Beesource Beekeeping Forums banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

small cell foundation

97K views 429 replies 36 participants last post by  deknow 
#1 ·
#2 ·
`Dont know alot about small cell as i dont buy foundation. All of my hives are natural cell as i let the bees build what THEY want need. All of my bees are from local cutouts and swarm captures and tend to be a dark bee. Dont know what there genetic line is or was but there are very few local beeks close to my location so i just call the local mutts.
 
#3 ·
Not what you wanted to hear, but I second wadehump. I don't use foundation and let the bees build what they need. I don't lose many hives (knock on wood). Last hive I lost was late fall 2011, they starved (I didn't realize they were that light until it was too late). I don't know for a fact that smallcell/natural cell is the end all cure all, but I do know that foundationless saves me a TON of money.

Rod
 
#4 ·
Small cell has been tried in many states and many countries. There is no evidence it hurts your bees so it is your time and money.
Small cells do not control Varroa mites
Whenever I write about small-cell combs and Varroa mite control I incur the wrath of the believers. It’s the one subject that delivers something very close to hate mail. So with that in mind, I will say it again: small-cell combs will not control your Varroa mites.
In a 2011 paper by Thomas D. Seeley and Sean R. Griffin[1]—both of the Cornell University Department of Neurobiology and Behavior—small-cell combs were once again found to produce no fewer mites than regular-sized combs. This work, along with similar experiments reported by Ellis et al. 2009, Berry et al. 2010, and Coffey et al. 2010, demonstrates that small-cell combs given to European honey bees do not significantly reduce either mite loads or mite drops compared to hives with similar genetics and similar mite infestations.
In their experiment, Seeley and Griffin studied seven pairs of colonies. Each pair was started from a strong colony with a high mite drop. In order to assure that each pair had similar genetics and similar mite loads, the bees were shook from the parent colony and then divided into two packages. Each package was then given a new Minnesota Hygienic queen and fed sugar syrup. After three days, one package from each colony was put in a hive with standard-size combs (5.38 mm) and the other package was put in a hive with small-cell combs (4.82 mm).
Once a month for five months, the seven pairs of colonies were measured for colony strength, mite infestation, and worker size. The paper contains many interesting tidbits but, to make a long story short, by the end of the experiment Seeley and Griffin found no significant difference in either infestation rates (mites per 100 worker bees) or mite drops. They also found very little difference in worker size. Even though the small cells were 10.4% narrower than the average standard cells, the worker bees showed only a 2.1% decrease in head width and a 3.5% decrease in thorax width.
Taking this a step further, they divided the average thorax width of workers in standard cells (3.95 mm) by the cell width (5.38 mm) to get a “fill factor”– or the percentage of cell filled with bee (73%). Similarly, dividing the average thorax width of a small-cell bee (3.81 mm) by the small-cell width (4.82 mm) yielded a fill factor of 79%. This throws doubt on the commonly held belief that there is not enough room inside a small cell for mites to reproduce effectively. Neither 73% nor 79% are very tight fits, so there is plenty of room to grow many mites in either case.
I hear plenty of conflicting stories—anecdotal evidence of how changing to small cells cured the mite problem. But when researcher after researcher cannot reproduce those results, I have to wonder if the anecdotal cases aren’t due to exogenous variables or just plain luck. Sometimes we want something so badly we can’t think beyond the wishing. Believe me, if I thought there was a breath of truth to small-cell mite control, I would switch tomorrow.
http://www.honeybeesuite.com/small-cells-do-not-control-varroa-mites/
Apidologie 41 (2010) 40–44 Available online at:
c_ INRA/DIB-AGIB/EDP Sciences, 2009 www.apidologie.org
DOI: 10.1051/apido/2009049 Original article
Small-cell comb foundation does not impede Varroa mite population growth in honey bee colonies*
Jennifer A. Berry1, William B. Owens2, Keith S. Delaplane1
1 Department of Entomology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, USA
2 Owens Apiaries, 4510 Springwood Drive, Monroe, GA 30655, USA
Received 1 October 2008 – Revised 23 March 2009 – Accepted 27 April 2009
Abstract – In three independently replicated field studies, we compared biometrics of Varroa mite and honey bee populations in bee colonies housed on one of two brood cell types: small-cell (4.9 �} 0.08 mm cell width, walls inclusive) or conventional-cell (5.3 �} 0.04). In one of the studies, ending colony bee population was significantly higher in small-cell colonies (14994 �} 2494 bees) than conventional-cell (5653 �} 1082).
However, small-cell colonies were significantly higher for mite population in brood (359.7 �} 87.4 vs. 134.5 �} 38.7), percentage of mite population in brood (49.4 �} 7.1 vs. 26.8 �} 6.7), and mites per 100 adult bees (5.1 �} 0.9 vs. 3.3 �} 0.5). With the three remaining ending Varroa population metrics, mean trends for small-cell were unfavorable. We conclude that small-cell comb technology does not impede Varroa
population growth.
Apis mellifera / Varroa destructor / IPM / comb / cell size
1. INTRODUCTION
The mite Varroa destructor Anderson and Trueman is a natural ectoparasite of the eastern honey bee Apis cerana F, but now parasitizes
the western honey bee Apis mellifera L. throughout much of its modern range.Mite reproduction is limited to the brood cells of its
host bee, and it is clear in free-choice studies that Varroa preferentially enter comparatively large brood cells. When Message and
Gonçalves (1995) compared brood reared in small worker cells produced by Africanized bees with brood reared in large cells produced
by European bees, they found a 2-fold increase in mite infestation rates in the larger cells. When Piccirillo and De Jong (2003) compared
Varroa infestation rates in three types of brood comb with different cell sizes (inner width), 4.84 mm, 5.16 mm, or 5.27 mm, they found
Corresponding author: K.S. Delaplane, ksd@uga.edu
*Manuscript editor: Peter Rosenkranz that percentage of cells infested was significantly higher in the largest cells compared to the other two groups. These kinds of observations have led to an interest among beekeepers in downsizing comb foundations as a cultural control against Varroa. In North America, the resulting “small-cell” foundation measures 4.9 mm per cell (Dadant & Sons, Hamilton, IL, USA) compared to that of conventional foundation measuring between 5.2 mm and 5.4 mm. These numbers are derived by measuring the width of 10 cells in a straight line, inclusive of wall widths. In this study we challenged a null hypothesis of no difference in Varroa and bee population metrics between bee colonies housed on combs of small-cell or conventional-cell foundation.
2. MATERIALS AND METHODS
In three independent experimental replicates, we compared biometrics of Varroa mite and honey
Article published by EDP Sciences
Small-cell foundation does not control Varroa 41
bee populations in bee colonies housed on one of two brood cell types: small-cell or conventional cell. In spring 2006, foundation of both types was drawn during natural nectar flows prior to set up of the experiment. Small-cell foundation was drawn out by colonies containing honey bees which had themselves been reared in small-cell combs. Conventional foundation was similarly drawn out by colonies whose bees were derived from conventional combs. Once combs were drawn we determined realized cell width (walls inclusive) by counting the number of cells in 10 cm linear (n = 60 samples each cell type). Cell width from small-cell combs was 4.9 } 0.08 mm and from conventional- 5.3 �} 0.04 mm. In August 2006, bees were collected from a variety of existing colonies (irrespective of rearing history) and combined in large cages to achieve a homogeneous mixture of bees and Varroa mites. Twenty screened packages were made up, each containing ca. 2.0 kg (15966) bees. Packages were transported to a test apiary in Oconee County, Georgia, USA (33◦50_N, 83◦26_W) where each was used to stock one of 20 single-story deep Langstroth hives. Ten of the hives each contained ten frames of drawn small-cell comb, and the other ten contained drawn conventional-cell comb. One alcohol sample of ca. 300 bees was collected from each package to derive starting mite: adult bee ratios and, by extrapolation, beginning mite populations (colonies were broodless so all mites were phoretic on adults). Queens from a single commercial source were introduced into colonies. All colonies received sugar syrup and pollen patties as needed. Colonies were
removed from the experiment if they died or their queens failed. In March 2007 a second experiment of twenty colonies was established in the same manner as before with the following differences: each package contained ca. 1.45 kg (11612) bees, and colonies were established on foundation instead of drawn comb. A third experiment was set up in April 2008, each colony with 1.36 kg (10886) bees and started on drawn comb of the appropriate experimental type stored from the previous year; honey was removed from combs to remove variation in beginning
food stores. In June 2007 (for colonies started in August 2006 and March 2007) and in August 2008 (for colonies started in April 2008) we collected the following ending parameters: daily mite count on bottom board sticky sheet (72-h exposure), average mites per adult bee recovered from alcohol samples (ca. 100–300 bees), mites per 100 cells of capped brood, and brood area (cm2). A measure of ending bee population was made by summing the proportions of whole deep frames covered by bees (after Skinner et al., 2001) then converting frames
of adult bees to bee populations with the regression model of Burgett and Burikam (1985). Brood area (cm2) was converted to cells of brood after determining average cell density as 3.93 per cm2 for conventional-cells and 4.63 for small-cell. From cells of brood we calculated the number of cells sealed by applying the multiplier of 0.53 derived by Delaplane (1999). From mites on adult bees and mites in brood we could derive ending mite populations and percentage of mite population in brood – a positive indicator of the fecundity of a mite population (Harbo and Harris, 1999). Finally, for the August 2006 colonies we sampled adult bees in October 2006 for average body weight. The duration of time between experiment start date and collection of ending Varroa population metrics was ca. 40 weeks for August 2006 colonies, 12 weeks for March 2007 colonies, and 16 weeks for April 2008 colonies. A field test of no more than 9–10 weeks is adequate to accurately appraise Varroa
population change (Harbo, 1996). An initial analysis was run as a randomized block analysis of variance recognizing the three experiment start dates as blocks and using the interaction of treatment and block as test term (Proc GLM, SAS 2002–2003). There was an interaction between treatment and block for ending colony bee population, so for this variable the analysis was performed separately for each start date and residual error used as test term. Differences were accepted at the α ≤ 0.05 level and where necessary means separated by Tukey’s test.
3. RESULTS
Significant effects of cell size were detected for ending mites in brood (F = 38.3; df = 1,2; P = 0.0252), percentage of mite population in brood cells (F = 57.4; df = 1,2; P = 0.0170) and ending mites per 100 adult bees (F = 23.8; df = 1,2; P = 0.0396). The ending number of mites in brood, percentage of mite population in brood, and mites per 100 adult bees were significantly higher in small-cell colonies (Tab. I). There was a significant interaction between start date and treatment for ending colony bee population (F = 5.14; df = 2,33; P = 0.0114)which is explained by the fact that
42 J.A. Berry et al.
Table I. Mean values (�} se) for bee and Varroa population metrics in bee colonies housed on conventional sized brood cells or small cells. Colonies of both cell types were set up in August 2006 (15966 bees), March 2007 (11612 bees), or April 2008 (10886 bees). Ending data were collected in June 2007 (August 2006 and March 2007 colonies) and August 2008 (April 2008 colonies). A one-time measure of adult bee live weight was made October 2006 for August 2006 colonies. Numbers in parentheses = n. The occurrence of significant treatment effects (α ≤ 0.05) is indicated by *.
Variable Conventional-cell Small-cell
Beginning colony mite popn. 303.1 �} 61.4 (19) 308.6.2 �} 54.1 (21)
Adult bee weight (mg) in October 2006 141.3 �} 6.7 (4) 129.3 �} 5.7 (3)
(Aug. 2006 colonies only)
Ending cm2 brood 6320 �} 681 (19) 5627 �} 490 (21)
Ending cells of brood 24838 �} 2675 (19) 26053 �} 2271 (21)
Ending mites per 24 h sticky sheet 17.4 �} 5.0 (19) 28.3 �} 6.0 (21)
Ending mites per 100 brood cells 0.9 �} 0.2 (19) 2.8 �} 0.6 (21)
Ending colony mite popn. 409.7 �} 93.4 (18) 670.5 �} 112.5 (21)
Ending mites in brood 134.5 �} 38.7 (19) 359.7 �} 87.4 (21)*
Ending % mite popn. in brood 26.8 �} 6.7 (16) 49.4 �} 7.1 (20)*
Ending mites per 100 adult bees 3.3 �} 0.5 (18) 5.1 �} 0.9 (21)*
Table II. Mean values (�} se) for ending colony bee population in bee colonies housed on conventional-sized
brood cells or small cells. Colonies of both cell types were set up in August 2006 (15966 bees), March 2007
(11612 bees), or April 2008 (10886 bees). Ending data were collected in June 2007 (August 2006 andMarch
2007 colonies) and August 2008 (April 2008 colonies). Means for this variable are reported by experiment
start date which interacted significantly with treatment. Numbers in parentheses = n. The occurrence of
significant treatment effects (α ≤ 0.05) is indicated by *.
Variable Conventional-cell Small-cell
Ending colony bee popn. August 2006 5653 �} 1082 (3) 14994 �} 2494 (3)*
March 2007 10960 �} 2115 (6) 13717 �} 1309 (9)
April 2008 14629 �} 1111 (9) 12461 �} 2177 (9)
populations tended to be higher in small-cell colonies except for the April 2008 start date. The advantage for small-cell colonies was significant for the August 2006 start date (F = 11.8; df = 1,4; P = 0.0264) (Tab. II). We failed to detect significant effects of cell size on cm2 brood, cells of brood, mites per 24 h sticky sheet, mites per 100 brood cells, and colony mite populations (Tab. I).
4. DISCUSSION
Although a significant and favorable trend for small-cell colonies was indicated for ending bee populations for the August 2006 start
date (Tab. II), the chief interest in small-cell technology resides in its potential as a nonchemical limiter of Varroa population growth.
By this criterion, the present results are not encouraging. The ending number of mites in brood, percentage of mite population in brood,
and mites per 100 adult bees were significantly higher in small-cell colonies (Tab. I). Moreover, with all remaining ending Varroa population
metrics, mean trends were unfavorable for small cell (Tab. I).We conclude that small-cell comb technology does not impede Varroa population
growth. This null conclusion is reinforced by the facts that: (1) the experiment was replicated independently three times with start dates varying between spring and fall and test
Small-cell foundation does not control Varroa 43
periods ranging from 12–40 weeks, (2) there were no interactions between start date and treatment for ending Varroa metrics, showing that responses were consistent across experiments, (3) the question of Varroa population growth was examined holistically with six dependent variables, and finally (4) the bar for performance should be high before a candidate technology is recommended for field use. It is worth noting that Varroa densities in this study (3.3–5.1 mites per 100 bees, Tab. I) were not within the action threshold of ca. 13 mites per 100 bees shown for the region by Delaplane and Hood (1999). Interest in small-cell foundation has been fueled in part by observations of Martin and Kryger (2002) that conditions which constrict the space between the host pupa and male protonymph mite promote male mite mortality. However, as these authors point out, “reducing cell sizes as a mite control method will probably fail to be effective since the bees are likely to respond by rearing correspondingly smaller bees”. The present study supports this deduction directly, and its premise indirectly: average bee live weight in October was numerically smaller in small-cell colonies than conventional (Tab. I).
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Technical assistance was provided by Dan Harris, Cody Sorensen, Eleanor Spicer, and Nicholas Weaver.
La petite taille des alvéoles des rayons de cire n’entrave pas le développement des populations de Varroa destructor dans les colonies d’abeilles.
Apis mellifera / Varroa destructor / lutte intégrée / rayon/ taille de la cellule
Zusammenfassung – Mittelwände mit kleinen Zellen reduzieren nicht das Wachstum der Varroa-Population in Honigbienenvölkern. In
Wahlversuchen konnte gezeigt werden, dass Milbenweibchen (Varroa destructor) bevorzugt größere Brutzellen von Apis mellifera befallen (Message and Gonçalves, 1995; Piccirillo and De Jong, 2003). Diese Beobachtungen stießen bei den Imkern auf großes Interesse und haben dazu geführt, dass eine Verringerung der Zellgröße bei den Mittelwänden als eine mögliche biotechnische Kontrollmaßnahme gegen die Varroose diskutiert wurde. In Nordamerika beträgt der daraus resultierende Durchmesser für “kleine Zellgrößen” bei den Mittelwandgussformen 4,9 mm pro Zelle (Dadant & Sons, Hamilton, IL, USA) im Vergleich zu normalen Zellgrößen mit 5,2 bis 5,4 mm. Diese Werte werden ermittelt, indem 10 Zellen in Reihe einschließlich der Zellwände gemessen werden. In Feldstudien mit drei unabhängigen Wiederholungen verglichen wir die Entwicklung der Varroa-, Bienen- und Brutpopulation bei Bienenvölkern mit zwei verschiedenen Zelltypen: Kleine Zellen (4,9 �} 0,08 mm Zelldurchmesser einschließlich Zellwände) und konventionelle Zellen (5,3 �} 0,04 mm). Die Versuche begannen im August 2006, März 2007 bzw. April 2008 und die letzten abhängigen Testvariablen wurden im Juni 2007 (für Völker von August
2006 und März 2007) bzw. im August 2008 (für Völker von April 2008) ermittelt. Für die im August 2006 gestarteten Versuchsvölker war die
Bienen-Endpopulation in Völkern mit kleinen Zellen signifikant größer als in denen mit konventionellen Zellen (14994 �} 2494 im Vergleich zu
5653 �} 1082 Bienen). Allerdings hatten die Völker mit kleinen Zellen signifikant mehr Milben in der Brut (359,7 �} 87,4 vs. 134,5 �} 38,7), einen höheren prozentualen Brutbefall (49,4 �} 7.1 vs. 26,8 �} 6,7) und mehr Milben pro 100 adulte Bienen (5,1 �} 0.9 vs. 3,3�}0,5). In Anbetracht dieser Daten zur Varroa- Populationsdynamik haben kleine Zellen im Durchschnitt sogar einen nachteiligen Effekt. Wir schließen daraus, dass die “Kleine-Zellen-Betriebsweise” das Wachstum der Varroa-Population nicht reduziert. Diese Schlussfolgerung wird durch folgende Details der Versuche untermauert:
1. Das Experiment wurde dreimal wiederholt mit unterschiedlichen Startterminen vom Frühjahr bis zum Herbst und variable Versuchzeiträumen von 12–40 Wochen.
2. Es gab keine Interaktionen zwischen dem Starttermin und der Variable “Zellgröße” bzgl. Der Varroa-Endpopulation; dies zeigt, dass die Ergebnisse der Versuchsserien untereinander konsistent sind.
3. Das Wachstum der Varroa-Population wurde anhand von 6 unabhängigen Variablen beurteilt.
4. Die Vorteile einer neuen Technologie müssen eindeutig nachgewiesen sein, bevor diese in der Praxis empfohlen werden kann. Abschließend sei noch bemerkt, dass der Varroabefall in diesen Untersuchungen (3,3–5,1 Milben pro 100 Bienen, Tab. I) deutlich unterhalb des Befalls von 13 Milben pro 100 Bienen liegt, der von Delaplane and Hood (1999) für diese Region als Schwellenwert für Sofortmaßnahmen ermittelt wurde.
Apis mellifera / Varroa destructor / Integrierte Schädlingsbekämpfung / Wabe / Zellgröße
44 J.A. Berry et al.
REFERENCES
Burgett M., Burikam I. (1985) Number of adult honey bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) occupying a comb:
a standard for estimating colony populations, J. Econ. Entomol. 78, 1154–1156.
Delaplane K.S. (1999) Effects of the slatted rack on brood production and its distribution in the brood nest, Am. Bee J. 139, 474–476.
Delaplane K.S., Hood W.M. (1999) Economic threshold for Varroa jacobsoni Oud in the southeastern USA, Apidologie 30, 383–395.
Harbo J.R. (1996) Evaluating colonies of honey bees for resistance to Varroa jacobsoni, BeeScience 4, 100–105.
Harbo J.R., Harris J.W. (1999) Heritability in honey bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) of characteristics associated with resistance to Varroa jacobsoni
(Mesostigmata: Varroidae), J. Econ. Entomol. 92, 261–265.
Martin S.J., Kryger P. (2002) Reproduction of Varroa destructor in South African honey bees: does cell space influence Varroa male survivorship? Apidologie 33, 51–61.
Message D., Gonçalves L.S. (1995) Effect of the size of worker brood cells of Africanized honey bees on infestation and reproduction of the ectoparasitic mite Varroa jacobsoni Oud., Apidologie 26, 381–386.
Piccirillo G.A., De Jong D. (2003) The influence of brood comb cell size on the reproductive behavior of the ectoparasitic mite Varroa destructor in Africanized honey bee colonies, Genet. Mol. Res. 2, 36–42.
SAS Institute (2002–2003) SAS/STAT user’s guide, version 9.1, SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA.
Skinner J.A., Parkman J.P., Studer M.D. (2001) Evaluation of honey bee miticides, including temporal and thermal effects on formic acid gel
vapours, in the central south-eastern USA, J. Apic. Res. 40, 81–89.
http://www.ent.uga.edu/bees/documents/m08138.pdf

"The efficacy of small cell foundation as a varroa mite (Varroa destructor) control."
Ellis AM, Hayes GW, Ellis JD.
Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Plant Industry, Bureau of Plant and Apiary Inspection, Apiary Inspection Section, 1911 SW 34th St., Gainesville, FL, 32614-7100, USA. ellisa@doacs.state.fl.us
Abstract
"Due to a continuing shift toward reducing/minimizing the use of chemicals in honey bee colonies, we explored the possibility of using small cell foundation as a varroa control. Based on the number of anecdotal reports supporting small cell as an efficacious varroa control tool, we hypothesized that bee colonies housed on combs constructed on small cell foundation would have lower varroa populations and higher adult bee populations and more cm(2) brood.
To summarize our results, we found that the use of small cell foundation did not significantly affect cm(2) total brood, total mites per colony, mites per brood cell, or mites per adult bee, but did affect adult bee population for two sampling months. Varroa levels were similar in all colonies throughout the study. We found no evidence that small cell foundation was beneficial with regard to varroa control under the tested conditions in Florida."
From: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19067184

"Brood-cell size has no influence on the population dynamics of Varroa destructor mites in the native western honey bee, Apis mellifera mellifera"
Mary F. Coffey, John Breen (Department of Life Sciences, University of Limerick, Ireland ), Mark J.F. Brown (School of Biological Sciences, Royal Holloway, University of London, Egham, TW20 0EX, UK) and John B. McMullan (Department of Zoology, School of Natural Sciences, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland)
Abstract
"The varroa mite (Varroa destructor) is an ectoparasite of the western honeybee Apis mellifera that reproduces in the brood cells. The mite will generally kill colonies unless treatment is given, and this almost universally involves the use of chemicals. This study was undertaken to examine the effect of small cell size on the reproductive success of the mite, as a method of non-chemical control in the Northern European honeybee Apis mellifera mellifera. Test colonies with alternating small and standard cell size brood combs were sampled over a three-month period and the population biology of the mites evaluated. To ensure high varroa infestation levels, all colonies were infested with mites from a host colony prior to commencement. A total of 2229 sealed cells were opened and the varroa mite families recorded. While small-sized cells were more likely to be infested than the standard cells, mite intensity and abundance were similar in both cell sizes.
Consequently, there is no evidence that small-cell foundation would help to contain the growth of the mite population in honeybee colonies and hence its use as a control method would not be proposed."
From: http://www.apidologie.org/index.php...articles/apido/abs/2010/05/m09095/m09095.html
Below is a listing of research into European honey bees on small cell combs. Three of the articles (1, 2, and 5) deal with small cell and varroa mites. All three conclude that small cell does not help the bees deal with varroa mites, or otherwise reduce varroa mite numbers. Article #3 shows that small cell combs do not reduce tracheal mites.
Study #4 is unrelated to small cell's effect on parasitic mites and shows that smaller combs do result in smaller bees, when measuring specific morphological characters.
--references--
1. Berry, J. A., Owens, W. B., and Delaplane, K. S. (2010). Small-cell comb foundation does not impede Varroa mite population growth in honey bee colonies. Apidologie 41: 40-44.
2. Ellis, A. M., Hayes, G. W., and Ellis, J. D. (2009). The efficacy of small cell foundation as a varroa mite (Varroa destructor) control. Experimental and Applied Acarology 47(4): 311-316.
3. McMullan, J. B., Brown, M. J. F. (2006). Brood-cell size does not influence the susceptibility of honey bees (Apis mellifera) to infestation by tracheal mites (Acarapis woodi). Experimental and Applied Acarology 39: 273-280.
4. McMullan, J. B., Brown, M. J. F. (2006). The influence of small-cell brood combs on the morphometry of honeybees (Apis mellifera). Apidologie 37: 665-672.
5. Taylor, M. A., Goodwin, R. M., McBrydie, H. M., and Cox, H. M. (2008). The effect of honey bee worker brood cell size on Varroa destructor infestation and reproduction. Journal of Apicultural Research 47(4): 239-242.
 
#9 ·
Quotes are great resources! This part is particularly useful. :scratch:

La petite taille des alvéoles des rayons de cire n’entrave pas le développement des populations de Varroa destructor dans les colonies d’abeilles.
Apis mellifera / Varroa destructor / lutte intégrée / rayon/ taille de la cellule
Zusammenfassung – Mittelwände mit kleinen Zellen reduzieren nicht das Wachstum der Varroa-Population in Honigbienenvölkern. In
Wahlversuchen konnte gezeigt werden, dass Milbenweibchen (Varroa destructor) bevorzugt größere Brutzellen von Apis mellifera befallen (Message and Gonçalves, 1995; Piccirillo and De Jong, 2003). Diese Beobachtungen stießen bei den Imkern auf großes Interesse und haben dazu geführt, dass eine Verringerung der Zellgröße bei den Mittelwänden als eine mögliche biotechnische Kontrollmaßnahme gegen die Varroose diskutiert wurde. In Nordamerika beträgt der daraus resultierende Durchmesser für “kleine Zellgrößen” bei den Mittelwandgussformen 4,9 mm pro Zelle (Dadant & Sons, Hamilton, IL, USA) im Vergleich zu normalen Zellgrößen mit 5,2 bis 5,4 mm. Diese Werte werden ermittelt, indem 10 Zellen in Reihe einschließlich der Zellwände gemessen werden. In Feldstudien mit drei unabhängigen Wiederholungen verglichen wir die Entwicklung der Varroa-, Bienen- und Brutpopulation bei Bienenvölkern mit zwei verschiedenen Zelltypen: Kleine Zellen (4,9 �} 0,08 mm Zelldurchmesser einschließlich Zellwände) und konventionelle Zellen (5,3 �} 0,04 mm). .
 
#5 ·
I suggest doing some archive searching on this one. Unfortunately, everyone wants to cite Seeley on this, as he has a stellar reputation. ...yet, those that cite his work _n small cell rarely look closely enough to realize that he found it impossible to get the bees to draw small cell comb....in two years of funding he failed to get comb drawn. ...so he used honey super cell (which is fully "drawn", fully molded plastic comb with smaller cells, flat bottoms, and really thick cell walls...so thick that the density of cells on the comb is the same as 5.4 large cell comb.
None of the studies used any kind of protocol that anyone that has had success would expect to be effective.
Citing and quoting pages of research is all well and good, but understanding what was and what was not done is imperative....you won't get that from a casual reading. Seeleys study especially was a waste of time and money.

Deknow
 
#8 ·
I for one am still waiting for someone to do the study correctly. How about it Dean? You seem to have a firm grasp on the method, and have multiple reasons why ALL the studies have been done incorrectly. Last I read, you said that there's no need for such a study, as the proponents of SC know it's the answer,and don't have to prove anything to anyone.

I'm not criticizing anyone, or trying to dis-credit anything. I'm only getting impatient with the attacks on the SC studies, with nothing better coming out of the SC camp. Remember in 2009...I asked you for the same. Gave you 2 1/2 years to put it together...really would have included your report at EAS. Ramona said, at the time..."He's a really smart guy and could do a good job".

I know how busy you are...as posted recently in discussions with squarepeg. But, we're all busy.

How about it?
 
#61 ·
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.

....How about it Dean? You seem to have a firm grasp on the method, and have multiple reasons why ALL the studies have been done incorrectly.
There is one overriding reason that all the studies have been done incorrectly...none of the researchers seem to be willing to base their studies on what people are actually doing, are actually reporting success with.

If I were to start some academic research on the economics of running a nuc and queen producing business in Vermont, I would have a few options of how to setup the model.

If one was not aware of what you and Kirk teach (or not bothered to understand it well enough to appreciate the advantages), the obvious thing to do would be to split in the spring to make up winter losses, and harvest some frames or bust up yards at various times throughout the year for the nucs....and buy in fancy "3 letter queen" stock every year. The conventional wisdom is that wintering nucs in Vermont is iffy at best (this is not to say that you haven't been changing this).

You could do the above, and you could show that it is either profitable or not.

But if the academic instead looked at what people are actually doing in Vermont to run a nuc and queen production operation....especially if they looked at what Mike Palmer was doing, they would see a method that would probably produce more nucs/year, produce nucs with a higher market value (overwintered nucs with overwintered queens that are selected for honey production in a commercial honey production operation in the north), _and_ produce a commercial honey crop to boot. Such research (based upon some proven successful models) would be much more valuable than a research done with procedures determined by the researchers first instincts.

Comparing the two, one would see not only a huge difference in economic outcome, but also see an operation that is much more robust. Not only is your system elegant, it actually works and has some redundancy built into it. I'm sure you feel the same way, otherwise I don't think you would care as much as you do that people understand what you are talking about.

As recently as two years ago, one of our state bee inspectors (you know the one) told me to my face that nucs won't survive in Massachusetts over the winter. ...yes, I feel the same way when I'm told by Marla Spivak to my face that non-AHB won't/can't draw small cell comb without foundation and she say's "no thank you" to an offer to bring her some the next day....it's as if you aren't actually doing what you are doing....it's as if no one wants to know.

I know that for USDA trials held in these parts (the one run by Jeff Pettis on tree injected imidacloprid specifically), HFCS feeding is part of the protocall. No one has to mix anything, and its easy on the beekeeper to feed and measure. I think you have commented recently that you moved away from HFCS because nuc survival, specifically, suffered.

What if there were a study, using HFCS as winter feed as part of the protocall, that claims to prove that nucs can’t be overwintered effectively in the north? Using “package” style queens for the nucs? Doesn’t “feed up to weight” in the fall, but opens hives to put HFCS patties on the nucs every week? You would say (loudly, I imagine), “But that isn’t what works.” “I’ve shown what works, but you have to look at the details and at the operation and management as a whole system.”

RIGHT?

What if there were 10 such studies? What if Jim Fischer threatened your publisher with litigation if they didn’t recall the book you wrote talking about what you actually do? What if Peter Borst posted a bogus 1star review on Amazon…removed it when there were negative comments made in response, and then reposted a similar one (in an effort to get rid of the negative comments)? What if Amazon (on their own) found it to be abuse, and deleted all traces of the reviews? Now, what if neither of the above had actually read the book you wrote? What if they didn’t even know what you wrote, yet thought that it was important enough to discredit that they bother to take the above actions? That would feel pretty weird? …WOULDN’T IT?

This is essentially what is going on WRT small cell and treatment free beekeeping.
Last I read, you said that there's no need for such a study, as the proponents of SC know it's the answer, and don't have to prove anything to anyone.
I'm not sure exactly what you are referring to (I’m sure I’ve said something like that, I’m just not recalling the context), but it does bring up a few thoughts.

Do you remember what your first words were to me when we first met? I do...you said, "I think it is terribly unfair what they are doing to you over on Bee-L." (I’m pretty sure that’s word for word).

At the time, I was posting to bee-l about some of the research and thoughts we had regarding the gut microflora. Statler and Waldorf over there were having a field day, while we were busy going over everything as Ramona was giving her first presentation on the gut microflora. This was October/November 2008, and well before these issues were being discussed by anyone....certainly before the 3 part series in ABJ June-Jully 2009. You should listen to the recording of the talk…she hadn’t given a public talk since college, and was really nervous. Please remember that she assembled this without the aid of any of the articles, discussion, or knowledge that we have 4 years later…she had a vision and went with it.

http://www.beeuntoothers.com/index.php/beekeeping/audiovideo/98-2008-microbe-talk

The stuff we were saying back then is largely commonly accepted nowadays, but if you read the discussions on Bee-L from the time, you will understand why Michael felt I was being treated unfairly.

This is typical of the environment in which we’ve been able to try and discuss these ideas….

• A Bee-L moderator posts a paper touting antibiotics as being beneficial to all manner of livestock. When I replied after looking at the paper, that the paper was the product of a trade group for animal meds, and was entirely made up of reps from major pharmaceutical companies (Phyzer, Bayer, etc), the mod replied back privately stating simply that this fact was not worthy of discussion, and my post would not be put through (there were no issues with personal attacks or any of that stuff).

• The same moderator claims to lose all of his bees by following the “advice” of the treatment free folks….except that in addition to the obvious things that deviated from what those who’s “advice” he claimed to have followed, he used two antibiotics (TM and Tylan), at least one miticide, and I can’t remember if/what else. So much for testing anything about not treating…but this remains his claim….his failed no treatment experiment.

• More recently, the _same_ moderator posted results of how the bees drew some pf100’s (small cell) vs some other brand of 5.4mm plastic frame/foundation. He reported that the bees much preferred the other brand…that they didn’t all draw the pf frames well. ….later to mention that the other brand was wax coated, and the pf frames were bare.

DUH!

Things are quite a bit better here on beesource in this regard, but there is also a different demographic here, and some discussions would be better served by being allowed to happen on Bee-l. I say all this just to highlight that we have been trying to get to the bottom of a lot of this for a very long time…and we haven’t had much support from “the establishment”. This is the long way around of explaining why I might have been dismissive of doing these studies…the other (most important reason) is that they are not done well, and the conclusions are not supported by the work. Why perpetuate more of the same?

I'm not criticizing anyone, or trying to dis-credit anything. I'm only getting impatient with the attacks on the SC studies, with nothing better coming out of the SC camp.
Mike, you would be the first to criticize any work that I did where I:

• Measured 10 cells in the middle of each side of a frame, averaged them, and called that “the mean cell size” for that frame. …Seeley did this.

• Reported that overwintering nucs in New England is not possible…without spending any time talking to a beekeeper that overwinters nucs in New England. …Seeley did this with respect to small cell.

• Pretended that molded plastic comb is the equivalent of wax comb in a side by side comparison. …Seeley did this.

• Found the most mite ridden bees I could find, let them fester for 6 weeks, then break them down into nucs to see if they will survive winter (conventional wisdom is that nucs do a better job of handling mites, especially if they are newly made up…..but will this work in the most heavily infested bees you can find? Are such results relevant?) ….Seeley did this wrt small cell.

• Claimed that none of my experimental or control colonies contained any drone comb. That none of the colonies tried to rear a single drone. That at most these hives (with no other drone comb) built 25 drone cells in a month…but never tried to rear a single drone. …This is exactly what Seeley claims with both the control and experimental colonies….it is not believable.

I’m with you…I want to see some good work in this area…but not critiquing the incredibly bad work done so far (no matter who’s name is on the paper) is not going to make that happen. I was excited that Tom Seeley was looking into small cell, and you will see that I posted several times that I was looking forward to reading his study. I was disappointed.


Remember in 2009...I asked you for the same. Gave you 2 1/2 years to put it together...really would have included your report at EAS. Ramona said, at the time..."He's a really smart guy and could do a good job".
Yes, I do remember, and I was flattered. …but I think the Paul Harvey version (“the rest of the story”) needs to be told in order for this to be honest.

You did ask, but there were conditions. It had to be something with “real science” behind it..some hard data to work with. I have a lot of respect for you, and I had (and have) no doubt that we would generally agree on what kind of work would meet that standard. I have some ideas of some more simple things that would be interesting, but it remains that I have no budget, no grad students, and a limited time. Is anyone asking Tom Seeley to do research on his own time and on his own dime?

Michael, now that your EAS is over and done, how many speakers can you name that presented who presented work that you would consider up to that standard who work for themselves? I’m sure there were a few with small SARE grants, I certainly would consider your data on your overwintering operation as valid. Most, I expect, do research as a career. They are employed by institutions that pay them a salary, and their job is to secure funding and carry out the research.

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?

There was no funding offered. EAS notoriously doesn’t reimburse speakers for expenses. I appreciated the offer (and I still do), but it is not quite as simple as you make it out to be, it isn’t quite being fair to me at all, in fact. Remember, to some extent, it is the opportunity to present to the same crowd that has already dismissed anything that I have to say.

You did have Tom Seeley at EAS?…did he speak about his small cell study? He did have funding. He did have a reputation to uphold. He did have the resources of Cornell behind him. He did have 3 years to do the study. He did have a phd and years of experience behind his model and execution. He failed miserably. I don’t know what the funding was, but it was for 3 years. At the very least the write up could have been more honest with the write up…fortunately we have the funding reports (that I posted earlier) to let us know how things unfolded. 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).

I know how busy you are...as posted recently in discussions with squarepeg. But, we're all busy.How about it?
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.

I love ya Mike,

deknow
 
#21 ·
Many people hoot and holler, but there's no downside to small cell.
(maybe a little more wax made) I use PF120's or go foundationless in my langs.
The PF120's are easier, and no crossed comb.
Read what people write, but learn from yourself.
People will form opinions and defend them to the death; right or wrong.
I have wee bees and I like wee bees.
 
#23 ·
i'm with mp on this one. i think the best we can say about small cell is that the jury is still out.

having said that, i believe there is ample reason to believe that it could play a role.

but, teasing out that role from the many other factors would require a carefully controlled study.

in the meantime, i wish that we could obtain mite counts from folks who are running small cell, not treating for mites, and getting good survival.

if nothing else, these counts might help all of us to better understand what % infestation is workable in real time colonies.
 
#30 ·
...unless you are new, and relying on dean's book for guidance.
If you use Dean's book for guidance, you will never have more than 10 frames of HSC in a hive. Furthermore, Dean's book is a beginning beekeeping book. We had no room (or need) to stress things that would be important for a well respected phd researcher at Cornell to consider when designing an experiment.

I don't know how to offer a direct link to this document (I can only access it through a search), but this is the background and progress of the whole project (no mention on how much was spent over the three years).
http://cris.csrees.usda.gov/cgi-bin/starfinder/15650/crisassist.txt

ACCESSION NO: 0211868 SUBFILE: CRIS
PROJ NO: NYC-191419 AGENCY: NIFA NY.C
PROJ TYPE: HATCH PROJ STATUS: TERMINATED
START: 01 OCT 2007 TERM: 30 SEP 2010 FY: 2010

INVESTIGATOR: Seeley, T. D.

PERFORMING INSTITUTION:
NEUROBIOLOGY AND BEHAVIOR
CORNELL UNIVERSITY
ITHACA, NEW YORK 14853

EVALUATION OF SMALL-CELL COMBS FOR CONTROL OF VARROA MITES IN NEW YORK HONEY BEES

CLASSIFICATION KA Subject Science Pct
312 3010 1130 100

CLASSIFICATION HEADINGS: R312 . External Parasites and Pests of Animals; S3010 . Honey bees; F1130 . Entomology and acarology

Animal Health and Disease Related -- 100%

BASIC 000% APPLIED 100% DEVELOPMENTAL 000%

NON-TECHNICAL SUMMARY: The mite Varroa destructor poses the largest threat worldwide to honey bees. This project will evaluate the effectiveness of small-cell combs for the control of Varroa in New York State.

OBJECTIVES: 1) To establish an apiary of 20 genetically homogeneous colonies of European honey bees that are housed in hives with either standard-cell combs or small-cell combs, and that are infested with the parasitic mite Varroa destructor. 2) To compare the population dynamics of the mites in the two treatment groups, to see if giving colonies combs with small cells results in effective control of the Varroa mites. 3) To compare the patterns of colony growth and honey production in the two treatment groups, to see if giving colonies combs with small cells hampers their growth and productivity.

APPROACH: In year 1, we will prepare 20 hive bodies with frames of small-cell (4.9 mm) combs and 20 hive bodies with frames of standard-cell (5.4 mm) combs. All combs will be built by providing colonies with honey supers filled with frames of either small-cell or standard-cell foundation. The bees will build these combs while filling them with honey. At the end of the summer, we will extract the honey from these combs so that they can serve as brood combs the following summer. We will also establish 12 source colonies to provide bees the following summer; each colony will be headed by a new Italian queen bee. These queens will be sisters, to minimize genetic differences among colonies. In year 2, we will select the 10 strongest source colonies and will prepare from each colony two equal-size artificial swarms. Each swarm will be given a new Italian queen (queens will be sisters). Because both swarms in a pair will come from the same colony, they will have equal infestations of Varroa mites. In each pair of swarms, we will give one swarm a hive (two hive bodies) with small-cell combs and the other swarm a hive with standard-cell combs. Each month thereafter, we will measure for each colony the number of cells containing brood, the mite infestation level (measured by counting the mite drop per 48 h), and the weight (honey) gain. Using a paired-comparisons statistical analysis, we will test for differences between the two treatments in brood population, mite infestation, and honey production. In year 3, we will continue making the monthly measurements and comparisons between the two treatments.

KEYWORDS: honey bees; varroa mites; small-cell combs

PROGRESS: 2007/10 TO 2010/09
OUTPUTS: Over the three-year period of this study, the PI, Thomas D. Seeley, made 15 presentations of the findings related to the grant at meetings of beekeeper associations. The venues included the Southern Adirondacks Beekeepers Association, the Ohio Beekeepers Association, the New Jersey Beekeepers Association, the British Bee Keepers Association, the Yorkshire Beekeepers (England), the Somerset Beekeepers (England), the Meridian Beekeepers (England), the Maine Beekeepers Association, the Massachusetts Beekeepers Association, the Backyard Beekeepers Association, The Eastern Apicultural Society, the Georgia State Beekeepers Association, the Virginia State Beekeepers Association, the Chester County Beekeepers Association, and the Maryland Beekeepers Association. Each summer, Dr. Seeley mentored a Cornell undergraduate who participated in the project, and during the 2009-2010 academic year he worked with one of these students, Sean R. Griffin in the preparation of the manuscript that reports the results of the grant. PARTICIPANTS: The research work on this project was performed by the PI (Thomas Seeley) and one Cornell undergraduate student each summer (Madeleine Girard, Sean Griffin, and John Chu). TARGET AUDIENCES: There are two target audiences. For the basic knowledge about the effects on the population dynamics of Varroa mites of altering cell size in honey bee combs, the target audience is all researchers on the biology of honey bees. For the applied knowledge about beekeeping that this research is generating, the target audience is beekeepers worldwide. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: Not relevant to this project.

IMPACT: 2007/10 TO 2010/09
The work supported by the grant has now shown conclusively that providing honey bee colonies with frames of small-cell (4.9 mm) combs does not depress the reproduction of Varroa mites relative to giving colonies frames of standard-cell (5.4 mm) combs. These results from New York State match those of two other investigations on this topic that were conducted independently and in parallel in two southern states, Georgia and Florida. It seems clear, therefore, that despite much interest by and discussion among beekeepers in using small-cell combs to control Varroa mites without chemicals, this approach is completely ineffective. The research work supported by this grant is about to appear in a leading peer-reviewed scientific journal (Apidologie) and once this formal publication appears the PI will publish a companion report written for beekeepers in a popular beekeeping magazine (Bee Culture).

PUBLICATIONS (not previously reported): 2007/10 TO 2010/09
Seeley, T.D. and S.R. Griffin. 2011. Small-cell comb does not control Varroa mites in colonies of honey bees of European origin. Apidologie. In press.

PROGRESS: 2008/10/01 TO 2009/09/30
OUTPUTS: Senior personnel: Dr. Thomas D. Seeley made 8 presentations of findings related to the grant at scientific conferences and beekeeper association meetings, and was invited to speak about the research findings at several universities and colleges. These venues included: 1 presentation at a regional scientific workshop (SUNY Conversations in the Disciplines), 1 invited presentation at a monthly meeting of the Backyard Beekeepers Association, 2 invited presentations at the annual meeting of the Eastern Apicultural Association, 2 presentations as an invited seminar speaker at the annual fall meeting of the Georgia State Beekeepers Association, and 2 presentations as an invited seminar speaker at the annual fall meeting of the Virginia State Beekeepers Association. Dr. Seeley continued to mentor a Cornell undergraduate who participated in the project throughout the Summer of 2009, and guided him in the preparation of a manuscript regarding another study that was not part of the grant. PARTICIPANTS: The research work on this project was performed by the PI (Thomas Seeley) and one undergraduate student (Sean Griffin). TARGET AUDIENCES: There are two target audiences. For the basic knowledge about the effects on the population dynamics of Varroa mites of altering cell size in honey bee combs, the target audience is all researchers on the biology of honey bees. For the applied knowledge about beekeeping that this research is generating, the target audience is beekeepers worldwide. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: Not relevant to this project.

IMPACT: 2008/10/01 TO 2009/09/30
The work supported by the grant has now shown conclusively that providing honey bee colonies with frames of small-cell (4.9 mm) combs does not depress the reproduction of Varroa mites relative to giving colonies frames of standard-cell (5.4 mm) combs. These results match those of parallel investigations on this topic that were conducted independently in Georgia and Florida. It seems clear, therefore, that despite much interest by and discussion among beekeepers in using small-cell combs to control the nites without chemical, this approach is ineffective. The studies that have been supported by this grant will be reported through a publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal (Apidologie) and a beekeepers' magazine (Bee Culture).

PUBLICATIONS: 2008/10/01 TO 2009/09/30
No publications reported this period

PROGRESS: 2007/10/01 TO 2008/09/30
OUTPUTS: The principal output over the past year has been an Activity: developing further the methods for getting the bees to build combs with small cells (4.9 mm diameter), rather than their normal size cells (5.4 mm diameter). The key experiment of this study calls for setting up paired colonies, with one colony in each pair living on combs of small cells and the other colony living on combs of normal cells, then comparing the two types of colonies in terms of the growth of their populations of the mite Varroa destructor. I have tried various methods for getting bees to build small-cell combs but have not yet found a method that results in combs filled with small cells. Instead, I get combs that are a weird mixture of small cells and quite large cells. So, despite my best efforts over the past two summers, I have not yet performed the key experiment. Given that I have just one more summer of support in this project, I will perform the key experiment next summer using combs of small cells that are made of plastic and that are commercially available. Doing the experiment this way is not ideal, for these combs are too expensive for general use by beekeepers, but using them will enable me to test the still untested (but widely believed) hypothesis that small-cell combs lower the population growth rate of the Varroa mites in a honeybee colony. We shall see! PARTICIPANTS: There have been two participants: myself, and a Cornell undergraduate student, who has worked as the research assistant. TARGET AUDIENCES: The target audience for this project is ALL beekeepers in North America and Europe, i.e. all beekeepers who work with the European subspecies of the honey bee and whose colonies are infested with the parasitic mite Varroa destructor. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: As indicated above in the Outputs and Outcomes, I need to stop trying to conduct the experiment using combs of small cells built by the bees (my bees won't build combs filled with these diminutive cells), and need to conduct the experiment using combs of small cells built of plastic. Although my bees won't give me the combs I need for this experiment, a human manufacturer will!

IMPACT: 2007/10/01 TO 2008/09/30
The principal outcome over the past year has been a Change in Knowledge. Specifically, I have learned just how difficult it is to get honeybees to build combs made of smaller than usual cells. This is an important finding, because beekeepers are being encouraged to have their bees build combs with small cells as a means of controlling the mite Varroa destructor, and beeswas comb foundation is being sold to guide the bees to build these combs, but at this point no way has been found to get bees to reliably construct combs of small cells. I now know that I cannot recommend this approach to Varroa control. There has also been a Change in Action. Because I've not succeeded in getting my bees to build combs filled with small cells, I've decided next summer to perform the key experiment of this project (setting up paired colonies, with one colony in each pair living on combs of small cells and the other colony living on combs of normal cells, then comparing the two types of colonies in terms of the growth of their populations of the mite Varroa destructor) using combs of small cells manufactured of plastic, rather than built by the bees of beeswax. This will at least enable me to test the critical hyptothesis: a colony living on small-cell combs will have a lower population growth rate of the Varroa mites than will a colony living on regular-cell combs..

PUBLICATIONS: 2007/10/01 TO 2008/09/30
No publications reported this period

PROJECT CONTACT:

Name: Hoffmann, M. P.
Phone: 607-255-2224
Fax: 607-255-9499
Email: cuaes@cornell.edu

SUPPLEMENTARY DATA: Institution Type: SAES Region: 1 Process Date: 2007/08/08 Progress Update: 2011/02/08
 
#28 ·
I can't post further until I get some other important things done, but briefly:

1. Michael, I'll reply to you later :lookout:
2. We do recommend HSC in our book as a regression tool....for expansion beyond 1 box we recommend SC foundation (with an inch or so gap at the bottom) and foundationless.
3. If I offered you fully drawn plastic comb (a 5.4mm version of HSC) as an even swap for your best drawn comb (the LC comb in the Seeley study had no drone cells), would you take me up on it? Plastic material, thick walls, less cells per frame, flat bottoms, thermodynamically very different from wax. You would prefer best wax? Why? Because they are not equivalent? Really? This is a separate question than if HSC is usefull as a regression tool, this is about experimental design and introduction of variables.

We've already gone over many of the issues:
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?261724-Small-Cell-Studies
...some of my initial comments there:
ok, I do have some notes I made, but can't find them at the moment...so lets cover some of the issues with the study.

1. Although the author(s) cite some research as background, it is worth noting that there is no mention of anyone claiming actually using SC with any kind of result in the field. Obviously the authors are aware of "SC beekeepers", and of the claims of success...yet, it is never mentioned. This is unfortunate, as what has been written, discussed, and debated among beekeepers is very relevant to the research at hand.

2. ...For instance, only one possible mechanism of effectiveness (less room for mites in the small cell) is considered...one of which I know no SC beekeeper I know thinks is the only mechanism (or even part of the mechanism) at play. ...more on this as we proceed.

3. It's rather obvious that no beekeepers (or researchers) consider wax comb (built by bees with or without foundation) and molded plastic comb as equivalent. ...if we did, no one would have an issue with replacing their best wax comb with HSC. This was the most surprising part of the study....with no mention of any issues wrt the experimental model due to the use of plastic comb...again, more on this as we continue.

4. The bees used in the study were taken from colonies that "scored highly on a varroa mite drop test conducted 6 weeks earlier [before the packages used in the study were shaken from them]. So to highlight the issue here, they chose the most mite infested colonies they could, then allowed the mites (and associated problems) to fester for 6 weeks before shaking packages and beginning the study. This seems more like a way to test a "treatment" (shaking the bees onto broodless comb of varying sizes) for varroa infestation rather than a test to see if "small cell comb controls" mites....this is like testing cancer controls on patients that have the worst cases...and letting each case get worse for 6 weeks before treating. Certainly no one that claims any success with SC comb claims to have success doing what was done here....it is a test of something, but it is a straw man argument to imply that they are testing the same thing beekeepers are doing...even in part.

5. WRT the claim made in the introduction:
"As a rule, if a colony of European honeybees does not
receive mite control treatments, the mite population
will grow from just a few mites to several
thousand mites in 3 to 4 years, ultimately killing
the colony "
...is mite treatment the only thing between a dead colony and a live one over a 4 year period? Could the researchers (or have the researchers) reliably keep a colony alive with no manipulations, no feed, no management other than the application of mite treatments...for 4 years?

6. This one is more of a question....in materials and methods, they state:
"feeding them with a 50/50 (v/v) sucrose solution
brushed onto the wire screen of one side of each
package cage. "
....I thought that brushing syrup on a screen like this damages the feet and tongues of the bees inside the cage, and that this was considered poor practice.....anyone know more?

7.
"There were no drone cells in any of the
frames of comb used in this study. "
...
and later...
"When we took our monthly measurements of the
colonies, we cut out any drone comb that the colonies
had built, usually along the bottoms of the frames. At
most, this involved removing 25 drone cells per
colony per inspection; none of the drone comb
contained drone brood. In this way, we prevented
drone rearing in our colonies and this meant that all
the mite reproduction in our study colonies occurred
in cells of worker brood. "
Ok, so a few things are being reported here:
A. That in a colony with NO DRONE COMB AND NO DRONE BROOD that, at most, 25 drone cells were produced a month.

B. That in these cells, no drones are ever reared...in a colony with no drone brood.

C. That removing all the drone comb once a month (comb that never shows any sign of being used to rear drones) that drone rearing is prevented?

...all of this seems hard to believe...or the colonies were under some kind of stress that prevented them from producing drones....such a stress should be looked into as a possible issue with the study, not to be seen as a normal situation.

8.
"We measured the
mean width of the cells in each hive by measuring the
width of ten cells in a straight line (inclusive of wall
widths) in the center of one side of each frame of
comb. "
....to me, this reads that they measured 10 cells in the center of each comb (where we know the cells tend to be smaller)....and called it the "mean width". "Mean" can describe a few (related) concepts, but it is beyond any reasonable assumption to clam that measuring 10 cells gives you a "mean" for the entire 2 sides of a comb.

9.
The colonies in the hives with the
plastic, small-cell combs grew noticeably less
rapidly than those in the hives with the
beeswax, standard-cell combs.
Of course, most of us with actual experience with HSC would have predicted this...and could have even suggested ways to mitigate this effect of molded plastic fully drawn comb...cell size may have been a factor here (I don't have experience with fully drawn, molded LC comb and acceptance), but certainly the brand new plastic is a variable that is outside what is being claimed to be tested...but firmly in the way of obtaining data to support the claims of the study

More later...but this should start some things rolling....

deknow
 
#29 ·
Rusty,

When you speak of going small cell, am I to conclude you already have larger bees that would need to be regressed or are you starting out with small cell bees? This has a big bearing on the answer to your question since the regression process is done in stages & could take a long time to properly complete. You are going to hear every kind of response to this question as you have already seen. Me, I've been on small cell for 5 years and have never seen a mite on my beeks or on any sticky boards, not a one and I have 2 large cell hives on the same property that I have found a few mites on, not enough to worry about. Like was said I have heard of other small cell beeks whose hives were eat up with mites. So no, small cell is not a miracle cure all. Does it help? It has helped me but others it has not. The problem with any foundation you buy is the chemicals you are bringing into your hive. You have no clue where it came from, whats been used on it or why it was removed from the hive in the first place.

I do heartily agree with the comments about foundationless. That's the route I' going for the above stated reasons. There are a lot more experienced beeks on here than I am, but if I could make a suggestion it would be this; do you own testing if you have the resources to do so. Maybe try 2 - 3 hives on small cell with small cell bees, ( to avoid the regression process ) and see for yourself if small cell works for you. It seems that it's sucess varies from beek to beek. Just a suggestion.
 
#31 · (Edited)
For the Record:
CIG Beekeeping, Page 129:
HSC is an injection molded plastic comb with 4.9mm cells. HSC is not foundation, it is fully formed plastic comb. HSC is not a perfect replacement for wax comb. The bottoms of the cells are flat and the cell walls are thick so that the density of brood is closer to that of 5.4mm comb (the cells are 4.9mm across, but 5.4mm center to center). HSC only comes in deep frames. If you want to run medium boxes, you have to trim the frames using a table saw.
Gee...it's almost like we actually said that HSC isn't an equivalent for wax comb, isn't it?
Page 130:
As the broodnest expands, follow the technieques for adding boxes and pyramiding up that we discussed in Chapter 7 [in chapter 7, we only discuss adding boxes with foundation (with a gap at the bottom) or foundationless...not HSC]. Once the HSC has been used by the bees, future bees will accept it freely. Just remember that while HSC will always produce small cell bees, you will never have the density of bees per square inch that is possible with small cell foundation or foundationless comb.

deknow
 
#32 ·
Let’s compare credibility.

Research conducted and interpreted by:
Delaplane/Berry
Ellis/Hayes
Seeley
Submitted to, accepted by and published in peer reviewed journals.

Or the criticism of that research by:
Stiglitz
Parker
 
#38 ·
#34 ·
I can't understand the heat that this topic generates. If one want's to try small cell or natural cell, the drawing of it costs no more than the industry standard 5.4 mm foundation. If you wish to intermingle the different sizes, it is not detrimental to anything but some engineer types anal sense of order. When I chose to test for myself the efficacy of 4.9mm I chose the mann lake frames. I found that shaving the frames to 1 1/4" so 11 were drawn in a box on a good flow or under feeding, resulted in a good job by the bees. If or when I decide that there are no advantage in mite abatement or wintering, all I have to do is just keep running them. So why all the heat?
 
#35 ·
When I chose to test for myself the efficacy of 4.9mm I chose the mann lake frames. I found that shaving the frames to 1 1/4" so 11 were drawn in a box on a good flow or under feeding, resulted in a good job by the bees. If or when I decide that there are no advantage in mite abatement or wintering, all I have to do is just keep running them. So why all the heat?
Vance, since Seeley found it is impossible to get bees to draw small cell....you _must_ be lying...right Dan?

Specifically, I have learned just how difficult it is to get honeybees to build combs made of smaller than usual cells. This is an important finding, because beekeepers are being encouraged to have their bees build combs with small cells as a means of controlling the mite Varroa destructor, and beeswas comb foundation is being sold to guide the bees to build these combs, but at this point no way has been found to get bees to reliably construct combs of small cells.
 
#36 ·
Beeman,

I am starting up again after a 7 year absence. I have the boxes and the foundation from my earlier venture and am debating whether to start up again with what I know or if I should experiment from the get-go with small cell or foundationless. I am strictly a hobbyist and will likely never have more than half-a-dozen or so hives--just enough to have fun with the bees. So I am reading up on the current stuff and basically weighing that against what I already learned and looking for what of my own ideas I need to adjust based on all the new stuff. For instance, I am falling in love with the idea of Minnesota Hygienic stock. And toying with the small cell or no foundation route.

Still need to do a lot more reading, though.

:)

Rusty
 
#39 ·
Rusty,

I hear you. Like you I have fun with the bees. Dr's been telling me for years to get a relaxing hobby, beekeeping was it. Even though I plan to make it a business, it's still fun. Just a thought; if you want to experiment with natural cell you could start a top bar hive. Cost is low, easy to build if you have any wood working skills/tools at all and no foundation worries at all and you don't need an extractor, plus you will get plenty of clean wax that you can use to make your own chemical free foundation, provided you don't treat the TBH. Lots of plans on internet on how to build them. Michael Bush's site has a very simple one & Phil Chandler biobees dot com has on too.

Hope this helps. Have fun and don't get overwhelmed by all the conflicting info you will find. Beekeeping is relative to location. Do what works best for your bees & you.
 
#42 ·
I'm not talking about successes. I'm talking about simply using small cell. There is a distinct lack of research that has attempted to use the methods of those who actually use the method. It's almost as if the studies were designed to fail. I'm not saying that's the case, but if you were going to study something you hadn't done, wouldn't you find out how it's done first?
 
#43 ·
like you will be sol, i have defended a master's thesis.

wouldn't the answer to your question be that a study should be designed to control all of the variables except that one?

i would think before such a study could start, one would have to already have regressed bees in the (small cell) experimental group, hopefully on identical comb material as the (not small cell) control group.

hive design, feeding regimen, colony size, ect. would have to be matched between the two groups.
 
#48 · (Edited)
What are you trying to prove ? I don't see many indicating that small cell is the panacea for mites but that it is part of a larger management plan. As such rather than trying to prove the efficacy of small cell with these studies why not study the guys that are successful and mimic thier entire methodology?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top