What survivability rate can one expect on small cells without treatments?

**gmcharlie** · 06-16-2009, 09:11 AM

Originally Posted by DRUR

I. My older son (21) is rather insistent that I get the regression implemented on this colony thinking that we are going to lose them to destructor, if not. I am inclined to agree with him at this point.
Danny

I am not positive, I am hopeing michael will comment, on it. but from what I read teh reason for colony loss during teh regression was based on the reappearnce of varro and the REFUSAL to treat. I gather that was beased on another assumption of this thinking, and that was pure wax (no chemical residue).....
Since that time we (beeks) have developed the powdered sugar treatment, which is non chemical and has no lasting effects.

I belive that anyone trying now and haveing issues would go ahead and use the sugar as a temp fix to avoid the colony loss. It does not have the residual side effects the purist sought.

If the priciple of small cell is the reason for reduced mites it is a perfect chance to prove that thought at least to yourself. the colony you mention you strongly suspect is in fact suciptable to Varro.... use the suger to keep them going and see if you get a reoocurance after they get back to small cell......

Again I seriously don't belive any of even the most purist would object to an intermedite step of a sugar dusting.

**DRUR** · 06-16-2009, 09:23 AM

Originally Posted by gmcharlie

I am hopeing michael will comment, on it.

If the priciple of small cell is the reason for reduced mites it is a perfect chance to prove that thought at least to yourself. the colony you mention you strongly suspect is in fact suciptable to Varro.... use the suger to keep them going and see if you get a reoocurance after they get back to small cell

I also am hoping that Michael will comment on your earlier request, and I suspect he will in time.

I have not decided on the powdered sugar treatment, yet, because I want survivors. But this queen is very productive (brood wise anyway) and I would hate to lose her genetics at this time because of that. Also, I like your idea concerning for experimental purposes and will do that if things get worse before getting them fully regressed.

Also, can I get a better description of the alcohol test. Is this similar to the ether test (of which I am also not sure of). My understanding is you would gather a mess of bees in a jar, spray with ether, and the mites would leave the dead bees and get stuck on the side of the jar. HELP! Share with me how I should do this.

Thanks Danny

**Countryboy** · 06-16-2009, 01:39 PM

yet, because I want survivors. But this queen is very productive (brood wise anyway) and I would hate to lose her genetics at this time because of that.

When varroa first started becoming a big problem, one of the first things beekeepers noticed was that splits would often survive, and the parent hive died. This was due to the interruption of brood reading while the split made a new queen.

That is still an option for keeping a certain genetic line alive. Split a nucleus hive (or two or three) off the parent hive. Even if one hive dies from varroa, you still have backup hives of the same genetic line. It becomes more of a situation of the bees outbreeding the mites rather than becoming survivors though.

**DRUR** · 06-17-2009, 09:05 PM

A week or so ago in one of my posts I had made the statement that to much hygienic behavior could cause a reduction in brood production thereby at least theoritically a reduction in honey production. I don't recall where I made that statement but I was challenged on it and backed off because I could not find the support and also had found some statements which would contradict this affecting brood production.

The issue which came up was with regard to tests showing that the scientific evidence did not support a reduction in mite populations in small cells. However, I had read that regarding mite infestations overseas that the mites infected upwards of 80% of the drone population while only negligible infestations of workers; and therefore, just measuring mite drops from small cells could be inconclusive for infestation rates if it wasn't also determined the per cent of the mite drop which came from drones vs. small cell workers.

Now, I have found where the statement came from concerning reduction in brood levels by what is known as "hyper-hygienic" behavior. The following is a statement from "glen-apiaries.com" site under the section described as "What is VSH":

"Workers from pure VSH/SMR queens have a hyper-hygienic behavior where their workers remove more brood than is necessary or desirable. This will show up as a deterioration of the breeder's brood pattern after about six weeks."

I hope whoever previously raised this issue will now see this post and open it up for discussion, or anyone else for that matter.

Thanks Danny

**Michael Bush** · 06-19-2009, 02:56 PM

>I am not positive, I am hopeing michael will comment, on it. but from what I read teh reason for colony loss during teh regression was based on the reappearnce of varro and the REFUSAL to treat.

Dee was the one who had a lot of losses while regressing (other may have also) and she refused to treat with anything for anything. She actually lost a lot of them to AFB at the time. I think refusal to treat was part of the issue. I did not experience those kinds of losses, but then the year I was regressing I used FGMO fog and finished the year off with oxalic acid vapor. The mite drop was negligible. The oxalic only put 100 or so mites on the trays per hive.

>I gather that was beased on another assumption of this thinking, and that was pure wax (no chemical residue).....

Yes.

>Since that time we (beeks) have developed the powdered sugar treatment, which is non chemical and has no lasting effects.

Actually it was around long before it got popular here and people are still arguing over it's efficacy.

>I belive that anyone trying now and haveing issues would go ahead and use the sugar as a temp fix to avoid the colony loss. It does not have the residual side effects the purist sought.

Or cut out some drone brood...

>Again I seriously don't belive any of even the most purist would object to an intermedite step of a sugar dusting.

Dee will probably only mildly object if you insist it's only an interim step and only because there was just cause and you weren't regressed yet...

**DRUR** · 06-26-2009, 09:35 PM

I previously posted (#1 I think):

"The fourth colony (#4) is the supercedure queen I raised. After the queen hatched from large cells she laid eggs and had larva on 3 frames of the large cells, the rest were loaded with pollen and honey (some capped) before I found her. I moved her down on 2 fully drawn (with wax) small cell plastic frames along with 3 honeysupercells, separated her from the large cells with a queen excluder. Two weeks later she still had not laid in the small cells, and I could not find her. However, the bees had not made any queen cells on those eggs she had originally laid on the large cell frames. I pulled the queen excluder and she has now started laying again, a very nice pattern in the large cells. I have now marked her for easier spotting. After she fills these large cells with eggs, larva and sealed brood (which will be this week), I intend to push her back down, separate her with a queen excluder, provide another small cell frame with merging brood and see if I can get her to start laying in small cell. I will remove the large cell frames as the brood merges, which is about 8 frames of eggs, larva, sealed brood, honey and pollen. The remaining two frames are pollen and honey."

I had previously stated in a post that I did not have any of the MannLake small cells drawn out. Since my accident I sometimes forget recent occurances. My son reminded me that I had placed 2 drawn out MannLake small cell plastic (from a different colony) along with 3 honeysupercells. Several weeks went by and the queen never laid in the small cells. Concerned about bee population I pulled the queen excluder allowing her to move back onto the large cells and she quickly laid about 8 deep frames (about 80% eggs). On the 17th of June I pushed her back down (with queen excluder) with 3 of the honeysupercell (small cell drawn plastic) and 2 MannLake drawn small cells. She just now has started laying (9 long days later) on one side that the bees in this colony has drawn out. Every cell that has at least 1/4" wax on the plastic cell has an egg (probably about 2,000 on the frame (one side only)). She still has not laid in the other two drawn MannLake small cell plastic frames (taken from my other regressed colonies), nor the honey super cell. She is stubborn.

Anybody else had any problems getting a non regressed colony laying in frames drawn from another colony? Now that she is started maybe she will go ahead and lay in some of the others.

I also have another situation I have to deal with. The empty large cell frames have been filled with honey after the brood has emerged (about 5 frames about half full of sealed honey). 3 more frames with sealed brood (with about 20% sealed honey) that has not emerged yet. The one frame that all the brood has hatched and has much sealed honey, I scraped with a fork exposing the honey. About half the cells are unsealed honey but almost full. I place another deep box on top of the inner cover, turned the frame upside down (standing up straight) with the top placed over the deep box. This was a couple of days ago, and when I checked them today the frame is still heavy with honey.

Any suggestions on how to get them to remove the honey so I can replace these large cell frames with small cell frames?

**slickbrightspear** · 06-27-2009, 11:02 AM

I would take out the large cell frames harvest the honey put it back in a feeder and feed it back to them while they are drawing out your small cell comb

**DRUR** · 06-27-2009, 11:32 AM

That is so logical and simple, I feel like a new beek. I don't have an extractor at this time, but just crushing the comb and letting them clean it up makes a lot of sense. Thanks.

**Bud Dingler** · 06-28-2009, 06:50 PM

Originally Posted by Michael Bush

>small cell is not the end all answer for mites...

That's pretty much all I've done and all I'm doing and I have no Varroa issues at all. I have trouble finding any.

Can you present that data in the form of mites per 100 bees as is the norm in the bee researcher world? Using p. sugar roll, ether roll or alcohol wash are all standard ways to express the amount of mites present and compare to other bees or methods. Otherwise its called hand waving to make claims about mite levels and how effective a particular beekeeping methodology is working.

Its not that hard, directions are all over the web.

Its also very well known that drone inspection or merely looking around a frame of bees for mites is worthless as a means of determining mite loads. That too is all over the web and widely agree upon in the bee researcher world.

So its really not that hard but no one from the small cell camp seems willing to go out and sample 6-12 hives on small cell and present the data here in mites per 100 bees. How about it? anyone up to the challenge?

We do need to do the test using the same method. Sugar rolls are less accurate because it depends on how long you roll. Ether or alcohol is more accurate as no mites goes uncounted. Plus you can count the dead bees and get a better mite per 100 bees statistic.

To make this fun and participatory, if some small celler will bring some data to the table I will in turn collect some data on my russian bees so others here can then compare to their bees etc. Then we all have a common measuring stick to discuss instead of a lot of hand waving and postulating and speculation etc. We do need 6-12 hives in a yard to make this worthwhile. One data point from one hive is not very useful.....

**DRUR** · 06-28-2009, 07:07 PM

Originally Posted by Bud Dingler

To make this fun and participatory, if some small celler will bring some data to the table I will in turn collect some data on my russian bees so others here can then compare to their bees etc. Then we all have a common measuring stick to discuss instead of a lot of hand waving and postulating and speculation etc. We do need 6-12 hives in a yard to make this worthwhile. One data point from one hive is not very useful.....

Bud:
Thanks for responding. I would also appreciate a response to the questions I asked in my post number 38.

Also I have 5 colonies 4 regressed, and only one nonregressed (or rather just started laying 2 days ago on small cells). I have sbb with trays of oil.

Tell me in detail how you would like me to conduct the test and I will let you know if I think I can do this; and if so, I would love to participate.

**Michael Bush** · 06-29-2009, 12:32 PM

>very interesting......... did you also select certian queens?? or use some special stock??

Not until I had regressed seen my Varroa mite problems go away. Now I am, but that's more for winterability and general survival traits.

>I guess my question for you Michael do you belive if you took a hive/queen who was not particulary hygenic for mites and put them/her in small cell would you expect to see a dramitic improvment in mite restiance???

Yes. That was my experience.

>Michael, what is the cause of the loss (reported) of so many hives during regression????

Many of the people in the early "small cell movement" were doing complete and repeated shake downs. This is pretty stressful. Most were also not treating during the regression process with anything at all and not monitoring. I can't say what all their losses were from, but I know Dee's were mostly from AFB which was probably from the stress.

I only did shakedowns once and was convinced it wasn't the best method. I've done gradual regressions since. I started pulling any large cell that wasn't full of brood out as I could and replacing with either foundationless or small cell. I also wax coated a lot of PermaComb to get small cell instantly. This worked very well. Honey Super Cell is the same concept.

**wfarler** · 06-29-2009, 05:17 PM

Hygenic behavior is based on 2 recessive traits, first sense/smell of something wrong in the cell that causes them to uncap the cell and second trait is to clean the cell. Larry Conner said in his class that the Hygenic queen breeders have told him you need 5o-55% of your bees to have both of the traits in order to obtain control. (so you will need to drone flood your area or you will need to periodically refresh your queens).

I have had Weaver SMR stock in two yards for 5 years without treatment. The standard size yard has had no losses in 5 years but never makes any surplus. (guess who got requeened this year)

The 50% small cell yard makes a surplus every year and has had an 90% overwintering success rate but has had a 10% failure rate in the spring due to drone layers (assumed post supercedure). Net success of 80%. The drone layers have always been in hive w/ the super cell foundation.

Both yards have minimal mite loads and have not recieved any chemicals, powdered sugar or other attempts to control mites. I cannot say if the cell size is synergistic or necessary but I can say that the hygenic behavior is real.

I tried numerous regression techniques since 2003 with mixed to bad results until I purchased Honey Super Cell. I place packages on 5 frame nucs with it and then expanded them into Dadant 4.9 after 6 weeks. It was as easy as pie. They leave the plastic as soon as you give them something else so I don't recommend leaving it in after you have regressed as they will move up off of it.

One plus to the super cell is nothing will eat it. If it hadn't been so hard to extract and so heavy I might have used it to super. It is a great tool for regression.

**DRUR** · 06-30-2009, 03:39 PM

Originally Posted by wfarler

I have had Weaver SMR stock in two yards for 5 years without treatment.

The standard size yard has had no losses in 5 years but never makes any surplus. (guess who got requeened this year)

The 50% small cell yard makes a surplus every year and has had an 90% overwintering success rate but has had a 10% failure rate in the spring due to drone layers (assumed post supercedure). Net success of 80%. The drone layers have always been in hive w/ the super cell foundation.

Both yards have minimal mite loads and have not recieved any chemicals, powdered sugar or other attempts to control mites.

I cannot say if the cell size is synergistic or necessary but I can say that the hygenic behavior is real.

Which weaver queens?

So would you theorize that the SMR behavior supresses honey production?

When you say 50% do you mean bees that are 1/2 hygenic, or if not what do you mean by 50%?

How do you test for mite loads, and what do you consider "minimal"?

Thanks for your response

**DRUR** · 07-05-2009, 10:36 AM

Originally Posted by wfarler

Hygenic behavior is based on 2 recessive traits, first sense/smell of something wrong in the cell that causes them to uncap the cell and second trait is to clean the cell. Larry Conner said in his class that the Hygenic queen breeders have told him you need 5o-55% of your bees to have both of the traits in order to obtain control. (so you will need to drone flood your area or you will need to periodically refresh your queens).

The 50% small cell yard makes a surplus every year and has had an 90% overwintering success rate but has had a 10% failure rate in the spring due to drone layers (assumed post supercedure). Net success of 80%. The drone layers have always been in hive w/ the super cell foundation.

Both yards have minimal mite loads and have not recieved any chemicals, powdered sugar or other attempts to control mites. I cannot say if the cell size is synergistic or necessary but I can say that the hygenic behavior is real.

wfarler makes reference to hygienic behavior of queens and the % of bees that exhibit the hygienic behavior. Also previously there was a reference by me to what has been defined as "hyper-hygienic" behavior and its affect on excessive removal of brood. I have found another thread where this issue has been discussed and would like to reference this discussion in this thread as it is important to the issues raised here.

That thread can be found here:

http://www.beesource.com/forums/show...=survivability