers are still treating for varroa 20 years later, and many loose their bees to varroa or pms. do you not treat for varroa 20 years later? i have no idea what your practices or experiences are, but are varroa not an issue for you?

And some LC beekeepers report good success without treatments, too. So, are you suggesting that a beekeeper who has changed nothing, suffered heavy losses to Varroa initially but now loses bees rarely to Varroa, and uses no pesticide treatments is lying?
...i never said (nor implied) any such thing. as far as i know, there are no lc beekeepers that use no treatments with hundreds of hives that are showing what their "success" looks like to the rest of the beekeeping world. yes, i've heard claims also, but seen no one who is willing to go out on the limb that dee has gone out on to help other beekeepers replicate what they have done. certainly there are queen breeders that claim varroa resistance...but who has hundreds of them that doesn't treat on lc comb? will they post videos of their operation? ...and once again, varroa is only a small part of the problem here, unless you think that "ccd" and nosema ceranae are simply manifistations of varroa.

for myself, i have no idea if sc helps or not....i do know that dees management practices are successful, so i'm following them as closely as possible to try and replicate/adapt them for my markedly different climate. of course there is a bee lab in the same climate as dees bees are in...they don't need to adapt anything, yet the most noise we've heard from them is the invention of a better artificial feed. how do they manage their hives? are they using treatments? do they not worry about varroa 20 years after the fact? what are they actually doing?

deknow
 
#27 ·
you simply cannot test one variable at a time to disprove that an integrated system works. -deknow
Right. But you also cannot use only that one variable and expect to get the same results. And you cannot claim that only that one variable will produce the same results (I don't mean "you" personally, here).

first of all, i don't know who the "most" is you are referring to, but the most visible, . . . . -deknow
Ah, c'mon! 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.

After that, try Googling "small cell."

While Dee Lusby may be your role model in bee management, and while she's certainly a visible proponent of certain management techniques, her "visibility," if you will, seems less than the collective numbers of other SC proponents.

yet our bees are less healthy than they have ever been...or do you disagree? -deknow
I do disagree, but only because I have found no evidence to support your statement. How do you measure "health?" And how do you compare what is current to what existed in the past, unless you are using standardized measurements?

I read of plenty of beekeepers who seem to have very "healthy" bees. I read reports here on BeeSource of any number of beekeepers who lose very few colonies each winter, both in numbers and in percentages of their total hives.

do you not treat for varroa 20 years later? -deknow
First, you should know that I have not been keeping bees for 20 years yet, and I did not keep bees "pre-Varroa."

i have no idea what your practices or experiences are, but are varroa not an issue for you? -deknow
Varroa are an issue for me, but likely not in the way you expect. As you maybe know from other threads, I'm working on a project comparing SC and LC. Right now, the issue is a lack of Varroa. The bees I'm using -- both SC and LC -- simply do not have enough mites to demonstrate any difference. I'm trying, then, to increase mite numbers (bet you never thought you'd hear of a beekeeper trying to do that, huh?).

But all that is off the topic of this thread. All I was wishing to point out was some of the intents involved in the research to this point, and to try to avoid more "research bashing" in some of these threads. If your management techniques are producing results acceptable to you, why change? But why criticize others for trying to gain information about some of these issues?
 
#28 ·
Right. But you also cannot use only that one variable and expect to get the same results. And you cannot claim that only that one variable will produce the same results (I don't mean "you" personally, here).
who has done this? please quote them.

Ah, c'mon! 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.

After that, try Googling "small cell."
...i started with googling 'small cell beekeeping' (no quotes). i'm sure you didn't do what you suggested i do (google "small cell"), as you would realize that small cell carcinoma is a subject much more talked about than small cell bees.

that said, the first 2 links are to michael bush's site (who keeps small cell, breeds from feral stock, only feeds in emergencies, rears his own queens, doesn't migrate to the almonds, doesn't treat).

the next link is to....beesource, dee's own pov articles...which are quite detailed.

i'll let you wade through the rest of it to figure out who says what...and granted, you will find dee and michael claim that sc reduces varroa...but don't forget, that is because it is their experience, not because they read it somewhere (scientific journal, blog post, or other source). transitioning to sc is a big step, and it's no wonder that it gets a lot of the attention here and on the organic list. but who giving advice can you quote who says that nothing else is important?

While Dee Lusby may be your role model in bee management, and while she's certainly a visible proponent of certain management techniques, her "visibility," if you will, seems less than the collective numbers of other SC proponents.
who are you talking about? ...and more importantly, what relevance is there? without a doubt, dees writings are the gold standard (and the original) writings on sc. i assume you read them before embarking on your experement?
more to the point, who convinced you that sc was the only thing that mattered wrt varroa, and what did they say to make you believe that?


I do disagree, but only because I have found no evidence to support your statement. How do you measure "health?" And how do you compare what is current to what existed in the past, unless you are using standardized measurements?
specifically, i was quoting maryanne frazier...and certainly what i percieve to be the general mood amongst beekeepeers i know and correspond with online. didn't we just hear reports of the 40% loss by the biggest beekeeper in the almonds? and a projected near 40% die off nationwide? aren't the beelabs getting emergency funding from the govt, universities, bee clubs, individuals, corporations because of the ccd crisis?

I read of plenty of beekeepers who seem to have very "healthy" bees. I read reports here on BeeSource of any number of beekeepers who lose very few colonies each winter, both in numbers and in percentages of their total hives.
citing specific numbers would be helpful here. i read some of this too, but i haven't seen enough to convince me. i've had local beekeepers (face to face) tell me they don't treat...then admit that they feed fumidil (or they will lose their bees), and use apistan in hives with high mite counts. these are people i know. i'm not saying i distrust anyone, but what we have done with dee's videos is not expensive or hard. when i look in the journals and onine, i see largely hives of 2 deeps, a queen excluder, and a bunch of honey supers stacked ontop. i don't know if they feed (most do i suspect), and i don't know who treats and who doesn't. all that said, i have yet to see photos or videos that look as strong, healthy, and ready for the flow as the bees i saw in arizona. if anyone has anything else that looks like that, show me the bees, i want to see!

First, you should know that I have not been keeping bees for 20 years yet, and I did not keep bees "pre-Varroa."
neither did i :)

Varroa are an issue for me, but likely not in the way you expect. As you maybe know from other threads, I'm working on a project comparing SC and LC. Right now, the issue is a lack of Varroa. The bees I'm using -- both SC and LC -- simply do not have enough mites to demonstrate any difference. I'm trying, then, to increase mite numbers (bet you never thought you'd hear of a beekeeper trying to do that, huh?).
that's a good problem to have :)

But all that is off the topic of this thread. All I was wishing to point out was some of the intents involved in the research to this point, and to try to avoid more "research bashing" in some of these threads. If your management techniques are producing results acceptable to you, why change? But why criticize others for trying to gain information about some of these issues?
you are missing the point. what you have in dee's operation is a long term operation that exists without having been treated. this is an integrated system that is demonstrated to work. in order to determine what parts of this system are important, one needs to first be able to replicate her operation as a control (if you can't, then you have to figure out what the differances are, they may not be obvious). if you can't replicate the control, the working model, then how can you tell what components are important? if sc is an important aspect of her system, and you can't get her system to work as a whole, how can you test for the role sc plays? you simply can't.
i say this from experience...i'm doing some experements myself at the moment. i use multiple controls, and thus far, the controls have not matched up with each other. given that, what have i learned about my non-controls? NOTHING! until the controls all are consistent, i can't learn anything.
as for research bashing, i stand by everything that i have written on beesource, bee-l, and the organic list as being fair criticism. feel free to quote me on something you think is simply 'bashing'.

deknow
 
#30 ·
who has done this? please quote them. -deknow
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=217868&highlight=small+cell

http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=217906&highlight=small+cell+mite

http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=216162&highlight=small+cell+mite

I can keep going, but I think -- if you've been reading these sorts of threads here on BeeSource -- that you already know that some beekeepers here on BeeSource talk only about cell size in regards to mite control, and readers are left with the impression that "regression" to "small cell" alone will take the pressure off of their bees from mites.

i'll let you wade through the rest of it to figure out who says what... -deknow
Been there. The problem I have with such things at this point is that stipulations seem to be added as studies do not support claims that SC reduces mites. The most recent example is Berry's study, and the sudden claims that any advantage of having SC hives is lost to "mite leveling" if SC and LC are kept in mixed yards.

who are you talking about? -deknow
You. Based on this:

i do know that dees management practices are successful, so i'm following them as closely as possible to try and replicate/adapt them for my markedly different climate. -deknow
and here:

what we have done with dee's videos is not expensive or hard -deknow
in order to determine what parts of this system are important, one needs to first be able to replicate her operation as a control -deknow
But "replicating Dee Lusby's operation" isn't the point.

if you can't replicate the control, the working model, then how can you tell what components are important? -deknow
Let's say that we start with "cell size." If cell size alone offers effective mite control, that simply using smaller cell sizes should work. If it doesn't (as we would find out from an experiment), then we add the next variable, alone and in combination with the cell size. And so on. If all parts of Lusby's management techniques are vital for Varroa control, then no one could control Varroa without using all parts of the management system. Yet others seem to get control without using all parts. So, some parts are likely unnecessary.

I suppose we could start with "local bees" versus "imported bees," but, from my experience, the origin of the bees seems to have little to do with Varroa control.

feel free to quote me on something you think is simply 'bashing'. -deknow
OK.

this is the kind of thing being studied by berry et al....and by a lot of other "scientists" -deknow
there is no excuse for there to be no studies/trials trying to replicate "the whole" of what she does with the bees. -deknow
this is a no-brainer...and any scientist worth the air they breath should be able to see this without me pointing it out...why don't they? -deknow
 
#31 ·
...i wish there were an emoticon for a large eye roll.....

i'm assuming that you are largely talking about michael bush in the threads you are linking to? he's pretty careful to say what his experience is, what has worked for him...and not to generalize and say "this will do that for you". what you are complaining about is people saying that "this will do that", when all he says is "this did that in my case". again, specific quotes would be more helpful (and revealing) than posting links to threads.

sc may well not reduce mites when combined with all possible management techniques...is that hard to understand? the berry study does not say that sc does not reduce mites, it says that her experiment, with her management practices, under the conditions she was working, that sc didn't reduce mite loads.

if in fact, i'm the "visible proponent of sc" that you refer to, i doubt i have ever said that all one needs to do is small cell, and i doubt i convinced you to run a trial by anything i've written. i repeat the question:
who convinced you that small cell is worth looking into, and what evidence did they use to convince you?

replicating dee's operation is not the point....keeping healthy bees is the point. doing so without treatments is important to me...and dee is able to do both. so you think we should take the totality of "common" beekeeping practices that have led us to where we are, and change one thing at a time, when in fact it is unlikely that only one thing is wrong?...in fact this approach seems to me to assume that there is one thing to fix, and the bees will be ok. no, you emulate the system that works (which in this case, is dee's), get it working, and then deconstruct it.

if one were looking for a cancer treatment, and there was a good anecdotal example of people being cured by eating earthworms, would you start by deconstructing the worm, and doing trials one chemical compound at a time? ...or would you start with the whole worm, see if it's effective, and then try to figure out what the important components of it's makeup are. with the first approach, you spend years and millions of dollars before you can even determine if the original anecdotal information had any merrit (and you might never discover it if it is an interaction between several components)...with the second, assuming there is nothing toxic in the earthworm, you can start feeding cancer patients earthworms while you figure out what are the important parts.

you start with replicating what works...what you propose...one variable at a time...then start combining them is a good way to have funding for a long time, but a lousy way to come up with solutions quickly.


...and again, i stand by my statements that you quote. imho, they are well deserved.

deknow
 
#32 · (Edited by Moderator)
i'm assuming that you are largely talking about michael bush in the threads you are linking to? -deknow
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. I've read suppositions that smaller cell sizes lead to shorter capping times, which in turn leaves less time for mite reproduction. I've read speculations that smaller cell sizes leave less room in the cells for mites. I've read hypotheses that mites are relatively larger to smaller bees from smaller cells, and the mites are then more readily apparent to the bees, so the bees are more likely to groom off the mites. All of these ideas are centered solely on cell size; other management techniques are ignored. So, drawing the obvious conclusions, cell size is all that matters.

BWrangler (a. k. a. Dennis Murrell) is very open and reasonable in his comments about small cell. I've appreciated his insight especially. Michael Bush has been candid and frank about his experiences. Barry has largely been fair about his comments, in my opinion. While I don't always agree with them (or others), I appreciate their comments.

With my apologies to Dennis for dragging him into this, I think his Web site is fairly clear that "small cell is key."

http://bwrangler.litarium.com/small-cell/

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), 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?"

if in fact, i'm the "visible proponent of sc" that you refer to, -deknow
My misinterpretation. I thought you were asking who viewed Dee Lusby as a role model.

you start with replicating what works...what you propose...one variable at a time...then start combining them is a good way to have funding for a long time, but a lousy way to come up with solutions quickly -deknow
You're assuming that outside funding for such projects exits.

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?

...and again, i stand by my statements that you quote. imho, they are well deserved. -deknow
Those are your opinions, and you're entitled to them, but please don't suggest that they are fair criticisms of previous, ongoing or future experiments. For example,

they are supposed to use their educated brains to run good experiments. -deknow
is not a comment on the particular merits or demerits of a study. Is it "bashing?" I contend that it is.
 
#33 ·
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
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top