small cell foundation

[Oldtimer]

OK, sweet. 2 years ago you got as low as 5 hives, currently you have about 40. Presumably the survivors from the packages you mentioned buying. Wasn't that hard to say was it?

Much as you think I should, I don't read every word you write, or everything in the hundreds of links you find in google. I was not aware of all this, and your previous posts seemed evasive.

There's more I'd like to know about how successful of a beekeeper you are, but i've wandered far enough from the thread topic, Barry's stepped in, so I won't.

I'll just have to read about it when I get your book.

[d.frizzell]

I hope I've been helpful to others that are trying to understand..

You have! Thank You!
Donna
46N

[Daniel Y]

The whole point of treatment free beekeeping (at least from my perspective) is to keep bees more in line with nature and with natural systems. There are a variety of practical and philosophical reasons to do this, and a variety of practical and philosophical reasons not to. How you want to handle those things is up to you.

Keeping chickens in a box is productive and efficient...but it's not very fun, and it doesn't offer much in the way of reward _except_ for the productivity and efficiency (not much appreciation for the bird or for nature). It's also a useless environment for selection of breeding stock, except for stock well suited to living in a box. ...and even on a planet where this is true, there is a reasonable premium market for eggs produced by chickens that are treated more naturally.



deknow


deknow

In response to the first paragraph. The most convincing argument for treatment free For me has been the possible disruption of the ecology of the hive. I have seen the effect of this personally in aquariums that are cleaned to well. there is a complex process going on in that water. and it is necessary for the fish to even live. I can see the same may very well be true in a beehive. I have not seen any details as to the specifics of this system which then tends to make it an unfounded claim. I would actually like to know the specifics of this biological system if it exists.

As for the second paragraph. Chickens are not natural. they are bred by man from other birds. In fact there is some disagreement as to just what bird they come from. Not to long ago I could have given you a couple of the exact names of the ones in the running but they escape me at this moment. There are some attempts to track the chicken back to it's origins. they think they can do it again but better this time. Roughly they come from a couple of different Jungle Fowl.

[Michael Palmer]

Since this discussion has popped up on Bee-L, one more time, I thought I'd ask Dee how she would set up a small cell study. Her reply suggests her success is through breeding. She lost her operation twice from varroa, and re-built by walk away splits during the africanization of Arizona. A few years ago, she lost it again, Nosema this time. As an intelligent beekeeper would...she got through it through intelligent selection....

...."and also, no varrtoa problems, no trachael mite problems, no nosema problems that could not be bred thru that tried", .....

Sounds like a breeding program to me...selecting from survivors. Don't see where the small cell theory enters the picture...except in a faith based way. If it takes 10 years for the program to work, how can the success be linked to anything other than breeding?

*******************
Mike Palmer wrote:

Dee, from your reply, you seem to have put something together....couldn't you just share your idea of a small cell study, done correctly?

Reply;
Been done one non-stop now since 1997 and when looked at for 171 pesticides/chemicals not 1ppb found, also when looked at for artificial feeds none found, and now moran lab at Yale shows best digestive gut bacteria for good health...........and also, no varrtoa problems, no trachael mite problems, no nosema problems that could not be bred thru that tried, .........no SHB problems...............and still going.............for it's long term for doing and very sustainable..............and shown to others yearly..............but not hard for doing.

You simply put bees onto small cell foundation for drawing out no bigger then 4.9mm and then no treatments used, no aritifricial feeds used, only local ferals used,. also hives allowed to build up to adult size which is 4-5 deeps high, then all hives same in yards, and more then one yard used and in tandum for say 300hives minimum to control area for working in. Also, only local outmating done.................and then no quickie doing........it has be to long term like 10 plus years or more...................and more is better to see changes as weather patterns change and how the bees change with them.

and the one started in 1997 now going on 16 straight years........................

Dee A. Lusby
p.s. this was one Erickson stuck to me saying prove it works!!!! bit.............by the way!!!

[BeeCurious]

also hives allowed to build up to adult size which is 4-5 deeps high

4 to 5 deeps high!

Does Dee wear a pressurized bee suit to work at that altitude?

[Cleo C. Hogan Jr]

[QUOTE=Daniel Y;876027] There are some attempts to track the chicken back to it's origins.

If you want to trace the chicken back to it's orgin, start with the egg.

Won't it be nice when Spring gets here, and people get back to looking after their bees, rather than looking for an argument.

cchoganjr

[Barry]

A few years ago, she lost it again, Nosema this time.

Lost it as in 100's of hives? what year was this?

[jim lyon]

I gleaned something else out of the Bee-L discussion regarding small cell. "if it really were so simple why wouldn't everyone be doing it"?
Seems to me that lots of different people have tried lots of different things. "New idea du jour" is how I refer to it. Why hasn't this one caught fire on a huge scale? I know how it works in the commercial business. Everyone anxiously looking over their shoulder at the other operations fearing the other guy has cracked the code for perfect beekeeping methods and they might miss out. Pssssst you know what they say he is doing dontcha? Small cell????? Call Mann Lake! Gimmie 100,000 sheets.....stat!

[deknow]

She [Dee] lost her operation twice from varroa, and re-built by walk away splits during the Africanization of Arizona.

I can't offer any insights here beyond her own words, but Dee has written quite a bit about it...try googling for more details. I will say that according to Dr. Eric Erikson (the then director of the Tucson Bee Lab), feral bees in arizona were small cell _before_ AHB (and he had a lot of incentive to find AHB in Arizona as early as possible...it meant more funding for the lab).

A few years ago, she lost it again, Nosema this time. As an intelligent beekeeper would...she got through it through intelligent selection....

This I can help clarify a bit....what you state here is not accurate, and is missing some important details.

1. She did not "lose" her operation...there was one general area with 300 hives...in which she lost 200 one fall. I believe her observations while it was happening was bees dragging pollen out of the hives...again, she has written about this, so you should just be able to google it....in addition to these hives, she had another 400 that were unaffected.

2. Dr. Gerry Loper took samples that were sent to Jerry Bromenshenk. There was some "interesting drama" regarding the results...some of this happened publicly on Bee-l. When the results were finally sent to Dee (as an excel spreadsheet attachment), Dee was unable to read the file, so she sent it to me. The results from Jerry's analysis was that there was nosema c. in most of the samples. I have the spreadsheet (and Michael, I'd be happy to show it to you...but I won't send it around the internet). What is interesting is that despite the fact that in order to do this analysis something like 40,000 data points have to be collected and examined, that the DATE LISTED ON THE TEST RESULTS WERE FROM THE WRONG YEAR. Certainly errors like that can happen (and I think Jerry placed the blame on an assistant and the fact that they were sent out when he was not present). We have no way to know where or how the error happened...or if they were even the correct samples to start with. When Dr. Bromenshenk came up with the nosema/irridovirus theory, he was asked if he could test Dee's samples for the virus...the answer was that they were stored i freezer that didn't have an alarm on it, the freezer failed, and the samples lost.

3. In the spring following the die off, Ramona and I spent a couple of weeks with Dee. One of our tasks was to make up the deadouts from the survivors...we split 100 survivors into 300 hives...in April...all walk away splits. I asked over on Bee-L how long it would take for those splits to crash from the nosema ceranae...I think Juanse answered with 18 months at the outside....no crash of any kind occurred there since (I've seen most of these bees at least once every year since). I have video footage of what these yards looked like when we got there, splitting, and footage of the same yards in many of the years since...they are recovered, they are doing fine, they are producing honey.

Hardly a "lost operation". If it was nosema c., then has Dee demonstrated that it can be bred through? We know that specifically treatment for nosema (fumidil) actually causes nosema c. spore production as the concentration of fumidil decreases over time....a bona fid treatment treadmill. ...but who is even suggesting that nosema c. can simply be bred through by not treating? Any of the researchers? This is a fairly large sample size for any kind of bee research....300 hives that _must_ be resistant to nosema c?

I did hear Jamie Ellis a few weeks ago, he said that in 3 separate trials that nosema isn't working in Florida...I suppose that is because they use it sparingly and that nosema won't develop resistance...RIGHT?

...."and also, no varrtoa problems, no trachael mite problems, no nosema problems that could not be bred thru that tried",

Sounds like a breeding program to me...selecting from survivors. Don't see where the small cell theory enters the picture...except in a faith based way. If it takes 10 years for the program to work, how can the success be linked to anything other than breeding?

This is a really important point. I don't think (and never have) that small cell is a binary switch...turn it on and the mites disappear.

What we see in all kinds of populations is that small changes in efficiency lead to big evolutionary changes. I can't think of a more apt example than the blind cave fishes. Many populations of fish (not all closely related) have found themselves in dark environments for long periods of time (caves, deep swamps, etc). These populations have displayed "convergent evolution"...they all came up with the same evolutionary solution to the same environmental problem...all independently.

They lost their eyes (to a greater or lessor extent). _Not_ having eyes doesn't give you a direct advantage in the dark...but having eyes comes at a cost. They have to be developed during the embryonic development, their brains have to have a place to process visual information, there is some energy cost required to maintain an eye....but if it is dark all the time, all of this "investment" goes to waste.....there is no ROI.

What does not having an eye save a fish over it's lifetime? What portion of the brain, of the energy, of the mass is wasted by having eyes? Probably not very much...but this is the point....nature is like business. When you are talking about long periods of time and stressful selection pressures, small savings equate to a big evolutionary advantage...at least enough to consistently (and in several populations independently), that those without eyes (rare as they may be in the original population) are the ones that prosper a little bit more over time...and become dominant in the population.

So, back to small cell. It may be that it only give 0.25% advantage (hard to measure), but even that little bit may be enough. Our own experience is that without treating, we didn't have bees alive in the spring...until we went to small cell. It's easy to "see" the difference big things make, but it's the small things, the little savings, the little advantages that make all the difference.

This is the same concept as what I've been talking about in the Moran paper....the bacterial communities that have antibiotic resistance pay for that trait energetically. Sure, they need that trait if they are exposed to antibiotics every year...but if they aren't, antibiotic resistance is a burden, one that has a definite cost to the population. It's like adding an extra car payment to your budget...if you need the car to make money it might pay for itself...but if you buy the car that doesn't have a role in your making money, all of a sudden you are eating baloney instead of steak to cover the payments.

deknow

[deknow]

... currently you have about 40. Presumably the survivors from the packages you mentioned buying.

Most of the package bees were requeened with our own stock (we graft, but deal with virgins and don't use "mating nucs"), but generally not the best looking of the packages. It's a bit of a toss up...the brood pattern looks good, but you have no data on any of the overwintering characteristics.....I generally make a point of keeping the best one or two around for drones and to see if they overwinter. There is always going to be some influence from other stock (well, except on one location that is isolated), so it might as well be the best of the package stock making drones.

deknow

[deknow]

We have a talk that Ramona gave in 2010 online, that might be worth a watch if you want to know a bit more about the microbes. Please note that this was before any of the new data had started to come in....I think everything we had access to at the time had been studied using culturing techniques, which have the problem of being biased towards organisms that culture well...even if they are only incidental...but for 2010, this was state of the science.

[jim lyon]

So, back to small cell. It may be that it only give 0.25% advantage (hard to measure), but even that little bit may be enough. Our own experience is that without treating, we didn't have bees alive in the spring...until we went to small cell. It's easy to "see" the difference big things make, but it's the small things, the little savings, the little advantages that make all the difference.

Given the difficulties and costs associated with making a changeover to small cell this seems to me a pretty gloomy assessment. Would a .25% (and I am aware its just a number you threw out there as an example) advantage really constitute proof that small cell works? Considering all the other variables that we know affect hive health is that the one that gives us the best "bang for the buck"? I have been under the impression that the criteria for deciding if small cell works is if it is actually a viable way to keep varroa counts so low that no treatments would ever be necessary. I know I have a whole different perspective than you on this but if you really want to make a difference in this industry give us an example, suggest a blueprint if you will for how this works on a large scale because that is how you really make a difference. Should I make a large investment doing this, would you? How would a 1/4 of 1% improvement make the bee industry as a whole a better one?

[Riskybizz]

I assume that Dee doesn't participate in any forums here anymore and that’s too bad as I would be interested in having her expound upon her sc activities as opposed to reading about it via a self appointed spokesman. I just get the feeling that something is missing in the translation. I have always thought that there are many well educated beekeepers who have gained the majority of their beekeeping experience through actual filed work and years of practical experience. That is the part of beekeeping that interests me the most. Then there are the researches who spend most of their time on the internet and websites in search of something to substantiate their particular beliefs (nothing wrong with that either). But I have always liked getting my hands dirty under the top so to speak, like a good mechanic. Spend more time observing and watching the bees and listening to those who have many years of similar experience under their belts. So Oldtimer I hope you have been following the recent posts here, because ya never know, you might be asked to take a test here sometime (smiles).

[deknow]

well..you could call dee on the phone and ask her. you could simply believe Mike Palmer's word and accept that she "lost her operation" (I don't believe Mike to be dishonest in any way...I'm sure this was his understanding)....but of course 200 out of 7 or 800 isn't losing one's operation, is it?

it seems rather demanding to expect someone to come to the forum of your choice, in the thread of your choice, at the time of your choice to explain what is incorrect about what has been incorrectly claimed about her operation by others. She runs the organic list, she has a phone, she runs a conference every year that isn't too far from you, she speaks in Massachusetts every summer as well. She has extensive writings hosted here on beesource...have you read them?

how available are people expected to be?

FWIW, none of this is new information, it's all been posted on beesource and/or bee-l (which has freely searchable archives) before...by Dee. So get out your google or pick up the phone.

[Riskybizz]

“it seems rather demanding to expect someone to come to the forum of your choice, in the thread of your choice”…

I don’t recall demanding that anyone participate in a forum. What I said was (and you might care to re-read my post) “that it would be interesting to hear first hand about someone’s sc management practices.”

It appears that your defensive demeanor precedes any worthwhile knowledge that you could actually share with others in an open exchange of ideas. At some point I think that I would enjoy a conversation with Dee. You know, beekeeper to beekeeper.

[deknow]

Have you ever tried to call her, email her, join her yahoogroup, or attend an event when Rte e she is speaking? Are you waiting for her to call you up for a chat?
She has no answering machine, so you have to get her when she is home. She deals with a lot of email, so a good subject line helps get her to notice an email. She is taking registrations for her conference in Oracle.

Deknow

[Barry]

I assume that Dee doesn't participate in any forums here anymore and that’s too bad as I would be interested in having her expound upon her sc activities as opposed to reading about it via a self appointed spokesman.

That you would have to do on her terms, at her group. She gave up participating here because I would not hold to the strict terms she wanted, you know, no mention of "drugs, chemicals, essential oils, herbs, FGMO, acids, fungicides, bacterial/viral inhibitants, micro-organism stimuli, and artificial feeds". I have always felt that there needs to be room for those who are transitioning off treatments and allow discussion for that. Dee is pretty much cold turkey approach with no room for much else.

[Riskybizz]

Thanks Barry. And deknow behave or we'll have to put you on a leash.....

[Acebird]

suggest a blueprint if you will for how this works on a large scale because that is how you really make a difference.

Well maybe to you it would make a difference but to a lot of other people it makes a difference right now. If nothing else it can keep the small guy going and not have to buy into the chemical warfare game that some people absolutely don't want.
I don't think varroa is going to kill the american beekeeping industry as we know it. I think China is going to kill it because it is so labor intensive.

[deknow]

I dunno...I offered accurate details for an event that was misrepresented (by someone who would would not want a 25% loss of his operation in one incident characterized as "he lost his operation"). ...details that I was privy to by being on site first in February before rebuilding those yards, in April helping to rebuild those yards, seen those yards (most of them) every year since, and have a copy of the original report that came back from Jerry's lab.

So, I'm not supposed to "google" anything, I'm not supposed to offer well considered (not off the cuff) analysis of studies that I've actually read in detail, and I'm not supposed to correct false information when it is presented in error, even if I have first hand knowledge (as well as both photo and video footage of the incident in question).

What do you want to discuss? The fact that Dee "lost her operation" a few years ago....when in fact it was about a 25% loss? Why would you not want to have a discussion based on the most accurate information available?

deknow