Small cell foundation

[Patrick1]

Does anyone use small cell foundation, I have always thought the only thing you would get is small bees and less of a churn rate on the cell before its unusable, however some are suggesting it reduces the incubation period and thus reduces the varroa mite load numbers.
Interested in users and trials if there are any ?

 

[Erichalfbee]

@Michael Palmer could probably tell you a bit and there’s lots of stuff mentioned in this thread
https://beekeepingforum.co.uk/threads/treatment-free.43357/page-19#post-721191

 

[Ian123]

Does anyone use small cell foundation, I have always thought the only thing you would get is small bees and less of a churn rate on the cell before its unusable, however some are suggesting it reduces the incubation period and thus reduces the varroa mite load numbers.
Interested in users and trials if there are any ?

Hi Patrick the small cell fad had its day some years ago the main proponents were the lusbys in the US. They claim treatment free with regression to smaller bees and they certainly developed a following in the natural quarter. Some at the time suggested their claimed success was down to the ahb in the area, but this was very much shouted down/denied! The whole theory has rather lost the gloss with its failure in independent trials and areas without ahb. Not to mention videos from an ex employee I think. Some do still claim success, but rhubarb leaves also work

 

[Lislarybees]

Hi Patrick, if you are interested - this episode of Solomon Parkers Treatment Free Beekeeping podcast discusses in depth why these particular bee keepers believe small cell foundation works.
https://podcasts.apple.com/ie/podca...-episode-49-small/id910167901?i=1000384621288

 

[Patrick1]

Hi Patrick, if you are interested - this episode of Solomon Parkers Treatment Free Beekeeping podcast discusses in depth why these particular bee keepers believe small cell foundation works.
https://podcasts.apple.com/ie/podca...-episode-49-small/id910167901?i=1000384621288

Thanks , I will have a look at the podcast, I think the small cell is nothing but trouble

 

[jenkinsbrynmair]

It's all nonsense

 

[Ian123]

Thanks , I will have a look at the podcast, I think the small cell is nothing but trouble

Here’s a decent review quoting independent research. It’s amazing how such debunked info still finds followers many years after the event.

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.

 

[Lislarybees]

Here’s a decent review quoting independent research. It’s amazing how such debunked info still finds followers many years after the event.

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.

I have no skin in the game as I have not tried small cell but if you listened to the podcast you would find that these particular advocates do not measure success based on mite load but survivability of their hives. All practise treatment free beekeeping and claim to have great success in doing so. Small cell is part of what works for them. What they claim has not been debunked by the studies listed.

 

[SumpNut]

I run an alternating arrangement of small cell foundation and starter strips the bees draw as they see fit. I personally never bought the idea that it would single handily eliminate or control mites and I still treat accordingly.

I've always thought if any aspects of small cell might help the mite situation, it is the idea that bees emerge from small cells around 19 days, as opposed to the 21 from larger cells. I don't know if this is true, but if it is, a couple of days less at the capped stage (where the varroa do the breeding) is surely a beneficial thing?

I was initial drawn to small cell primarily from a natural point of view, if they evolved to be that sort of size on natural comb, I just liked the idea of keeping them that size, with the ease of use that wired foundation gives.
But what really sold it to me is that it is supposed to be spaced at 32mm (standard is 35mm I think), so it allows me to comfortably run 12 frames in a BS national brood box. I don't know, but I hope the extra frame will lead to the bees fitting some extra stores in the box for winter.

 

[Ian123]

I have no skin in the game as I have not tried small cell but if you listened to the podcast you would find that these particular advocates do not measure success based on mite load but survivability of their hives. All practise treatment free beekeeping and claim to have great success in doing so. Small cell is part of what works for them. What they claim has not been debunked by the studies listed.

The recent pod casts now a sticky give some info on why you can’t take random claims at face value, go have a look. I’ve also traveled a bit and have seen beekeepers who are treatment free for many reasons. Treatment free does not necessarily mean management free and certain styles of beekeeping will impact varroa levels, also varroa tolerance in bees. Even in this country! bees with a level of tolerance are commercially available. The fact remains no silver bullet has yet been put into wide scale use or success.

 

[Finman]

I've always thought if any aspects of small cell might help the mite situation, it is the idea that bees emerge from small cells around 19 days, as opposed to the 21 from larger cells. I don't know if this is true, but if it is, a couple of days less at the capped stage (where the varroa do the breeding) is surely a beneficial thing?

Those are Apis scutellata values, an Africanized bee, but values has not killed mites in scuttellata hives. Scutellata is 10% smaller than mellifera.

Sumnut, you do not know, but you believe on it.

 

[Finman]

In Finland we call this kind of adult conversation as "ring game".

 

[pargyle]

I run an alternating arrangement of small cell foundation and starter strips the bees draw as they see fit. I personally never bought the idea that it would single handily eliminate or control mites and I still treat accordingly.

I've always thought if any aspects of small cell might help the mite situation, it is the idea that bees emerge from small cells around 19 days, as opposed to the 21 from larger cells. I don't know if this is true, but if it is, a couple of days less at the capped stage (where the varroa do the breeding) is surely a beneficial thing?

I was initial drawn to small cell primarily from a natural point of view, if they evolved to be that sort of size on natural comb, I just liked the idea of keeping them that size, with the ease of use that wired foundation gives.
But what really sold it to me is that it is supposed to be spaced at 32mm (standard is 35mm I think), so it allows me to comfortably run 12 frames in a BS national brood box. I don't know, but I hope the extra frame will lead to the bees fitting some extra stores in the box for winter.

If you really want the bees to draw comb 'naturally' you should be foundationless. The 'exscuse' (and I don't mean that in any derogatory way) that wired foundation is easier to use does not hold water. My brood frames (and super frames) have always been foundationless ... it takes minutes to equip brood frames with either a couple of horizontal wires or a couple of vertical bamboo skewers if you are worried that the frames won't be sufficiently robust .. BUT ... the bees attach the comb to the edges of the frames and after a couple of brood cycles the comb is just as strong as any foundation based comb. Super frames don't need reinforcement once they are attached ... treat them gently if they are fresh wax and heavily loaded but after one season it's hard to tell the difference.

The bees then will build what THEY want .. and if they want small cells - they will build small cells. When I first started out I was fascinated by whether the bees preferred building small cells (I'd read the Lusby papers).. the reality is that (and I spent quite a lot of time measuring cells !!) if you give bees the option they build a variety of cell sizes between about 4.6 and 5.2 mm (my measurements) worker cells and drone cells were consistently around 6.5mm. I rather think some bees are better than others at measuring and if they start a cell off that is not quite to standard they don't tear it down - they carry on and then the one next to it compensates for any variation and so on. Some of my colonies were incredibly consistent in their cell size - I've had super combs that you would think had been drawn from foundation they are that regular. Other colonies - all over the place. Do I bother these days ? No .. what they build is what they build - makes no difference to me.

Personally ...the small cell debate is one that has rattled on for years fueled by the people who believe giving their bees small cell foundation provides an advantage in terms of the varroa load in their hives as part of a treatment free regime ... I've seen enough studies that show there was no appreciable effect on varroa load to think that it does not but .... I'm treatment free - my bees not only survive but thrive and I've come to the conclusion that there are so many factors that influence honeybees that it is largely a matter of luck, local circumstances and the bees you keep.

If people have found that small cell foundation is part of their treatment free regime that contributes to them remaining treatment free ... who am I to argue with them ? If it works ... fine by me .. but I don't think I would rely on it as the silver bullet for varroa management.

 

[SumpNut]

I don't think the values I quoted were for Africanised bees, the figure of 19 days emergence on small cell came from Michael Bush's page on the subject, he stated these observations were made on "commercial Carniolan bees and commercial Italian bees" Natural Cell Size and it's effect on Varroa, Michael Bush

And yes, I one hundred percent agree the most natural frame is one drawn foundation-less as the bees see fit. Currently half my frames are like this and I intend to increase this overtime as I swap out/replace older brood frames.

 

[Ian123]

Ahb are known to emerge earlier than ehb.
https://www.apimondia.com/docs/apiacta/2007/developmental_changes_workers.pdf

 

[oxnatbees]

I run an alternating arrangement of small cell foundation and starter strips the bees draw as they see fit. I personally never bought the idea that it would single handily eliminate or control mites and I still treat accordingly.

I've always thought if any aspects of small cell might help the mite situation, it is the idea that bees emerge from small cells around 19 days, as opposed to the 21 from larger cells. I don't know if this is true, but if it is, a couple of days less at the capped stage (where the varroa do the breeding) is surely a beneficial thing?

I was initial drawn to small cell primarily from a natural point of view, if they evolved to be that sort of size on natural comb, I just liked the idea of keeping them that size, with the ease of use that wired foundation gives.
But what really sold it to me is that it is supposed to be spaced at 32mm (standard is 35mm I think), so it allows me to comfortably run 12 frames in a BS national brood box. I don't know, but I hope the extra frame will lead to the bees fitting some extra stores in the box for winter.

I'm a hard core natural beekeeper. I am sceptical of small cell theory.

(1) If you look at free built foundationless comb the cells vary slightly in size from top to bottom. There's no "true" cell size.

(2) David Heaf analysed historical data and found the Lusby data was based on misconceptions on how cell diameter was measured historically (unstated assumptions).

On a different subject, if you pack more frames in your super you will get less honey. The bees will have to leave more (bee) space as a fraction of the whole. If you put say 10 frames in, they will draw out deeper cells.

 

[Erichalfbee]

And yes, I one hundred percent agree the most natural frame is one drawn foundation-less as the bees see fit. Currently half my frames are like this and I intend to increase this overtime as I swap out/replace older brood frames.

A good deal of my frames are foundation free. The cells are all sizes with a lot of drone.

 

[KittyB]

If you really want the bees to draw comb 'naturally' you should be foundationless. The 'exscuse' (and I don't mean that in any derogatory way) that wired foundation is easier to use does not hold water. My brood frames (and super frames) have always been foundationless ... it takes minutes to equip brood frames with either a couple of horizontal wires or a couple of vertical bamboo skewers if you are worried that the frames won't be sufficiently robust .. BUT ... the bees attach the comb to the edges of the frames and after a couple of brood cycles the comb is just as strong as any foundation based comb. Super frames don't need reinforcement once they are attached ... treat them gently if they are fresh wax and heavily loaded but after one season it's hard to tell the difference.

The bees then will build what THEY want .. and if they want small cells - they will build small cells. When I first started out I was fascinated by whether the bees preferred building small cells (I'd read the Lusby papers).. the reality is that (and I spent quite a lot of time measuring cells !!) if you give bees the option they build a variety of cell sizes between about 4.6 and 5.2 mm (my measurements) worker cells and drone cells were consistently around 6.5mm. I rather think some bees are better than others at measuring and if they start a cell off that is not quite to standard they don't tear it down - they carry on and then the one next to it compensates for any variation and so on. Some of my colonies were incredibly consistent in their cell size - I've had super combs that you would think had been drawn from foundation they are that regular. Other colonies - all over the place. Do I bother these days ? No .. what they build is what they build - makes no difference to me.

Personally ...the small cell debate is one that has rattled on for years fueled by the people who believe giving their bees small cell foundation provides an advantage in terms of the varroa load in their hives as part of a treatment free regime ... I've seen enough studies that show there was no appreciable effect on varroa load to think that it does not but .... I'm treatment free - my bees not only survive but thrive and I've come to the conclusion that there are so many factors that influence honeybees that it is largely a matter of luck, local circumstances and the bees you keep.

If people have found that small cell foundation is part of their treatment free regime that contributes to them remaining treatment free ... who am I to argue with them ? If it works ... fine by me .. but I don't think I would rely on it as the silver bullet for varroa management.

Totally agree with your philosophy. I don't use foundation and love seeing how the bees built their comb, often half worker/half brood spilt down the middle. The comb is robust and the bees seem very happy.