Need Bees Removed?
International
Beekeeping Forums
July 22, 2014, 04:17:40 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: 24/7 Ventrilo Voice chat -click for instructions and free software here
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar bee removal Login Register Chat  

Pages: 1 2 3 [All]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Smal Cell Research????  (Read 13175 times)
Jerrymac
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 6047


Location: Wolfforth Texas


« on: February 17, 2005, 11:17:02 PM »

As far as any type of scientific research that I have come across, it appeared to be only half hearted. Like they didn't want to find out anything. One of them was trying to find out what natural cell size was. So they would take the large bees and let them build from scratch. The bees built anywhere from 5.1 to 5.4 So that is what they would build. But I haven't found where they took the bees born in that comb and let them build from scratch. If they did, they would have found out it would have been smaller.

The other was mite resistance of some species of bees compaired to Africans. They took each kind of bee and placed three different comb sizes in each of the hives. (Three sizes in same hive) After a few months, that "few" months, the results were that yes the AHB did a bit better but not a significant amoout to matter.

So much for the scientific research.

I will see if I can find those links.
Logged

rainbow sunflower  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.   rainbow sunflower

 Jerry

My pictures.Type in password;  youview
     http://photobucket.com/albums/v225/Jerry-mac/
Lesli
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 420


Location: Upstate NY


« Reply #1 on: February 18, 2005, 05:47:01 AM »

To get good research done, someone would have to fund it. I'm not sure who would have a better interest than beekeepers themselves; certainly the chem companies don't.

And it would be a long, expensive experiment. You would probably need a control group with large cell and no treatment, large cell with the chemical du jour, and then the regressed bees. If they could get regressed bees, then the process would be easier.

But ideally, all three groups of bees would have to be the same strain, otherwise the huge variable of genetic differences would be there. So--really, they'd need artificially inseminated queens, and probably would need to do the regression themselves, or put SC bees on LC, or....

There are a lot of variables! I keep that in mind with Dee Lusby's success. Some genetic tests of her bees show that they are--if I remember right--Carni-something-African, with very little Italian. So is it the African genes in her pop that are giving her hives a boost? She herself says that genes are important, not just the SC.
Logged

**************************
Lesli
http://beeyard.blogspot.com/
Jerrymac
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 6047


Location: Wolfforth Texas


« Reply #2 on: February 18, 2005, 10:05:05 AM »

Here is one that had been posted earlier by Finman;

http://www.funpecrp.com.br/gmr/year2003/vol1-2/gmr0057_full_text.htm

As you read this portion taken from the article, don't think african cells, think small cell.

"As varroa is more prevalent in the larger European-sized brood cells than in the naturally built Africanized worker brood cells, the use of unnaturally large comb cell size should be re-examined in the light of its effect on parasite levels. Varroa’s preference for larger comb cells could be a contributing factor to the 60% higher infestation rates of adult bees that was found in apiary colonies, which contain both Italian- and Africanized-sized comb, compared to feral Africanized colonies, with only natural-sized Africanized comb, examined in the same region in Brazil (Gonçalves et al., 1982)."
Logged

rainbow sunflower  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.   rainbow sunflower

 Jerry

My pictures.Type in password;  youview
     http://photobucket.com/albums/v225/Jerry-mac/
asleitch
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 203


Location: UK


« Reply #3 on: February 18, 2005, 10:19:53 AM »

This article moots the idea of using large cell foundation to minimise varroa - the exact opposite of what is going on elsewhere.

http://www.dave-cushman.net/bee/denwood.html

So, (running for cover) but it should stimulate some interesting arguments. What if it's true and large cell size reduces varroa? Should we be looking to increase our cell sizes?

Adam
Logged
Jerrymac
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 6047


Location: Wolfforth Texas


« Reply #4 on: February 18, 2005, 10:33:48 AM »

From the link asleitch posted;

 S.J. Martin and P. Kryger working with the African honey bee A. m. scutellata concluded that:
    "Although reproduction of Varroa sp. is affected by the space between the developing bee and cell wall, 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 which explains the close correlation between cell and bee size."

That's not it at all. Its the shorter capping/uncapping time.
Logged

rainbow sunflower  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.   rainbow sunflower

 Jerry

My pictures.Type in password;  youview
     http://photobucket.com/albums/v225/Jerry-mac/
asleitch
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 203


Location: UK


« Reply #5 on: February 18, 2005, 11:17:51 AM »

Jerrymac. What do you think of the article as a whole? Does it alter your view? I've noticed small cell advocates are, in general, lacking in good research*, all working very limited numbers of hive, and all point to the 1 bee farm (can't remember their name - but the ones who kind of promote this) as proof it works. It's hardly a sound basis - and yet of all techniques - this is one that people are adament works.

Now regardless of whether it does, or doesn't work - why do people go to such lengths to defend it, compared to other techniques which maybe have as limited actual proof? Why does small cell get people so excited as compared to say, pheremones? or introducing some virus or simlar which varroa cannot stand?

If you polled the top 100 commercial beekeepers worldwide - what percentage use it? Any? I think the answer would be very telling.

I'm just interested as to why this one specific technique, compared to all other varroa-control possibilities generates so much discussion? It;s as though people read through and miss everything against this technique, but note down everything they seen written for it.

I'd love to have a mechanical method of varroa control - so don't get me wrong - if someone proved to me it worked - I'd switch no probs.

Adam

*understandable as no large company is likely to want to investigate this as their is no commercial benefit.
Logged
Jerrymac
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 6047


Location: Wolfforth Texas


« Reply #6 on: February 18, 2005, 12:33:26 PM »

You really want my opinion of that article? I think the guy was grasping at straws to undermine small cell. He had no difinitive thing there. It was all written as possibles, maybes, and perhapses. It wasn't written in a manner to make me believe it, in fact I felt he didn't believe it himself.

As things are now with the bee world, I haven't seen much where someone can keep them alive for very long without all the added stuff. I got the wild notion to start bee keeping but soon started deciding not to do it because of all the treatments and stuff one has to put up with.

Then I read Dee Lusby's stuff on that other sight and to me a lot of what she said made sense.And yes everyone references the Lusbys because they are the "ONLY" ones that has done it big time so far. BECAUSE everyone has thier doubts about it working and not gonna try it until there is proof. And for some there is no proof unless some scientific establishment does the work. And as you said, "*understandable as no large company is likely to want to investigate this as their is no commercial benefit."
 
First is the cell size. Ain't natural.
Then you treat insects with chemicals to protect them from insects?
Besides that you're putting these dangerous chemicals into a place where you are eventually going to get food stuffs from. The wax absorbes and stores the chemicals and the honey leaches it out of the wax. More and more chemicals soak into the wax, sooner or later there has to be a toxic level for the bees. Are we sure some of these winter die outs aren't because of that?

You think you're safe because you take honey supers off during treatment and put them back on after treating. The bees move stuff around.

Now what do people want to do? They want to add some sort of fungus to the hive. How does this work if bees have a steril environment? Don't these germs and things mutate? Anyway I don't like the hassle of remembering when and what to put where and how.

 Pheremones? To attract more mites? The bee gets the scent on her and goes out into the world. The mite resting on a flower "smells" her coming?

As much as "man" thinks he's in control (of anything) he is not. He took over to control the bee, to make her do what he wants her too. the way he wants it. In doing so he has damaged the health of the bees. Lowered their natural ressistance to what nature might throw her way. So the bees get sick. Man tries to gain control again buy chemicels or what have you. Once again lessening the bees ability to adapt and soon something else will come down the pike.

Why is it that queens use to last 3 - 5 years, and now everybody is advised to requeen every year? Has anyone ever thought about that? Why do small cell no treating bee keepers able to have great queens for 3 or more years?
Logged

rainbow sunflower  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.   rainbow sunflower

 Jerry

My pictures.Type in password;  youview
     http://photobucket.com/albums/v225/Jerry-mac/
Jerrymac
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 6047


Location: Wolfforth Texas


« Reply #7 on: February 18, 2005, 12:43:29 PM »

I forgot to say something. It isn't just about the size of the cell. That is just the beginning. Something like this. Small cell = less mites = less chemicles = happier healthier bees = even less disease = better working bees = .....
Logged

rainbow sunflower  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.   rainbow sunflower

 Jerry

My pictures.Type in password;  youview
     http://photobucket.com/albums/v225/Jerry-mac/
NCSteve
New Bee
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 29

Location: Hillsborough, NC


« Reply #8 on: February 18, 2005, 08:47:23 PM »

Heres some things Ive picked up on from both sides of small cell (or natural cell).

 1) For- Small cell bees are closer to the natural size of feral bees, therefore theyre better because we (humans) made them bigger. And because varroa prefers bigger cells (drone) the "logical" conclusion is smaller cells mean less varroa.
   
  Against- Where the heck are the feral bees then? If varroa wiped out, to a huge extent, the feral population how does making cells smaller combat that fact?

 2) For-  Theres a shortened amount of time to pre and post capping , somewhere around 2 days. This makes the varroa less capable of completing their reproductive cycle.

 Against- That actually sounds ok. BUT parasites can mutate quickly to counteract that. Now we have varroa that reproduces faster.

 3) For- Smaller bees are more healthy, work harder, fly higher and are just generally in better overall health.

 Against- Prove that its the smaller bees and not genetics.

 4) For- When I treat my SC bees I only use organic controls.

 Against- Err if small cell was the answer why would you need ANY controls?

 5) For- The Lusbys are successful.

 Against- Umm the Lusbys use small cell as PART of a system. Genetics play a much larger part of varroa tolerance then a small bee.


 Thats all off the top of my head.  Smiley  What I think it boils down to is if you want to go small cell go for it. But do try to refrain from saying how wrong others are because they dont want to do the same.

 Whew I actually dont think I put my personal views in there.
Logged
Jerrymac
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 6047


Location: Wolfforth Texas


« Reply #9 on: February 18, 2005, 09:00:31 PM »

I will comment on these right off the bat;

NCSteve
 4) For- When I treat my SC bees I only use organic controls.

Against- Err if small cell was the answer why would you need ANY controls?

All natural, organic, small cell beekeeping has nothing added to the hive. After the bees are going good there isn't even artificial feeding.

NCSteve
5) For- The Lusbys are successful.

Against- Umm the Lusbys use small cell as PART of a system. Genetics play a much larger part of varroa tolerance then a small bee.

There are other SC beekeepers out there that have different genetics. They have noticed in all different species of bees that when they get stablized they groom better even if they didn't before doing the reduction. They claim that because of the artificial treatments and chemicles this ability has been deminished or hiden. But according to them all bees have the ability.

I know another one of those things no one wants to believe.
Logged

rainbow sunflower  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.   rainbow sunflower

 Jerry

My pictures.Type in password;  youview
     http://photobucket.com/albums/v225/Jerry-mac/
Robo
Technical
Administrator
Galactic Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 6391


Location: Scenic Catskill Mountains - NY

Beekeep On!


WWW
« Reply #10 on: February 18, 2005, 09:11:09 PM »

Quote from: NCSteve
But do try to refrain from saying how wrong others are because they dont want to do the same.


Actually it is quite the opposite.  I don't know of a single person on this forum, that has interest in SC, trying to banter those that do not.  I also don't know of a single person here proficizing that SC is the answer, just some people that believe there might be some promise in it and have a desire to try.

I wish I could say the same for those that think there is no merit.  Some seem to like to continually pee on the small cell discussions.

BTW,  I'm not try to point at you or say your one of the peers cheesy  NCSteve...  just responding to your statement
Logged

"Opportunity is missed by most people because it comes dressed in overalls and looks like work." - Thomas Edison


Michael Bush
Universal Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 13563


Location: Nehawka, NE


WWW
« Reply #11 on: February 19, 2005, 12:02:22 AM »

As to the comment that only a few people with very few hives are doing it, Dee Lusby has been doing it since at least 1994 with NO treatments whatsoever and she has almost a thousand hives.

I've only got fifty. Clint Bemrose is doing small cell and he has several hundred. I'm not sure exactly. I don't think it's accurate to say no one is seriously doing this. Buckeye bee is doing nothing but small cell as is Bolling Bee and both of them I believe are about a thousand hives or more.

As to research. Here's one where they took AHB that were doing fine on 4.8mm cells and put them on 5.4 and the varroe reproduced at a much higher rate with everything the same except cell size.

http://www.funpecrp.com.br/gmr/year2003/vol1-2/gmr0057_full_text.htm

But the skeptics will just pretend that AHB are not REALLY honey bees and that the change in cell size affected mites on them is irelevant.

I have observed a day shorter capping and a day shorter post-capping times on small cell. According to this model:

http://www.csl.gov.uk/science/organ/environ/bee/varroa/ModellingBiologicalApproaches.pdf

You would only have to shorten it by 8 hours to stabalize the varroa population.

Of course the uncapping and mite biting that all of us small cell keepers have noticed is just antedotel. The fact that we have hardly any mites is also antedotel. That Huber's leaf hive, based on his observations, was on 32mm (1 1/4") centers is just a mistake on his part.

As to what is natural cell size, why most do not seem to want to actually let the bees build their own comb for two or more regressions and see what it turns out is beyond me.  I mostly have what I KNOW is natural cell size because most of my hives have foundationless frames, blank starter strips or just plain top bars in them.  I sure didn't coerce the bees to build anything a particular size.

But here is some comb built by a large cell package in a top bar hive with no foundation:

http://incolor.inetnebr.com/bush/images/47mmCombMeasurement.jpg

Looks like 4.7mm to me.

It's not hard to prove it for yourself.  If you all want to fight Varroa the rest of your lives, it's a free country.  I'm just glad to be back to beekeeping instead.  

Michael Bush, Small Cell Beekeeper
http://incolor.inetnebr.com/bush/bush_bees.htm
Logged

Michael Bush
My website:  bushfarms.com/bees.htm
My book:  ThePracticalBeekeeper.com
-------------------
"Everything works if you let it."--Rick Nielsen
Lesli
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 420


Location: Upstate NY


« Reply #12 on: February 19, 2005, 12:04:46 AM »

I'm new to beekeeping, with only one season under my belt.

I'm trying small cell not because I think it's the Holy Grail, but because I hope it may prove to be one element in chem-free beekeeping. I live in an area when that is a plus, and my own philosophies are in line with that. I won't use what I don't need.


Even the most vocal proponent, Dee Lusby, says that it isn't only cell size. It's also breeding and feeding.

If she's right, that explains why even wild bees were partially knocked out during the mite invasion: small cell or not, their genes weren't up to it.

I don't think cell size will give me super bees, capable of leaping tall buildings in a single bound. I am hoping that, being a hobbyist, I can afford losses if I'm wrong. Smiley
Logged

**************************
Lesli
http://beeyard.blogspot.com/
golfpsycho
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 244

Location: salt lake city


« Reply #13 on: February 19, 2005, 01:07:33 AM »

Welcome to the board Michael.  I've followed many of your posts on the beesource board.  If I recall correctly, you reported treating with oxalic in the fall I believe, and had very low mite drop counts.  Since the mites vector virii into the colony, I'm concerned the small cell alone might be a delaying factor rather than the answer everyone is looking for.  

I have a few questions.  If the small cell works as well as everyone claims, why did you treat with oxalic acid?  I saw your post reporting very low mite drops, but I was confused by your application of the acid.  
I'm also wondering what the feral survivor stock means to your model?  If the small cell works, why are you breeding and selling the feral survivor queens?  Is it a combination of both?

I know that I, along with virtually every other beekeeper in the country would jump to 4.9 and start regressing our bees, if we thought it would help. (I have 4.9 for 50% of my starts this year)  I don't understand why if it is the answer, more people with greater knowledge and experince, haven't adopted the model presented by the Lusbys.  I also believe, the Lusbys' have brought the genetic dynamic of AHB into their program.  They push hard for diversity and breedeing with feral stock, if I read it correctly.  And I'm sure AHB is widely spread throughout Arizona.

Anyway, welcome to the board and I hope we see you around here frequently.
Logged
Michael Bush
Universal Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 13563


Location: Nehawka, NE


WWW
« Reply #14 on: February 19, 2005, 08:18:42 AM »

>Since the mites vector virii into the colony, I'm concerned the small cell alone might be a delaying factor rather than the answer everyone is looking for.

I don't follow your logic.  If you have very few mites then you'll have very few viruses being vectored.  How is having few mites a delaying factor?  You can't kill them all with Apistan either.  I'd be willing to bet my mite load in a year in mites/day average is lower than most people treating with Apistan.

>I have a few questions. If the small cell works as well as everyone claims, why did you treat with oxalic acid? I saw your post reporting very low mite drops, but I was confused by your application of the acid.

The standard method for measuring the sucess of a method is to kill the remaining mites and see what the counts are.  How else do you know what the mite populations are?  

Other than that I don't think I would need to, except that I'm curious how it's working and I want to get certified as having no mites because it frees me up to ship queens most places with no apistan strips.

The oxalic is just at my yard here (at my house).  I have two other yards that are not treated.

>I'm also wondering what the feral survivor stock means to your model? If the small cell works, why are you breeding and selling the feral survivor queens? Is it a combination of both?

I just started gather some feral survivors a couple of years ago.  As of last spring most of my bees were still Italians, Cordovans, Carniolans and Russians.  It took me until fall to get where most of the queens are feral survivors and still about half of my bees are probably Carniolans right now.  Just the queens are not.  I do hope that that will help in the long run.  Frankly the small cell seems to do fine for the mites, but I also want bees that are acclimatized to where I live.

>I know that I, along with virtually every other beekeeper in the country would jump to 4.9 and start regressing our bees, if we thought it would help. (I have 4.9 for 50% of my starts this year) I don't understand why if it is the answer, more people with greater knowledge and experince, haven't adopted the model presented by the Lusbys.

No one likes to admit they are wrong.  I don't expect the industry to want to admit that they are the cause of the problems.

For some reason everyone wants to spend all of their efforts arguing against it or misunderstanding it or demanding scientific proof from the people who brought us Phen Fen and Vioox.  instead of just letting the bees do what they do.  If you want a simple way to do all of this, go to foundationless or make blank starter strips and get rid of the "evil foundation".  Then you don't have to feel like you're trying to make the bees do something they don't want to and you don't have to wonder what's natural.  What the bees make is natural.  It may take a turnover of comb before you reach the point where you can go to no treatments and no monitoring, but every step of the bees doing it their way is a step in the right direction.

>I also believe, the Lusbys' have brought the genetic dynamic of AHB into their program.

Not true.  Lusby's have had many tests done and no one seems to be able to conclusivly say what their bees are.  But I've seen the wing veins on their drones and have compared them to the ferals around here and about 75% of the ferals have those same viens.

>They push hard for diversity and breedeing with feral stock, if I read it correctly. And I'm sure AHB is widely spread throughout Arizona.

I'm sure AHB is widely spread everywhere.  I've had some very ballistic "Pruebread" Buckfasts from Texas here.  They overwintered, swarmed in the middle of a drought and went hotter than I've ever seen bees.  When they are pouring out of the hive at you as you approach it from the rear, something is very wrong.  Not to mention the thousands of AHB queens the USDA sold to beekeepers all over North America over the course of several decades

>Anyway, welcome to the board and I hope we see you around here frequently.

I can barely keep up with Beesource.  So I wouldn't count on it.  Smiley

Michael

"The leading cause of problems is solutions" Severides law.
Logged

Michael Bush
My website:  bushfarms.com/bees.htm
My book:  ThePracticalBeekeeper.com
-------------------
"Everything works if you let it."--Rick Nielsen
NCSteve
New Bee
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 29

Location: Hillsborough, NC


« Reply #15 on: February 19, 2005, 08:35:30 AM »

Quote
I wish I could say the same for those that think there is no merit. Some seem to like to continually pee on the small cell discussions.

BTW, I'm not try to point at you or say your one of the peers  NCSteve... just responding to your statement


 No worries Robo, they arent my statements.   Smiley  As Michael can tell you, the "discussions" on his board on this subject draw out the statements I posted. Alot of the beekeepers on his board are, umm shall we say, firm in their beliefs.  Smiley
 Look to the "How high bees fly" post on his boards and see it in all its glory. Its good to have posts like that, it tends to bring out more information at the end, and it gets rid of any grandiose statements that are made in the beginning.


 My opinion on the whole thing? Eesh, this could get long. But let me state I personally have no real prejudices either way. I may LEAN one way but Im not rabid by any means.

 First, why is the stubbornness of this one topic shown with way more frequency then others?
 I think its because of how people go about stating why they went SC.
 You have people that say they went to it because bees will naturally go smaller then the size that it used commonly now. Others will talk about the shorter capping time. These are positive statements that dont draw the fire unless theres a grand claim like a 5 day savings in capping time.
On its own, its not SC that draws people into arguements.

 Its whats added. A majority  of SC beeks also go or are organic.
 A few rabidly so.
 Anyone that uses a chemical is wrong.
 Anyone who goes with the common bee size are working with engineered monsters.
 I believe that these statements are what set off other beeks. When someone holds another in derision, especially when they are following common practice, it will quickly put some in a defensive or offensive frame of mind. And the fight is on.
 Right or wrong has nothing to do with it at this point. Now its a matter of winning or losing.
 Thats why I said to watch how you make your case for SC. It has nothing to do with SC as a management tool. It has nothing to do with SC users ideas for the most part. It has everything to do with the negativity shown to others unlike themselves.
 And that goes for both sides.
 
 That being said I think SC on its own can be a good tool. Not the end of any problems by any means, but it could be a helpful part of anyones magagement plan. There are upsides to it I think that should be looked at by us individually to make up our own minds on whether it will work or not according to our own needs, time, etc.
 I dont think any of us WANT to use chemicals, but the fact is its what was easily available and commonly used. There are other options now that people are going to more and more and new products/treatments will come out in the future that people wil change to. Its the nature of working with live animals. Nothing good or bad about it.
 Im leaning towards oxalic myself. But you wont see me type or hear me say that other treatment options are wrong for everyone. Or that oxalic is the greatest thing since sliced bread. Its what right now Im thinking is my best option. It can change tomorrow though, because Im not one to turn my nose up at ideas. I just have to look at my time/money management and what options fit my needs best.

 Working with a living organism means we all have to be fluid in our approaches for it to work continually. And because of the internet we all have to realize that just because something works in one part of the world, it by no means may work where others are. Heck something that works for you may not work for someone down the street.
 If Im using oxalic and a guy down the street uses apistan reponsibly and we both keep our mites under control, whos to say whos right?  Not me. My ego doesnt need to deride his use of a chemical to make myself feel better about my decision.

 And we cant ignore that what decisions we make are parts to a whole. Whether we use small or large cell,  chemical or a natural pest control, what breed we use and the genetics they carry, they are all parts of the pie.
 And one I believe cant be touted as the key to the exclusion of all the others.

 

 Ok, pick away. I can take it.  Cool
Logged
Phoenix
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 139

Location: Middle of The Great Lakes State, Milford, MI


WWW
« Reply #16 on: February 19, 2005, 12:51:23 PM »

Quote
I also believe, the Lusbys' have brought the genetic dynamic of AHB into their program.

I believe that statement has no merit.  Statements like that have no purpose other than to promote your own agenda and your objections to change.  I would suggest doing a little research before jumping to your own preconcieved notions.  Are you also on a campaign against the Weaver's operation just because it is in the heart of Texas?

Michael, welcome to the other side.  As I'm sure you will notice if you haven't already, Small Cell has just as many opponents on this site, if not more.

As most of you know I am a proponant of Small Cell Beekeeping, but I am not trying to shove Small Cell down anyones throat, nor do I bash anyone that has success keeping bees any other way.  Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but some of us do quite a bit of research before and gather a lot of information in order to form a more balanced opinion, rather than just keeping bees the same old way it has been done for generations.  I don't see anyone questioning why things are done the way they are today, but they sure do jump to the defense of keeping bees the same way grampa did.
Logged

thegolfpsycho
Field Bee
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 583

Location: canyon rim, ut


« Reply #17 on: February 19, 2005, 09:04:37 PM »

I didn't bring up the Weavers, you did.  I mention the dynamic of AHB in Arizona, because a paper posted on the Carl Hayden Bee Research Facility website states that virtually the entire state of Arizona is colonized by AHB, and AHB hybrids.  With the Lusby's program of breeding with feral stock, it seems more than likely that AHB genetics are present.   In my readings, I have not seen any mention of testing for this, but Michael corrected me, so I'll keep reading. Hey... that kinda sounds like research... nah.. couldn't be.
 I have no agenda, other than to not repeat what has been determined not to work.  I don't sell bees, bee equipment, queens, and for the last 20 plus years, I haven't sold any honey either, although I have given some away.  I haven't told a single person not to try something.  What agenda??  I just don't want to repeat failures, so I try to read and ask as many questions as I can, and bring my own limited experience into play as well.  I have small cell wired up, but  I also feel genetics play a part, whether it be resistant or hygenic behavior, grooming or defensive behaviour, I feel there is something more.    
Right now.. on many boards, you can find people that both decry, and give holy status to any number of treatments, management styles, etc.  Whether it is FGMO, essential oils, formic, oxalic, small cell, drone cell, regressed,  hygenic, SMR, sugar rolls,  ad infinitum...  
I read on another website the Universtiy of Sweden conducted side by side tests with bees on wax equal to 4.9, all the way up to 5.4, and found no difference in levels of infestation.  So forgive me for asking a few questions before blindly following yet another messiah.
Logged
Michael Bush
Universal Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 13563


Location: Nehawka, NE


WWW
« Reply #18 on: February 19, 2005, 09:42:18 PM »

>Universtiy of Sweden conducted side by side tests with bees on wax equal to 4.9, all the way up to 5.4, and found no difference in levels of infestation.

They threw out the 4.9 because the bees didn't draw it correctly.  Duh!  They might check into the protocol for doing small cell before setting up an experiment.
Logged

Michael Bush
My website:  bushfarms.com/bees.htm
My book:  ThePracticalBeekeeper.com
-------------------
"Everything works if you let it."--Rick Nielsen
thegolfpsycho
Field Bee
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 583

Location: canyon rim, ut


« Reply #19 on: February 19, 2005, 10:14:16 PM »

I didn't see that reported as part of the information I read.  I'll try to find it again, as my information appears incomplete.
Logged
TwT
Senior Forum
Global Moderator
Galactic Bee
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3384


Location: Walker, La.

Ted


« Reply #20 on: February 19, 2005, 10:17:05 PM »

on the Lusby's being  AHB free, I read some where the other night that even lusby's admited having AHB genes in there bees , but I cant find it now been looking, there in the middle of the most populated AHB area in the USA and open mate there queens, come on guys if all this is true , there no way they dont have AHB crossed into there bee's. and about them testing there hives, they havent , all they need is to get there bee's tested and proven to be AHB free then they could sell there bee's but they havent. I'm going to keep looking for that i read the other night.  

JUST A LITTLE READING MATERIAL

http://www.beesource.com/pov/ahb/greyarea.htm
Logged

THAT's ME TO THE LEFT JUST 5 YEARS FROM NOW!!!!!!!!

Never be afraid to try something new.
Amateurs built the ark,
Professionals built the Titanic
Lesli
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 420


Location: Upstate NY


« Reply #21 on: February 20, 2005, 07:57:56 AM »

http://www.beesource.com/pov/lusby/beeanalysis.htm

I knew this was somewhere--the genetics of the Lubys' bees (or just LusBees).

This is testing done in 1986--a heck of a long time ago.
Quote
Your bees are quantitatively significant more towards Apis mellifera carnica und Apis mellifera cauca
sica. The Italian influence is very limited.


Given where the Lubbys are, and that they do open breeding, they must have some AHB influence in the genetic stock--but from what Dee and visitors to her apiaries have said, the hives aren't "hot" in any unusual way.
Logged

**************************
Lesli
http://beeyard.blogspot.com/
Michael Bush
Universal Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 13563


Location: Nehawka, NE


WWW
« Reply #22 on: February 21, 2005, 12:32:27 PM »

Dee has paid several labs both here and in Europe, to do DNA testing to try to clear this matter of AHB or not AHB up.  She has never been able to get a sraight answer from any of the labs.  As I remember, generally the answer is they are "caucasian similar".  But no one seems to want to elaborate on that.  Some labs said they were definitely not AHB, and some couldn't say.  Since a FABIS test is just measuring for small size, I think any small cell bee will fail that.

I do know she never wears gloves and she sometimes doesn't put on a veil.
Logged

Michael Bush
My website:  bushfarms.com/bees.htm
My book:  ThePracticalBeekeeper.com
-------------------
"Everything works if you let it."--Rick Nielsen
Phoenix
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 139

Location: Middle of The Great Lakes State, Milford, MI


WWW
« Reply #23 on: February 21, 2005, 06:30:19 PM »

Since the Lusby's are open mating I'm sure there will be times when the virgin queens mate with africanized drones, but with them running 1000 hives, what are the odds?  And when a hive is determined to be hot, wouldn't you think that they would requeen it immediately, reinstating the chance for europian influance in the new queen?  

I personally do not believe that any North American Beekeeper in their right mind would breed their bees for AHB traits, just to overcome the varroa problem.  

Why is it some of you would believe this, and yet you don't believe what you read about Small Cell or FGMO?  Something about the way people think, just doesn't make sense to me.
Logged

thegolfpsycho
Field Bee
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 583

Location: canyon rim, ut


« Reply #24 on: February 25, 2005, 12:50:41 PM »

I would say the greater the numbers, the greater the odds.
I don't believe anyone thinks the Lusby's are breeding for AHB traits in their efforts to battle the mites.  What concerns some of us is that, it is working because of the AHB genetics, regardless of how they got there.  The evidence presented by M. Bush, yourself, and others seems to indicate that the genetics may not be as large a factor.  I hope you are right.  I have recently read that in some instances, colony collapse has taken up to 4 years from initial infestation.  
The mechanics of viral spread within the hive is something I have little knowledge of,  are mites the only delivery system for the virus?  I would think that once the virus becomes active in one bee, that single bee might carry a viral load capable of decimating many colonies.  Again, I don't know the mechanics, so the length of a bee’s life, the caste and tasks it performs,  the rate of reproduction within the colony, would all influence the time necessary for the virus to become virulent throughout.  This would seem to be supported somewhat by the number of colonies that fail in winter when brood rearing slows or stops and population begins dwindleing.
As I said, I'm trying half my starts this year on small cell.  It really hurts to think of retarding those colonys drawing comb when I(they) worked so hard getting those extra deeps drawn last year.  Oh well.  TIme will tell.
Logged
TwT
Senior Forum
Global Moderator
Galactic Bee
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3384


Location: Walker, La.

Ted


« Reply #25 on: February 25, 2005, 01:03:04 PM »

here's a Question a Guest ask allen dick. He visited the Lusby's not long ago.


http://honeybeeworld.com/bb/viewtopic.php?t=119&sid=1ad8b418e05978930ae22a61a5ef8ad7
Logged

THAT's ME TO THE LEFT JUST 5 YEARS FROM NOW!!!!!!!!

Never be afraid to try something new.
Amateurs built the ark,
Professionals built the Titanic
Phoenix
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 139

Location: Middle of The Great Lakes State, Milford, MI


WWW
« Reply #26 on: February 26, 2005, 11:16:36 AM »

Quote
The mechanics of viral spread within the hive is something I have little knowledge of, are mites the only delivery system for the virus?

It is my understanding these virii are transmitted or caused by the varroa compromising the exoskeleton of the bee and directly introduced through the blood stream, the bees do not transmit blood to each other.
Quote
This would seem to be supported somewhat by the number of colonies that fail in winter when brood rearing slows or stops and population begins dwindleing.

The reason that colonies crash from a varroa infestation  in winter is greatly due in part to the lack of brood rearing and places for the mites to hide and reproduce, which means that the greater number of mites  will transfer easier throughout the colony cluster and directly come in contact and feed on the more mature bees,  allowing for the virii to overcome the cluster.
Quote
What concerns some of us is that, it is working because of the AHB genetics, regardless of how they got there.

I believe there is a diffirence between the AHB traits you speak of and hygenic behaviour.  The most prominant AHB trait is quite apparent in the aggressive nature of a colony.  I have not seen documentation or heard mention of AHB  passing on hygenic traits without the aggressive behaviour, which leads me to believe that AHB is not a factor in their success.  AHB traits are only passed on by the queens with assistance of course from AHB drones, if a colony is shown to have aggressive traits and the colony is requeened the traits end there, so I don't understand the concerns.
Logged

TwT
Senior Forum
Global Moderator
Galactic Bee
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3384


Location: Walker, La.

Ted


« Reply #27 on: February 26, 2005, 12:59:48 PM »

Quote from: Phoenix
I believe there is a diffirence between the AHB traits you speak of and hygenic behaviour.  The most prominant AHB trait is quite apparent in the aggressive nature of a colony.  I have not seen documentation or heard mention of AHB  passing on hygenic traits without the aggressive behaviour, which leads me to believe that AHB is not a factor in their success.  AHB traits are only passed on by the queens with assistance of course from AHB drones, if a colony is shown to have aggressive traits and the colony is requeened the traits end there, so I don't understand the concerns.


here's a little info on AHB having hygenetic behavior

http://biomserv.univ-lyon1.fr/txtdoc/THESES/VANDAM/AbstractVANR.html
Logged

THAT's ME TO THE LEFT JUST 5 YEARS FROM NOW!!!!!!!!

Never be afraid to try something new.
Amateurs built the ark,
Professionals built the Titanic
TwT
Senior Forum
Global Moderator
Galactic Bee
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3384


Location: Walker, La.

Ted


« Reply #28 on: February 26, 2005, 01:25:12 PM »

you know it aint that anyone (I believe) is against SC but like MB told me before it can take a few years to regress bee's to 4.9, Like myself I'm sure time will tell about the success or falure of SC but I still dont believe (myself) that ANY hive will survive after a length of time, it would take time and money to regress bee's and I havent seen any proof that any hive will survive, I have heard plenty about bee's doing good but are these bee's feral survivers or AHB genes or just a hive that has good hygenetic behavior that would survive with out regression. I still just wonder why the University Georgia Honey Bee Program or any other labs or colleges have not taking these studies serious. why is it a few people that have already made the investment (in SC) are the only one promoting this. I hope that the SC people have good luck and one day show me I have been hard headed for no reason but until then guest i'll sit back and watch, but in the mean time, I'm going to go the genetic or hygenetic behavior route and see what happens.
Logged

THAT's ME TO THE LEFT JUST 5 YEARS FROM NOW!!!!!!!!

Never be afraid to try something new.
Amateurs built the ark,
Professionals built the Titanic
Jerrymac
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 6047


Location: Wolfforth Texas


« Reply #29 on: February 26, 2005, 01:52:29 PM »

Once again that page; http://biomserv.univ-lyon1.fr/txtdoc/THESES/VANDAM/AbstractVANR.html
didn't mention anything about cell size. If the AHB was on their natural comb, and the EHB was on the large comb, then yes the mites are more attracted to the larger brood cells. This fact has been mentioned in many researches posted on this forum.

It has been mentioned something to this affect, "Follow the Money." That will explain why reasearch isn't done on small cell.

Regression doesn't have to take many many years. Since there are small cell beekeepers out there now perhaps one can obtain drawn small cell combs from somewhere. A large cell queen will lay in SC and there you have it.

Why do you assume going small cell is going to cost any more than staying on large cell? Ofcourse as I am just starting out I guess going small cell is going to be cheaper for me than going the other way. I don't have to buy all the chemicals and oils and whatever else. Plus I am catching my bees, cost is only my time. Other equipment is going to be the same cost.

I guess if everything turns out alright for me however, everyone will say the same is true for me as is being said about the Lusbys. My climate is drier. Hotter. AHB. But keep in mind I captured my first feral hive not even using smoke. Did use power saw to cut through wall. These girls barely bothered to even look at me. So would they have any AHB tendencies?
Logged

rainbow sunflower  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.   rainbow sunflower

 Jerry

My pictures.Type in password;  youview
     http://photobucket.com/albums/v225/Jerry-mac/
Phoenix
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 139

Location: Middle of The Great Lakes State, Milford, MI


WWW
« Reply #30 on: February 26, 2005, 02:00:57 PM »

Quote
here's a Question a Guest ask allen dick. He visited the Lusby's not long ago.

Once again your just passing on someone elses speculation.  I see that speculation gets through that hard head of yours quicker than the information and proof gathered by someone thinking outside the box.  I understand your being hesitant to change, but I don't understand your passing on supposition with no proof.
Logged

TwT
Senior Forum
Global Moderator
Galactic Bee
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3384


Location: Walker, La.

Ted


« Reply #31 on: February 26, 2005, 02:45:16 PM »

Quote from: Phoenix
Quote
here's a Question a Guest ask allen dick. He visited the Lusby's not long ago.

Once again your just passing on someone elses speculation.  I see that speculation gets through that hard head of yours quicker than the information and proof gathered by someone thinking outside the box.  I understand your being hesitant to change, but I don't understand your passing on supposition with no proof.


so I guest you went and took samples to prove the lusby's are not carrying AHB genetics ha? dont sit there telling me that I go on speculation when you dont know what your talking about anyway or know anything about there bee's. your going by hear-say yourself, show me some proof that there bee's are not carrying AHB genetics or just show me proof of your samples (test) Phoenix, and then you can say im talking on speculations. you know if they open mate in the highest populated area of AHB in the USA then theres a almost certain chance they will have AHB  unless the AI there queens and they don't. the goverment has sayed there is so much AHB in arizona that every bee hive in the state is considered AHB, now I dont believe this but I dont see having 1000 hives and not having AHB on open breeding. especially when allen dick said they get ferals hives from all over and this man has been there and knows the lusby's.  

and jerry, you are getting a good start on your small cell starting with survivors, what we're talking about is regressing bee's that are not survivors, bee's that need treatment to live. and if you read it jerry it does say hygenetic behavior not small cell , thats what the study was about. mayby the use starter strips like MB says or mayby they use foundation,  if they did foundation in this test they used hives like we do (standard foundation)not small cell foundation. would small cell bee's draw out standard foundation smaller or just draw out regular sized foundation? MB can answer that one .

How many times I have to say it , I hope SC will be the answer but for now I don't think it is the sole reason the bee's survive. but we will see?

 The main reason I have a hard time believing small cell is the only answer is from what i have seen , MB told me before that bee's can and will regress naturally, and if bee's start to regress and then swarm then regress again and again , WHY DID THE WILD POPULATION GET WHIPED OUT THE LAST 10 TO 15 YEARS. over 100 years of ferals are gone, is it that these feral bee's didnt naturally regress or did they not have the hygenetic behavior to live? or like jerry brought up before , was it a desease that killed the bee's and not varroa mites or tracheal mites?
Logged

THAT's ME TO THE LEFT JUST 5 YEARS FROM NOW!!!!!!!!

Never be afraid to try something new.
Amateurs built the ark,
Professionals built the Titanic
TwT
Senior Forum
Global Moderator
Galactic Bee
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3384


Location: Walker, La.

Ted


« Reply #32 on: February 27, 2005, 12:13:21 AM »

here you go jerry some good reading, lots of info on AHB, up to 2004.
there's a man in this page that says he doesn't believe AHB survive the varroa using hygenetic behavior, but he is trying to find out how they do it.

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/mar04/bees0304.htm
Logged

THAT's ME TO THE LEFT JUST 5 YEARS FROM NOW!!!!!!!!

Never be afraid to try something new.
Amateurs built the ark,
Professionals built the Titanic
Jerrymac
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 6047


Location: Wolfforth Texas


« Reply #33 on: February 27, 2005, 04:35:28 AM »

I don't know what you read into that article. Or what you expected me to read into it. Does this mean that R. Weaver sells Africanized bees? Because looking at the map that area is covered in AHB.
Perhaps another reason for AHB taking over EHB is larger drones fly slower. Wonder what the outcome would be if all the bees started out the same size. Perhaps the AHB couldn't take over EHB hives. Perhaps they couldn't mate and mature faster than EHB.

 Then let's get to this part;

What's Buzzing with Africanized Honey Bees?
Eischen maintains an apiary in a remote part of southern Texas. "Maintains" may not be the right term, because he simply leaves hive boxes out and lets the bees fend for themselves year after year. All the honey bees in the apiary have long since been Africanized.

Jerrymac;
Did these boxes have foundation in them? Where there EHB in the boxes? Did the AHB build their own from scratch?

What's Buzzing with Africanized Honey Bees?
His AHBs, which are never treated, have a slightly better survival rate against Varroa mites. But that rate varies dramatically.

Jerrymac;
Is this because of the cell size used and/or mixing with EHB?

What's Buzzing with Africanized Honey Bees?
"I've looked at about 40 colonies. Some have very few mites, and others are loaded," Eischen says. "But if these had been EHB colonies without treatment, they all would have died long ago."

Jerrymac;
The first part caused by cell size? And second part is just supposition upon Eischen's part. How does he know they would have died?

What's Buzzing with Africanized Honey Bees?
He is trying to isolate which mechanism provides the protection from Varroa mites. He has already ruled out hygienic behavior—the time it takes worker bees to clean out mites. But if he determines what AHBs do differently, it might be possible to breed that desirable trait into EHBs.

Jerrymac;
Now I wonder what AHB do differently? Perhaps not what they do but what man does/doesn't do.
Logged

rainbow sunflower  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.   rainbow sunflower

 Jerry

My pictures.Type in password;  youview
     http://photobucket.com/albums/v225/Jerry-mac/
Michael Bush
Universal Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 13563


Location: Nehawka, NE


WWW
« Reply #34 on: February 27, 2005, 01:27:49 PM »

Quote
what we're talking about is regressing bee's that are not survivors, bee's that need treatment to live. and if you read it jerry it does say hygenetic behavior not small cell


From my experience any bees put on small cell are much more hygenic.  I can point you to many small cell beekeepers and don't know of any who haven't observed the same behaviors.

Quote
would small cell bee's draw out standard foundation smaller or just draw out regular sized foundation? MB can answer that one .


Bees tend to follow the pattern on the foundation, but will rework it if they really can't handle it.  Small cell bees will draw large cell foundation.  They will probably cheat some and you'll end up with maybe 5.3mm or so, but basically it will be large cell comb.

Quote
The main reason I have a hard time believing small cell is the only answer is from what i have seen , MB told me before that bee's can and will regress naturally, and if bee's start to regress and then swarm then regress again and again , WHY DID THE WILD POPULATION GET WHIPED OUT THE LAST 10 TO 15 YEARS. over 100 years of ferals are gone


But if they are all gone where are we finding them?  I'm finding them.

I think one issue is that having a stable system where the mites don't reproduce enough to cause a problem is one thing.  Being able to handle the influx of mites from the thousands of domestic hives crashing around them, is another thing altogether.

Also, a swarm from a large cell hive will build about 5.1mm and they will live on that from then on.  It will take a decade or more to raise enough brood with enough cocoons to regress that.  They will not rebuild it unless it is damaged.  Those bees won't survive the mites.  A swarm from that 5.1mm swarm may build 4.9 (or a little bigger) and that will probably be enough size to stabalize the mite population from withinn.  But then there are the hives crashing without.  Then we add a lot of other viruses and diseases that weren't here before all at once.

Do I think genetics is part of the key to finding bees that will survive?  Of course.  But when you can take AHB that are suviving the mites on small cell comb and put them on large cell and they crash, don't you think that's a good indication that you put your bees at a grave disadvantage on large cell comb?

http://www.funpecrp.com.br/gmr/year2003/vol1-2/gmr0057_full_text.htm
Logged

Michael Bush
My website:  bushfarms.com/bees.htm
My book:  ThePracticalBeekeeper.com
-------------------
"Everything works if you let it."--Rick Nielsen
Phoenix
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 139

Location: Middle of The Great Lakes State, Milford, MI


WWW
« Reply #35 on: February 27, 2005, 04:51:54 PM »

Amen...

I couldn't remember where I found that documentation.  Thanks.
Logged

TwT
Senior Forum
Global Moderator
Galactic Bee
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3384


Location: Walker, La.

Ted


« Reply #36 on: February 27, 2005, 09:39:58 PM »

Quote from: Michael Bush



now thats the kind of research I been wanting to see , thanks MB
Logged

THAT's ME TO THE LEFT JUST 5 YEARS FROM NOW!!!!!!!!

Never be afraid to try something new.
Amateurs built the ark,
Professionals built the Titanic
Jerrymac
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 6047


Location: Wolfforth Texas


« Reply #37 on: February 27, 2005, 10:12:26 PM »

TwT,

I thought that had been posted on here a couple of times.
Logged

rainbow sunflower  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.   rainbow sunflower

 Jerry

My pictures.Type in password;  youview
     http://photobucket.com/albums/v225/Jerry-mac/
Jerrymac
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 6047


Location: Wolfforth Texas


« Reply #38 on: February 27, 2005, 10:15:42 PM »

Yep, it was posted by the Finman himself.

http://beemaster.com/beebbs/viewtopic.php?t=1766
Logged

rainbow sunflower  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.   rainbow sunflower

 Jerry

My pictures.Type in password;  youview
     http://photobucket.com/albums/v225/Jerry-mac/
TwT
Senior Forum
Global Moderator
Galactic Bee
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3384


Location: Walker, La.

Ted


« Reply #39 on: February 27, 2005, 10:18:11 PM »

if it was posted I never read it , my fault. but it is good reading.
Logged

THAT's ME TO THE LEFT JUST 5 YEARS FROM NOW!!!!!!!!

Never be afraid to try something new.
Amateurs built the ark,
Professionals built the Titanic
Jerrymac
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 6047


Location: Wolfforth Texas


« Reply #40 on: February 27, 2005, 10:20:24 PM »

OK I won't say Gotcha! Oh I just did shocked
Logged

rainbow sunflower  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.   rainbow sunflower

 Jerry

My pictures.Type in password;  youview
     http://photobucket.com/albums/v225/Jerry-mac/
Pages: 1 2 3 [All]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Beemaster's Beekeeping Ring
Previous | Home | Join | Random | Next
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines | Sitemap Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.496 seconds with 21 queries.

Google visited last this page July 17, 2014, 02:43:18 PM
anything