Thornes newsletter and small cell

[Erichalfbee]

I thought this had been done to death in The States


Something a little different this month…4.9mm Small Cell Foundation.

We are now pleased to be offering for sale 4.9mm foundation. This has come about, partly, because of a project being undertaken by Reading University. A short article is below.

"The University of Reading has just started an exciting new research project examining the highly problematic issue of varroa mites and whether the use of small cell foundation (4.9 mm) can help. This is being carried out with volunteer beekeepers in the local area as well as in an apiary at the University. The study will evaluate the use of small cell foundation alongside regular-sized (5.4mm) foundation and compare the varroa loads during next spring and summer.

This is an interesting topic to research as beekeepers around the world have had success with the use of small cell foundation whereas many others have not. Some previous studies have also found that varroa counts increase in the short term when small cell foundation is first used. The new study will evaluate what happens once the bees have fully adjusted to small cell foundation and if there is a significant impact on varroa loads."

Does anybody here use this already?

 

[Finman]

.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19067184

Ellis AM1, Hayes GW, Ellis JD. 2009


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.

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

Thomas D. SEELEY, Sean R. GRIFFIN, 2010

Department of Neurobiology and Behavior, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA


Abstract
– We tested the idea that Varroa destructor can be controlled in colonies of the European subspecies
of Apis mellifera by providing them with combs built of small cells, in which immature mites might have
difficulty developing for lack of space. We established seven pairs of equal-size colonies that started out equally
infested with mites. In each pair, one hive contained only standard-cell (5.4 mm) comb, and the other contained
only small-cell (4.8 mm) comb.

We measured the colonies' mite loads at monthly intervals across a summer. No
differences arose between the two treatment groups in their mean mite loads (mites per 100 worker bees or mite drop per 48 h). We suggest that providing small-cell combs did not inhibit mite reproduction because the fillfactor (thorax width/cell width) was only slightly higher in the small cells than in the standard cells
(79% and 73%, respectively).

 

[Finman]

.
Jennifer A. Berry1

William B. Owens2

Keith S. Delaplane

2010 USA, Georgia

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

 

[pargyle]

I thought this had been done to death in The States.....


..... The new study will evaluate what happens once the bees have fully adjusted to small cell foundation and if there is a significant impact on varroa loads."[/I]

Does anybody here use this already?

Yes ... I thought it had been conclusively proved that it had little or no effect.

You would think, with all the possible things that could be researched by Reading Uni in respect of our bees, they would have researched beforehand to see if the project was just replicating previous research. If they have funding for this then the money could be better spent.

With the recent threads on the quality of some commercial foundation being sold one wonders from whence Reading have obtained their small cell foundation ? If it is already contaminated with goodness knows what then the research is dead in the water before it starts....

 

[Finman]

.
Individual beekeepers have told in this forum many times what has happened to their small cell hives.
.
Your university lives in the past and puts the students do what ever.
.

 

[Into the lions den]

Yes indeed. There is a little publicised background story to this as well with its origins in the Arizona bee community wanting to have the almonds kept open to them and to be able to sell clearly Africanised bees as not being Africanised. Much of it was an enormously elaborate smokescreen.

Its not just in the USA this has been tested. Its been done in Europe too, and quite a few people have sustained massive....and I mean MASSIVE.... losses from following this and believing it.

Even subscribers to this forum. (Not me btw.......the whole thing screamed LEMON at me from the start and I got into some serious beef with the Arizona lady. It will all be on various list archives from the time.)

There is really not much of a revelation in the fact that Africanised bees do best on African style foundation. The rest is mythology and faith.

 

[Finman]

.
Including natural cells...

My bees draw 5.3 mm natural cells. I like big/large bees.
.

 

[domino]

Its not just in the USA this has been tested. Its been done in Europe too, and quite a few people have sustained massive....and I mean MASSIVE.... losses from following this and believing it.

Why did they have loses, was it becaseu they stopped treating?

 

[Michael Palmer]

Why did they have loses, was it becaseu they stopped treating?

Of course. This small cell dogma is a faith based beekeeping approach. Every study ever done has shown that small cell in european bee doesn't control varroa. Unfortunately for those that drink the Kool-Aid, their bees are dead in the spring, or so weak as to be non-productive.

Just as an example of what kind of rubbish is being promulgated online, by the gurus of small cell beekeeping, I've included this thread from BeeSource.com.

Note when Mr. Bush is confronted by a couple posters about his winter losses, he comes up with ridiculous excuses.

http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?318268-Belief-in-Beekeeping&highlight=wright+brothers

 

[Erichalfbee]

Good link. Thanks
Does this make sense? Time he changed his punch line?

 

[bjosephd]

Has anyone ever tried going the opposite way?

i.e., shake a colony onto a hive totally kitted out with nothing but drone foundation?

Would you eventually get a colony full of nice big fat bubbly workers?

Or just a colony dwindling as it fills with lazy drones (hopefully at least with great genetics as they flood the local gene pool!)

Somewhat bonkers I know... just wondering if anyone out there had tried such things...

----------

I looked into this small cell/bee beekeeping idea as a 'pre'keeper but then finally came to the conclusion (before I started) that if I wanted 'natural' cell size then simply go foundationless.

I have his (Bush's) book... I'd say it's not worthless... but maybe the small cell thing can be put to one side.

 

[Michael Palmer]

He did change it. Used to say 200 colonies but now says 40. No duh.

 

[domino]

Of course. This small cell dogma is a faith based beekeeping approach. Every study ever done has shown that small cell in european bee doesn't control varroa. Unfortunately for those that drink the Kool-Aid, their bees are dead in the spring, or so weak as to be non-productive.

One of the facebook groups I'm on don't treat and there are endless posts of pictures of dead hives - it's a little depressing.

I've never cared how people keep bees, if people don't want to treat that's up to them. I do, however, object to people making a living selling snake oil and at the same time pretending the science that supports other views is somehow tainted by 'big [insert industry here].

 

[Michael Palmer]

I've never cared how people keep bees, if people don't want to treat that's up to them.

Well, I do. Folks that can't keep their varroa levels under control are spreading varroa throughout the neighborhood.

 

[domino]

Well, I do. Folks that can't keep their varroa levels under control are spreading varroa throughout the neighborhood.

This is true, but my life it too short to argue with them. Given you do it as a living I can understand why you are cheesed off.

 

[fatshark]

Has anyone ever tried going the opposite way?

i.e., shake a colony onto a hive totally kitted out with nothing but drone foundation?

Would you eventually get a colony full of nice big fat bubbly workers?

Or just a colony dwindling as it fills with lazy drones (hopefully at least with great genetics as they flood the local gene pool!)

Somewhat bonkers I know... just wondering if anyone out there had tried such things...

Not tried it, but did have a swarm move into a super full of drawn drone comb. They very quickly restructured it to rear worker brood.

And ... if you use foundationless they often draw lots more drone comb, but again restructure it as needed. I think Tom Bick (?) has seen the same thing in his foundationless colonies

 

[domino]

And ... if you use foundationless they often draw lots more drone comb, but again restructure it as needed. I think Tom Bick (?) has seen the same thing in his foundationless colonies

This is interesting, I used foudationless last year for the first time and was wondering about this.

 

[Erichalfbee]

He did change it. Used to say 200 colonies but now says 40. No duh.

Yes wasn't there a rumour going round that when he took a sabbatical for a year or two he was actually restocking?

 

[Finman]

And ... if you use foundationless they often draw lots more drone comb, but again restructure it as needed. s

I have never seen such mentioning.

Natural colonies have about 25% drone combs. In this situation honey yield drops to half.

Another fairytale is that when bees do natural combs, wax building do not need honey. Wax comes from air.

 

[chrisb]

Varroa causes me to have the same reaction as seeing the wife with my " wallet "
immediate action to resolve the problem, then a good look into how this situation arrived to be