small cell foundation

[beemandan]

Yes, I'm very concerned about my "professional reputation"

Author of the Complete Idiot’s Guide to Beekeeping
Regular speaker at the Organic Beekeepers Meeting in Oracle, AZ
Organizer of the Northeast Treatment Free Beekeeping Conference in Leominster, MA
Speaker at various other regional and national beekeeping meetings/conferences


Do you promote small cell in/at any of the above?
Are you paid for any of the above?
Pretending that you could conduct an unbiased study of small cell is….dishonest.

[Michael Palmer]

Michael and I are good friends...there is far more that we agree on than disagree on...but the disagreements make for a bit more drama This is a bit of rant (or tirade)…but it is thoughtful, and I think reveals some of the issues and history that are at play.

Whoa! Where to start. Yes, of course I remember all you have brought up. I'm not defending any of the SC studies done to date. The discussion is heavily weighted to their side as there is nothing from the SC side. I'm only asking that those that dis-credit the studies already done...do it the right way...whatever that is.

I think trying to equate the small cell studies, and the faults you come up with, to the fact that many older beekeepers poo-pood the wintering of nucleus colonies isn't a fair comparison. The studies done try to quantify why the colonies died...a hard thing to prove. When wintering nucleus colonies, the bees are alive. One only needs to keep track of what lived and what died and decide if the management is worth the time and resources. When you no longer have to buy replacement bees or split honey producers, it becomes obvious. Identifying SC beekeeping as the reason for a successful apiary would require a different approach, IMO. It seems when a beekeeper experimenting with SC beekeeping loses the bees, there are always "extenuating circumstances sighted by the SC proponents. Something the beekeeper forgot to do or did incorrectly, etc. Housel positioning comes to mind first.

Now, wintering nucleus colonies is nothing new. It wasn't dreamed up by Webster. It wasn't dreamed up by Brother Adam, or even his predecessor, Brother Columban. CC Miller talks about wintering nucleus colonies in Fifty Years Among the Bees. In fact, he talks about wintering nucleus colonies...referenced in ABC of Bee Culture

Miller, Dr. C. C., Fifty Years Among the Bees, 1911, The A. I. Root Company

The frames for nuclei are the regular full sized frames, and a full hive may be used for each nucleus, but it is economy to have the hive divided up into two or three compartments for as many nuclei. P. 247

Now, if during the time I have mentioned, we can have two colonies in one hive, we shall, I think, find in advantageous in more than one direction. It is a common thing for bee-keepers to unite two weak colonies in the fall. Suppose a bee-keeper has two weak colonies in the fall, each occupying two combs. He unites them so they will winter better. If they would not quarrel and would stay wherever they were put, he could place the two frames of the one hive beside the two frames in the other hive, and the thing would be done. Now, suppose that a thin division-board were placed between the two sets of combs, would that not see the same result? Not quite, I think, but nearly so. They would hardly be so warm as without the division-board, but nearly so; and both queens would be saved. In the spring it is desirable to keep the bees warm. If two colonies are in one hive, with a thin division board between them, they will be much warmer than if in separate hives. The same thing is true in winter. I have had weak nuclei with two combs come through in good condition during a winter in which I lost heavily; these nuclei having no extra care or protection other than being in a double hive. You would understand the reason of all this easily if in winter you would look into one of these double hives in the cellar. On each side the bees are clustered up against the division-board, and it looks exactly as if the bees had all been in one single cluster, and then the division-board pushed down, through the center of the cluster. P. 300

Root, A. I., ABC of Bee Culture, 1882, A. I. Root Co.
I have wintered many colonies, two in a hive, with a 3/8-inch division between, and I have always found the two colonies practically in one cluster. CC Miller

Snelgrove, L. E., Queen Rearing, 1946, Miss I. Snelgrove

A four-comb nucleus containing a young queens and at least two combs well filled with brood will winter quite well if fed with 10 lbs. of thick syrup, warmly covered with quilts, and kept in a place sheltered from cold winds. It will need to be fed again in late spring, and when strong, transferred to a larger hive.
Several nuclei can be wintered side by side in a large packing case through the sides of which suitable entrance holes are bored. The hives should be covered with hay or straw and a waterproof roof provided. The extra queens so wintered will be of considerable value in the spring. P. 289

But there are no historical references for small cell foundation.

>>How many speakers who were asked to speak were told that they had to have “scientifically valid data” to back them up as a precondition? Did the guy who claimed to be able to affect the shape of water crystals by saying “I love you” rather than “I hate you” to a freezing glass of water have data? Given that presentation, do you think that anything that I would present would be any kind of embarrassment? I know you didn't have total control of the program, but we were excluded for not having better "science" than we have, while Tom Seeley would have been presenting "valid research" if he talked about his small cell study...meanwhile you have the angry ice crystals being presented next door....I'm supposed to feel like I'm being treated fairly?<<

Dean, don't compare Mr. Natural and Tom Seeley. And don't get me going about the crystal thing. Last time I said anything about HIM, I got a long email threatening libel. See, it's not just you that gets flack for your opinion.

No, Tom didn't talk about his SC study. I was only able to listen to her Arnot Forest talk, and something about swarms...honeybee democracy. Too busy with the meeting and honey show to attend all. AYSM...I especially didn't attend the crystal talk.

>>Telling me I can’t critique such a bad study unless I do my own is, frankly, insulting. I’m not criticizing it for no reason…it’s simply lousy, and the beekeeping community should demand better (that includes you).<<

Dean, you've got it wrong. I'm not criticizing you or anyone...as I said...for the critique. I respect your opinion, and those of the rest of the SC, TF beekeeping camps. I'm only asking that you or someone else do it the right way...whatever that is...and end the contentions debate.

>>Well, as you can see from the rough outline I posted yesterday, I have some ideas, and Ramona and I are discussing how to get all this stuff funded….but thanks for poking a bit at it…it has stimulated some new ideas that might be workable.<<

Well great! That was my intention. I'm sure we all could design a study that all here would be comfortable with. Don't you? Not so sure about your rough outline, though. Can't you keep it simple? Can't we just set up a number of apiaries with both LC and SC colonies, manage all the same over time, and keep track of the things that are important. Strength in spring, brood volume measurements, mite loads, virus loads, annual honey production, colony survival.

Wouldn't all the colonies have to be started from bulk bees, and have sister queens? The SC and LC comb should be from where? Bulk bees on foundation in each group...following them over several years? The colonies would have to be manage identically. Colonies would have to be fed...sucrose syrup not HFCS or honey...unless the honey fed came from each colony. I know how you feel about feeding Dean, but you would have to eliminate starvation as a case of colony failure.

Be well Dean, and don't take my opinion as any kind of personal attack.

[deknow]

....a couple of things briefly.

1. I think it's great to have beekeepers deciding and debating what goes into a well designed study. I encourage you to read more studies.....you will find the the protocols are generally not living up to the ideals one would think science would demand.

2. Look closely at Randy's hsc trial. Note that after the formal experiment, he reticulated the hsc hives, does not treat them, and they "refuse to die". Randy seems to give credit to the offgassing of the food grade polypropylene as acting as a miticide.

Deknow

[squarepeg]

yes dean, i saw oliver's interesting remarks regarding his hsc colonies. i think the question is ripe for answering.

and, just because others have had bad protocols or badly followed good protcols isn't an excuse for doing it again, (i'm not implying that is what you are implying )

[Acebird]

ace, i'm not sure it has been proven that bigger bees make more honey.

So the breeding of managed bees has been a waste of time and effort for the last 200 years?

[Barry]

Ace, you're going off topic again. That's not what squarepeg said. Read it again.

[BeeCurious]

So the breeding of managed bees has been a waste of time and effort for the last 200 years?

Don't you think that breeding and cell size are two different things?

You could spend some time learning about the subject.

[deknow]

I'm going to try and reply to a bunch of this...I will try to keep it in shorter posts....and no Mike, I don't see your reply as a personal attack of any kind....I just think you are wrong (I saw a Tshirt recently that said, "I could agree with you, but then we'd both be wrong")

I'm not defending any of the SC studies done to date.

Mike, that is all well and good. But....you are universally recognized as a well above average beekeeper (top of the heap for the kind of beekeeping you are doing), clearly have had the good sense and judgment to take advice and methods from all kinds of places and have put them together and refined them in your own way that they actually work...really well (it is one thing to replicate someone elses business model...to forge your own is not a small task), are a smart, critical thinker, and have good grasp of reality. I'm not trying to stroke your ego....I'm pointing out that people listen to what you have to say, and they do so because what you say is consistently worth listening to.

This is not the first time you have seen me post my objections to the Seeley study. I understand that Tom holds a special place in the beekeeping community. I've met him a few times and he is a really nice guy. I've heard him present a few times, and he is excellent (one of the best).

What purpose does it serve to not be critical of this study? ...preserving some kind of "cult of personality"? This is supposed to be a peer reviewed study from our most respected researcher....and there is no need to take drones into account because they used magic bees that don't produce drones all season? That measuring the average of 20 cells in the center of a frame (10 on each side) is sufficient data to cite it as the mean cell size for the frame?

I won't "demand" anything, but if out of Tom Seeley, the review process, the beekeepers that claim to want to have a good study done on this topic...that I'm the only one willing to ignore the source and point out huge problems that should have been obvious all the way through this process, then I guess we deserve no better.

Dean, don't compare Mr. Natural and Tom Seeley.

Actually, the two of them have something in common (and also with us)....we all became interested in learning about small cell around the same time (not exactly the same time..but all within a couple of years).

Ramona and I, with our curiosity, had joined the organic list, and were engaging with Dee directly on the subject. In the spring of 2008 was the first of the Arizona Organic conferences...also really the first time Dee had done anything public since the loss of Ed. Ramona insisted with Dee that if we were going to come to the conference, we had to be able to stay with her afterwards so we could see her operation for ourselves. In the end, we were so inspired by what we saw, that we came back 6 weeks later, got Dee an online ordination, and she married us in the desert near one of her bee yards, while we spent a 2 week working wedding/honeymoon.

In short, we spent some time and money to see what small cell and no treatments really looked like in the desert. We wanted as much information as we could get, and we wanted to see for ourselves....we wanted to be successful.

Which brings us to....

When Ross Conrad was interested in SC beekeeping...enough that he wanted to regress his bees, what did he do? He called someone who had been successful....he picked up the phone and called Dee. I know, I answered the phone. Dee spent at least 45 minutes on the phone with him discussing the process....Ross even wanted to buy the foundation from Dee (Ross wanted to use the foundation that Dee had used successfully...he wanted to limit the number of variables). This was a genuine attempt to attempt to replicate the success that someone else is claiming. This is the _least_ one can do if they are serious.

Now, Tom Seeley has a student and 3 years of funding to evaluate small cell. He is a highly respected phd level researcher at one of the most respected agricultural research universities in the world (I don't think any of this is overstated).

He makes no attempt to find out what people are actually doing WRT small cell. He spends 2 years trying to get SC comb drawn perfectly above the brood nest, above an excluder...and fails. He makes no mention of the potential impacts (besides cost to the beekeeper) that the HSC might have on the results. Tom Seeley didn't make an honest effort in 3 years of professional academic work in this topic, and it is shameful. It is more shameful that he gets a pass on this. Why didn't he pick up the phone? Why didn't he ask a beekeeper that knew something about it?

Mike, I've never been one that thought you should be doing anything other than the way you are doing them....but for a moment, consider that you have decided you are going to regress one of your yards....and consider that you have never heard anyone who used small cell explain what/why they did (pretend you know only what Tom Seeley knew when he started his project).

You would at least do what Ross did...you'd call up Dee, or Mike Bush, or Erik Osterlund...and ask some questions.

You might do what Ramona and I did...spend a little money to go and see one of these operations you have heard about.

You would not do what Tom Seeley did....of that I am certain.

I am certainly not going to claim that "Natural Beekeeping", "The Complete Idiot's Guide To Beekeeping", or "Michael Palmers Handy Dandy Guide to Queen Rearing" are "Honeybee Democracy"...but when it comes to learning about how small cell beekeeping might be accomplished, Tom's approach shows the least desire to learn anything....and just because I'm pointing it out doesn't mean it's my fault....Tom advised the student, Tom put his name on the manuscript, Tom should have known better....and Ross did.

deknow

[beemandan]

wouldn't it be better if the study was conducted by someone with no dog in the fight.

Been done a number of times. The issue is some who do have a dog in the fight are unhappy with the consistent results.

[Riskybizz]

MP > Well great! That was my intention. I'm sure we all could design a study that all here would be comfortable with. Don't you?

Well spoken Mike my sentiments exactly. So dean I think most of us are aware of your objections to Seeley's previous study, and your follow up treatise. Without beating that old horse to death it would be beneficial to hear some of your possible concrete ideas that you would be interested in pursuing in regards to your own trial study of sc. There are certainly a lot of resources in the New England area that might be valuable in your pursuit of a more comprehensive examination of small cell treatment free beekeeping.

[Barry]

What if Jim Fischer threatened your publisher with litigation if they didn’t recall the book you wrote talking about what you actually do?

I would have wet my pants from laughter!

[deknow]

I think trying to equate the small cell studies, and the faults you come up with, to the fact that many older beekeepers poo-pood the wintering of nucleus colonies isn't a fair comparison.

I apologize if it came across as if I was trying to do that.

What I was trying to equate was the small cell studies with a (hypothetical) study of overwintering nucs that uses a different, and unproven method to "overwinter nucs" than you are using...one in which the investigator makes no effort to find out what goes into wintering nucs successfully, and instead assembles a host of unproven (and unwise) procedures (like starting with the most heavily mite infested hives you can find in an apiary) out of whole cloth, and when the results were negative, made a blanket statement that "overwintered nucs in new england simply die.

At least the Ellis and Ellis study qualified their claims with "under the conditions tested in this study" or some such.

I think we can agree that if we ignore all of the information from those that are overwintering nucs successfully, that it would be easy to come up with a procedure that looked ok on paper, but resulted in near 100% mortality.

As far as the historical record goes, beekeepers have been overwintering a lot longer than they have been dealing with mites. All of the quotes you provided are from well before mites.....I don't know about Snellgrove, but the other authors you cite (and everyone else from that time period....Root, Langstroth, Doolittle, Miller) all cite the size of worker comb at 5 cells within an inch...that's 5.08mm on the large side of things.

The historical record on cell size is clear...5.4 is larger than "natural". What affect this has on the bees and on the mites requires more research certainly. The people you are citing as overwintering nucs were not large cell beekeepers, and I think that's worth keeping in mind.

dkenow

[deknow]

I'm going to be a bit blunt with a few thoughts (yes, I know you will all find this shocking)

1. It is difficult to imagine that a group of people can get together a valid study which avoids the glaring problems in previous studies if they have not read those studies. You've got to do your own homework if you want to have an informed opinion....there is no difference between people who read the study abstract and accept it as truth and people who read my criticisms of the work and accept those as truths. Simply put, your opinion isn't valuable unless it is informed.

Now, given the above...

2. It is difficult to imagine that a group of people can get together a valid study which avoids the glaring problems in previous studies if they are not willing to discuss the glaring problems. If you take someone's word for what the problems are (even if it is my word), you are not acting from an informed place....you are just as likely to take someone elses word for the opposite conclusion. You've got to do your homework and have an opinion.

3. I do have a vision of how this (and other bee research) should and could be done. I don't see much point in pursuing any of this unless it is spectacularly done, and the transparency of the data, procedures, and results place it above petty and casual scrutiny. I don't see any point in pursuing this with less rigor and with less numbers than would provide robust, general, and convincing results...we've already seen enough of that.

I know Mike has suggested something simpler....but again, I don't see the point of doing this and not doing it right....find out if the bees store more varieties of pollen on small cell (as is claimed by some), find out brood emergers faster on the small half of the comb than on the large, find out what behaviours are modified with a changing cell size. We are always told that "what works" isn't enough...we have to explain how....so, if we are going to explore this, lets explore it.

With that said, although I appreciate the input, I will let you all know when I come up with something that I think is viable....I don't mean to be dismissive or unappreciative, I just have been through this a few times already....

deknow

[Oldtimer]

Got excited and ready to write a cheque, but further reading made it seem likely this study will never happen.

The level of compensation being asked is just too much.

If someone wants to run a study to prove their own point of view, a level of voluntary effort should reasonably be expected. If money is wanted not only for time, but for equipment, why? During the study the bees will presumably be productive. At the end of the study the person running it gets to keep all the equipment.

An "open chequebook" type approach has to be left aside, or this thing won't even get off the ground in my opinion.

I will pitch in some money, if I'm happy with the way the study is set up, and i also need to be happy it's not just being run as a money making venture.

[Riskybizz]

Oldtimer

So whats the weather like there today? I am envious. Its been well below freezing here for over a week, with lows 10-15 degrees. The week before I was feeding some old honey back to a few colonies and they were flying everywhere. Are you rearing any queens these days. I really enjoyed your post here about no-grafting a few quuens and I look forward to giving it a shot this coming May. If they vote to move this sc study to New Zealand sign me up ! Cheers

[Oldtimer]

If they vote to move this sc study to New Zealand sign me up ! Cheers

Ha Ha!
A properly run study would use more resources than I've got, fun though it would be. Since starting some small cell hives and finding how difficult it is to regress them, and after that KEEP them regressed, I'm really hoping that there will be an eventual treatment free solution to varroa that does NOT involve 4.9 sized cells. It's been fun, and interesting, but to run a whole outfit at 4.9 would be pretty time consuming, at least where I am, with the bees we have.

The weather is excellent beekeeping and queen raising weather at the moment, temperatures reaching up to around 75 during the day and dropping to around 50 or 55 at night, in my area. Humidity is high so everything is very green, nectar pouring in. Good cell raising conditions but only hassle is cell raisers and nucs getting painfully clogged with honey, but a better problem to have than starvation. Yes I'm still selling nucs, hives, and queens. Just sold 50 hives to a commercial guy who went certified organic. Worked for him for 2 years then this year (the third year) he had major losses, he's treating again and buying bees wherever he can get them.

Good luck with the queen cell raising Riskybizz you'll have to post up & let's know how it goes!

[squarepeg]

interesting oldtimer. can you expand on your small cell trial? how many hives? do they have less mites? how did you regress, and what kind of problems are you having keeping them regressed?

[Oldtimer]

Hmm well to answer all that properly I'd have to write a book LOL!

There is a thread on how I regressed the first hive here, which primarily shows that at the time I was a small cell ignoramus.
http://www.beesource.com/forums/show...mall-Cell-Hive

How many hives? Not enough to be statstically valid, currently 8 hives and 21 nucs. All my cell raising is done in the small cell hives, primarily so they can be raised in a treatment free environment. After ironing out the initial bugs, the small cell bees are now raising queen cells the same size as a large cell hive would.

Do they have less mites? All I can say at this stage, is that for SOME of the hives it seems to be working. 2 hives were overwhelmed by mites a few months ago, others have some mites and from time to time show some PMS, and others are more mite free than any other hive I've had, without being treated in that time frame. So, if I was keenly trying to find evidence that small cell have less mites, based on the good hives I could find a way to say yes, but overall, on balance, the jury is still out.

Keeping them regressed? Main problem is even fully regressed hives will try to build bigger cells. I am not convinced 4.9 is a natural size for apis mellifera. I have had to cut out and re-foundation a LOT of combs. As I've learned a bit more about it I now only get comb drawn a few at a time, centre of the broodnest. You cannot just stick a honey box on full of foundation as you do with large cell foundation. If you do the bees will overite the 4.9 foundation and build larger cells.

[squarepeg]

thanks for taking the time to reply oldtimer, and thanks for the link to that thread.

i went back and read it in its entirety, which i had not done before posting to it.

looks like the state of affairs is still the state of affairs.

i still say the mite question is the main one, and the question that i think would be the easiest to answer in a focused study, (and the answer to that question the most useful in regards to whether or not being preoccupied with sc is worthwhile).

[Acebird]

find out what behaviours are modified with a changing cell size.

Bingo! this is key. Crack this nut and you will answer the benefits / detriments of small cell or small feral bees.