Study: Small Cell does not reduce Varroa mite infestation; it can increase it. - Page 2
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 50
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Morro Bay, California, USA
    Posts
    2,235

    Default Re: Study: Small Cell does not reduce Varroa mite infestation; it can increase it.

    My wife contracted Polio pre-vaccine. She has continuing medical problems from this childhood illness. When "naturalists" get on a soap box with their crack-pot anti-vaccine anti-science, it is all I can do not to commit physical assault.

  2. Remove Advertisements
    BeeSource.com
    Advertisements
     

  3. #22
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    West Palm Bach, FL, USA
    Posts
    94

    Default Re: Study: Small Cell does not reduce Varroa mite infestation; it can increase it.

    Quote Originally Posted by JWChesnut View Post
    My wife contracted Polio pre-vaccine. She has continuing medical problems from this childhood illness. When "naturalists" get on a soap box with their crack-pot anti-vaccine anti-science, it is all I can do not to commit physical assault.
    My sympathies with your wife's polio contraction.

    I found this Penn & Teller video on vaccination good at explaining the issue. https://youtu.be/RfdZTZQvuCo The lack of Measles vaccination has led to several measle outbreaks. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...acts.html?_r=0
    West Palm Beach, FL
    Zone 10a; Elevation 13 feet

  4. #23
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Morro Bay, California, USA
    Posts
    2,235

    Default Re: Study: Small Cell does not reduce Varroa mite infestation; it can increase it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr_Clean View Post
    If the bees are allowed to build comb on a starter strip (without foundation), over several generations of bees, the cell size will gravitate towards 4.9 mm. .
    You know this from what data. I have measured hundreds of combs from wild bees and from "foundationless" hives. 5.1-5.2 are common in broodnests where the cells have thickened over time. 5.4 comb in wild hives is very common.

    The "belief" that 4.9 is the natural size on northern latitude bees is a cultivated canard.

  5. #24
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Denver Metro Area CO, USA
    Posts
    1,826

    Default Re: Study: Small Cell does not reduce Varroa mite infestation; it can increase it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr_Clean View Post
    If the bees are allowed to build comb on a starter strip (without foundation), over several generations of bees, the cell size will gravitate towards 4.9 mm.
    Your getting that information from that from the same speakers selling the virtues of small cell
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Cryberg View Post
    Here is a link to a paper published in a scientific journal that exams the Lusby claims on what are "natural" cell sizes and clearly shows that the historical data she cites clear show that natural cell sizes observed for the last 200 years have all shown cell sizes in the range of about 5.2 to 5.4 mm:http://www.idabees.org/uploads/6/7/3...ar_53_3_01.pdf

  6. #25
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    West Palm Bach, FL, USA
    Posts
    94

    Default Re: Study: Small Cell does not reduce Varroa mite infestation; it can increase it.

    Quote Originally Posted by msl View Post
    Your getting that information from that from the same speakers selling the virtues of small cell
    Yes, I think you are correct. If I gave erroneous information, I apologize. I am in the process of switching from foundation-less back to "regular" size foundation. I am no longer in the small cell "group." One of my neighbors is a commercial beekeeper with about 5,000 hives. I learned a lot from him. I am going to copy what he does; except for the commercial scale part.
    West Palm Beach, FL
    Zone 10a; Elevation 13 feet

  7. #26
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Denver Metro Area CO, USA
    Posts
    1,826

    Default Re: Study: Small Cell does not reduce Varroa mite infestation; it can increase it.

    If I gave erroneous information
    It all depends on who's "research" you beleave, I was just pointing out the source of your data and that there are other views.

  8. #27
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Rib Lake WI
    Posts
    1,704

    Default Re: Study: Small Cell does not reduce Varroa mite infestation; it can increase it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Cryberg View Post
    I think Dan is good at reading into a study what he wants to read into it. Jennifer says " where
    each was used to stock one of 20
    single-story deep Langstroth hives. "

    So Dan please explain why you are making up facts.
    Never made up any facts just reporting on what I see you have one guy running around telling everyone that small cell or naturall comb is the way to go then others getting grant money to set up study's then they get paid to write, they both are following the money for their agenda. For me the only thing that matters if it works for me and the only thing that has is killing as many mites that you can so the hive can thrive make more bees and produce honey any thing else is just drivel.

  9. #28
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Rib Lake WI
    Posts
    1,704

    Default Re: Study: Small Cell does not reduce Varroa mite infestation; it can increase it.

    Maybe they should set up the studies with drone comb in them to see if it matters. Will small cell 4.9 make the mites go to drone comb like they do in apis cerana? That's the question.

  10. #29
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
    Posts
    108

    Default Re: Study: Small Cell does not reduce Varroa mite infestation; it can increase it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dan the bee guy View Post
    Maybe they should set up the studies with drone comb in them to see if it matters.
    Already been done. The efficacy of "drone trapping" has nothing to do with the small cell idea.

    http://scientificbeekeeping.com/figh...al-tactics-ii/

    "Bottom line:

    Drone brood trapping works great, and can be done very quickly and cheaply. It doesn’t decrease honey production, and keeps the bees from building volunteer drone cells elsewhere. It may keep mites below economic injury levels alone, but will likely require supplemental treatments.

    Points to remember:

    1. A full comb removed monthly will generally keep mite levels below threshold.

    2. Two full combs would be even better.

    3. Two combs, alternately removed every other week, would likely be best.

    4. Do not forget to remove the combs at 4 weeks, or you’ll be breeding mites!"
    Brad - 3rd year - 120 colonies - small commercial operation
    https://www.facebook.com/FaithApiaries

  11. #30
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Denver Metro Area CO, USA
    Posts
    1,826

    Default Re: Study: Small Cell does not reduce Varroa mite infestation; it can increase it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dan the bee guy View Post
    Will small cell 4.9 make the mites go to drone comb like they do in apis cerana? That's the question.
    AC worker brood dies when bitten by a mite, keeping up slestive pressure for drone brood prefrance

  12. #31
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Penobscot County, ME, USA
    Posts
    1,206

    Default Re: Study: Small Cell does not reduce Varroa mite infestation; it can increase it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr_Clean View Post
    One of my neighbors is a commercial beekeeper with about 5,000 hives. I learned a lot from him. I am going to copy what he does; except for the commercial scale part.
    That's what I do, too. I know a commercial keeper with thousands of hives who makes his living from bees. When I want accurate information/knowledge/advice, I go see him (in fact, he gives classes every year, which I take, every year, and I always learn something). He is on top of what works and what doesn't, he has to be because his bees feed him and his family. He will sacrifice hives to find out if something works and is economically beneficial, or not.

    On topic:

    If smaller cells provide more brood area per frame, with corresponding increases in number of bees hatching out (compared to larger cells), then it would seem to make sense that there would be a corresponding increase in mites.
    If you want to be successful, study successful people and do what they do.
    Zone 4a/b

  13. #32
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Rib Lake WI
    Posts
    1,704

    Default Re: Study: Small Cell does not reduce Varroa mite infestation; it can increase it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Faith Apiaries View Post
    Already been done. The efficacy of "drone trapping" has nothing to do with the small cell idea.

    http://scientificbeekeeping.com/figh...al-tactics-ii/

    "Bottom line:

    Drone brood trapping works great, and can be done very quickly and cheaply. It doesn’t decrease honey production, and keeps the bees from building volunteer drone cells elsewhere. It may keep mites below economic injury levels alone, but will likely require supplemental treatments.

    Points to remember:

    1. A full comb removed monthly will generally keep mite levels below threshold.

    2. Two full combs would be even better.

    3. Two combs, alternately removed every other week, would likely be best.

    4. Do not forget to remove the combs at 4 weeks, or you’ll be breeding mites!"
    Have allready read that what I want to know is does small cell work better the same or not at all if you have drone comb in there. And if you keep removing drone comb are we selecting for mites that prefer worker brood.

  14. #33
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Chardon, Ohio
    Posts
    689

    Default Re: Study: Small Cell does not reduce Varroa mite infestation; it can increase it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr_Clean View Post
    If the bees are allowed to build comb on a starter strip (without foundation), over several generations of bees, the cell size will gravitate towards 4.9 mm. Around 100 years ago, beekeepers realized that they could increase the size of the bees by providing foundation with cell size imprinted on it; the bees would copy the cell size. They played with different sizes to increase honey yield. They optimized on the current foundation size. It produces a bee about 10% larger than in nature, with a longer tongue to gather nectar from certain additional flowers that small cell bees cannot.
    It always amazes me the myths that develop in all hobbies. I guess some charismatic Guru comes long and people just fall in line following the pied piper into the sea.

    Now, for what actually happened. The first crude foundation was made in 1866. Back then honey was sold as comb honey. To make an attractive product with white cappings you wanted the bees to draw the comb rapidly and accurately from edge to edge. Foundation was a great help in making an attractive product. Also, those old timers realized that most drones raised were wasted resources and with foundation you could minimize drones.

    In 1875 A. I. Root started to bring out foundation rollers as did some others. This foundation had flat bottom cells and required the bees to do some remodeling. During the 1880s the angles at the bottoms of the cells were optimized in part by making plaster casts of comb and measuring angles in sectioned pieces of the casts. This early foundation was manufactured to five cells per inch which amounts to just under 5.1mm. While this foundation worked he observed that bees given the choice of laying eggs in such foundation, even after they had the correct angles on the cell bottoms, versus laying in comb they had built themselves preferred the natural comb. So Root set out to measure the cell sizes of large numbers of natural combs in the brood area and concluded that the right size based on 100% bee built comb was 19 1/3 cells per four inches. This is equivalent to a 5.25mm cell width. This, by the way is perfectly in line with the various older European measurements which Lusby butchered when she turned them into cell width measurements.

    H. H. Root, the son of A. I. confirmed his fathers measurements by making even more measurements. So, the company retooled their foundation rolls to produce such foundation sometime in the 1880s and they found such foundation was accepted fully as well as natural comb and better than the too small cells earlier produced. This became the accepted standard for cell size for the next 65 years.

    During the 1890s after Root had started producing foundation with the proper cell size others started experiments with larger cells, clear up to as much as almost 6.0 mm. Such large cells did produce bees that were a small amount larger than those reared in natural cell sized comb (5.25 mm), but the change in bee size was pretty minor. The bees did not like such large cells and if they had any choice would not use them to rear brood. There did not seem any advantage to larger bees that could be demonstrated in production hives. The result is after about 1930 the whole idea was discarded as not being of practical use.

    The above is all documented in the "ABC and XYZ of Bee Culture," copyright 1972, mostly starting on page 134 and going on for several pages of details. Plus there are a few details in this same book in other sections of the book.

    Lately of course the large cells providing benefits idea has been replaced with the equally ludicrous idea that unnatural sized small cells would provide benefit. As with large cells no one has shown any benefit for small cells and none should be expected unless you count the economic benefit to those who supply equipment from the extra sales they make.

    Regardless, I am sure the mythology of what is obviously the natural size cells which bees prefer will continue unabated for some considerable time until a new Guru comes along and revives the larger unnatural cell size as being beneficial once again for some cockamamie reason. In the meantime we will be told over and over that natural cell sizes are 4.8 mm no matter how stupid this idea is shown to be. I have seen such cell sizes called natural three or four times just this week on Bee Source. Bloody incredible!!!

    Dick

  15. #34
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Shreveport, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    2,482

    Default Re: Study: Small Cell does not reduce Varroa mite infestation; it can increase it.

    In the study referenced in the first post in this thread, the ending number of mites per 100 adult bees was significantly lower in the conventional cell (5.3mm) colonies than in the small cell (4.9mm) colonies. Based on the study, cell size matters.
    David. The way you want to keep bees is most likely at least as good as any way that I could suggest. Probably better.

  16. #35
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Welcome, NC, USA
    Posts
    41

    Default Re: Study: Small Cell does not reduce Varroa mite infestation; it can increase it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr_Clean View Post
    If the bees are allowed to build comb on a starter strip (without foundation), over several generations of bees, the cell size will gravitate towards 4.9 mm. Around 100 years ago, beekeepers realized that they could increase the size of the bees by providing foundation with cell size imprinted on it; the bees would copy the cell size. They played with different sizes to increase honey yield. They optimized on the current foundation size. It produces a bee about 10% larger than in nature, with a longer tongue to gather nectar from certain additional flowers that small cell bees cannot.
    And some argue that the small cell bees have access to smaller, more medicinal flowers that the larger bees can not access.

  17. #36
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
    Posts
    108

    Default Re: Study: Small Cell does not reduce Varroa mite infestation; it can increase it.

    Quote Originally Posted by nchvac View Post
    And some argue that the small cell bees have access to smaller, more medicinal flowers that the larger bees can not access.
    I'd be interested to see whatever science there is to suggest that theory.

    Some argue that the moon landing never happened.
    Brad - 3rd year - 120 colonies - small commercial operation
    https://www.facebook.com/FaithApiaries

  18. #37
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Welcome, NC, USA
    Posts
    41

    Default Re: Study: Small Cell does not reduce Varroa mite infestation; it can increase it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Faith Apiaries View Post
    I'd be interested to see whatever science there is to suggest that theory.

    Some argue that the moon landing never happened.
    Some argue that it did

  19. #38
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    St. Albans, Vermont
    Posts
    8,090

    Default Re: Study: Small Cell does not reduce Varroa mite infestation; it can increase it.

    Quote Originally Posted by nchvac View Post
    And some argue that the small cell bees have access to smaller, more medicinal flowers that the larger bees can not access.
    Some? Dee Lusby does. In one "discussion" I had with her...A beekeeper in NYC wanted to know whether to feed sucrose or HFCS. She said to only feed honey. Hadn't I read what Rodale said about sugar and the human liver. OMG, here we go. Go to health food store, buy honey, and feed it to your bees. I called her to task on that one, concerned about AFB. She said that bees don't get AFB from eating honey, as the bees chew up the spores. I called her out on that one, too. Her reply..."Well, if he had small cell comb, and small cell bees, it wouldn't matter anyway as small cell bees work on those small flowered medicinal plants". Since the beekeeper was in New York City, I asked where his bees might find those medicinal plants with flowers so small that not just any honey bee might forage on them. Even them Yuuuge, large cell bees.

    Her answer..."Window boxes!"

    Oh honestly. When will this rubbish end.

  20. #39
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    DuPage County, Illinois USA
    Posts
    12,001

    Default Re: Study: Small Cell does not reduce Varroa mite infestation; it can increase it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Riverderwent View Post
    In the study referenced in the first post in this thread, the ending number of mites per 100 adult bees was significantly lower in the conventional cell (5.3mm) colonies than in the small cell (4.9mm) colonies. Based on the study, cell size matters.

    Looks like no one is paying attention to this fact. Too bad.
    Regards, Barry

  21. #40
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    DuPage County, Illinois USA
    Posts
    12,001

    Default Re: Study: Small Cell does not reduce Varroa mite infestation; it can increase it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Cryberg View Post
    The above is all documented in the "ABC and XYZ of Bee Culture," copyright 1972, mostly starting on page 134 and going on for several pages of details. Plus there are a few details in this same book in other sections of the book.
    Who is the author of this chapter?

    This, by the way is perfectly in line with the various older European measurements which Lusby butchered when she turned them into cell width measurements.
    Can you please give reference to these European measurements? It looks to me like most of these are European.

    https://beesource.com/point-of-view/d...-of-cell-size/
    Last edited by Barry; 04-17-2017 at 06:06 AM.
    Regards, Barry

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •