Questions About The "Small Cell Studies"

[NeilV]

Tailgater got boring so I thought I'd harass a different group of folks for a minute.

IMO, the small cell debate has largely fallen into two camps: (1) small cell supporters and (2) people who think that it's primarily a matter of small cell beekeepers have managed to breed bees that, for whatever reason(s), drastically reduce the mite population in the hives.

In the interests of full disclosure, at the present I fall into the second camp but I could be convinced otherwise if somebody could show me some scientific proof from a controlled study. I'll also admit that I hope view number 2 is correct, because it means that all we have to do to lick varroa is have the queen breeders of the world only select from untreated stock. However, I don't really have any reputation at stake here, and I'd really just like to know the truth about this issue, if there is a "truth" to be known.

The recent small cell studies, for whatever they are worth, indicate that small cell did not reduce the number of mites per bee or overall mite counts during the time studied. I understand lots of people discount those studies based on their own experiences, but that is what they show.

If I recall correctly, in the original Jennifer Berry study, she started out with all regressed bees. So all of the bees had been "small cell bees" (whatever that means) before the study. She did that because putting large cell bees on small cell could have been a problem.

Which brings up my first question: Does anybody know whether the counts of bees in both the small cell and large cell hives in her studies were relatively low, high or somewhere in the middle? In other words, they may have been roughly the same in the SC and LC hives, but what was "the same." If mite counts were roughly equal but still relatively low, that would tend to suggest that maybe the genetics of the small cell bees is the driving force. I vaguely recall that they were all fairly "low" but I'm not sure that's right.

My second question is whether anybody has done other things to see if there is a relationship between cell size and mite counts or genetics and mite counts. For example, has anybody taken small cell hives and then monitored mite counts after the hives were requeened with queens from hives that had high mite counts on large cell?

FWIW, I have a personal story in this regard. One hive that is totally small cell, with the others all large cell. I started out with queens from a small cell beekeeper, and I did nothing to treat for varroa and I had virtually no mites (like 2 mites on a sticky board over 24 hours in August 2007). Same result in the spring of 2008 -- virtually no mites. I requeened it in June, 2008. By August, 2008, I was up to around 20 mites in 24 hours. Which reminds me that I need to do a mite check on it right now to see where I am now. One hive does not a study make. In fact my basic concern about the small cell beekeepers claims is that correlation does not prove causation. However, it sure seemed to me that changing the genetics of the hive made a big difference and fast.

Would any small cell beekeepers out there be willing to take on some queens from hives that were about to collapse from varroa and see what they do in a small cell hive?

Neil

[Michael Bush]

>Would any small cell beekeepers out there be willing to take on some queens from hives that were about to collapse from varroa and see what they do in a small cell hive?

Sure. I'll put them in one of my outyard splits.

My experience was that when using large cell and no treatments I lost 100% of my hives to Varroa 100% of the time (I tried it three times). My experience was that when using large cell and Apistan I lost 100% of the hives to Varroa after three years. The evidence this was from Varroa would be the hundred thousand or so dead Varroa mites on the bottom board.

My experience using small cell with commercial stock and no treatments is that I've lost 0% to Varroa as evidenced by the only losses having not more than single digits amounts of Varroa on the bottom board.

My experience using natural cell with commercial stock and no treatments is that I've lost 0% to Varroa as evidenced by the only losses having not more than single digits amounts of Varroa on the bottom board.

My experience using small cell with feral survivor stock with no treatments is that I've lost 0% to Varroa and even less to starvation wintering etc.

I have losses, as everyone does. But there are no significant number of Varroa remaining as evidence of any Varroa issues. I have trouble finding any at all.

I'm convinced both survivor stock and small cell play a part in healthy colonies, but the small cell was enough for the Varroa issue.

My Varroa counts in the spring for the last five years, taken and certified by the State of Nebraska Department of Agriculture:
http://www.bushfarms.com/beescerts.htm

So far after going through over a hundred hives and a hundred mating nucs several times and uncapping drones, I've seen ONE Varroa mite this year.

That's my observations.

[gmcharlie]

What would useing the queen do to prove the theory?? seems to me that would be the same test that have already been done??
(maybe I am misunderstanding)

What about takeing a whole hive with A moderate (soon to problimatic varro population and swithing them to small or natural cell fondatins and see if they recover???

Just a wandering thought

[DRUR]

Originally Posted by Michael Bush

>My Varroa counts in the spring for the last five years, taken and certified by the State of Nebraska Department of Agriculture:

I have seen these results before Michael, in fact after studying these I made an informed decision to go the small cell route.

But you know, there are those who would say that this was not a 'scientific' test of mite counts, and also what about the hundred or so colonies that you have compared to the millions out there that show otherwise. And maybe it's just your good luck, and maybe its your other good management practices, and maybe this and maybe that. And maybe I will choose to treat mine (which I won't) at a cost of around $100.00 per year and then they won't die for 3 whole years.

[DRUR]

Originally Posted by gmcharlie

What about takeing a whole hive with A moderate (soon to problimatic varro population and swithing them to small or natural cell fondatins and see if they recover???

Just a wandering thought

Well, I have one of those. Just checked all my small cell (regressed) by using clean oil for 2 days (actually from evening of 1st day to morning of 3rd day). In my 4 regressed colonies, no mites; although in one of these colonies my son did previously spot a worker with a mite, which I killed. I guess I saved this colony from a major mite infestation.

In my only standard cell colony (which is now regressed but has had no regressed brood hatched yet) there were nine mites which I found under the same circumstances (only minutes differences in examinations). The queen in this colony is a raised MHQ from one of my small cell colonies. I am not treating and will let you know how this progresses.

[Michael Bush]

How about a dead hive and live hive count and a mite count on the bottom board of the dead ones. Seems much easier and much more applicable to the issue.

"It's not about mite counts, it's about survival." -- Dann Purvis

[gmcharlie]

Originally Posted by Michael Bush

How about a dead hive and live hive count and a mite count on the bottom board of the dead ones. Seems much easier and much more applicable to the issue.

"It's not about mite counts, it's about survival." -- Dann Purvis

I thought about that, but I think(respectfully) it misses the point of proof.

we have established that runawaymites kill hives.... thats a given... what we (I belive) are still in a quandry about is what is keeping them in check? is it in fact the small cell, or so other behaivior that goes with small cell?? to my feeble mind the only way to pocket the naysayers is take one that is already on the downslide and see if it stablizes or reverts.......

Again, just my mind speculating on the argument others would throw out.

[DRUR]

Originally Posted by gmcharlie

what we (I belive) are still in a quandry about is what is keeping them in check? is it in fact the small cell, or so other behaivior that goes with small cell?? to my feeble mind the only way to pocket the naysayers is take one that is already on the downslide and see if it stablizes or reverts.......

Charlie, what would qualify to fit your criterea? I have one where I raised a queen from a MHQ, and as of this morning I found 9 mites in the oil tray from late Saturday evening through this morning. This queen has only recently started laying in small cells, none have hatched.

My problem is I don't even know if this is a high count or not. In my other colonies (all totally on small cells) I found no mites in the oil tray (which I examined with a magnifying glass. If this would meet a desired study criteria, I will give you the historical details of this colony.

[gmcharlie]

Drur, I am like you, what is a high count?? my point was not that I need proof, but what would pacify the naysayers??

I had read your note and think your right on target to quelch the arguments....

From what I read the hive was getting mites (enought that 9 fell off) and were on natrual cell, and now you switched them to small cell???

Sound perfect to me... if the mite count goes down in the next 3 brood cycles instead of up, then doesn't that prove teh cell size was the only varible??

The only other detail was the loss of brood cycle (and mite cycle) in the switch... but since you use the same adults the interuption of the mite cycle should only be one larva peroid, and should be back to pre move levels after one brood cycle..

Least thats the way I see it...

Great plan I think

[JBJ]

I thought J Berry's study and the two others she cited in this months Bee Culture article does not bode well for the small cell movement. In all three studies the mite to be ratio was actually higher with the 4.9 bees and they had smaller overall brood areas. Check out the table on the bottom of page 50.

In my estimation beekeeper's efforts would be better spent identifying and developing hardy bees that have VSH and SMR traits that produce and pollinate well.