Allen said:

> Could BEE-L members design an experiment to prove what
> so far has eluded explanation?

Gee - are there prizes?  Maybe odds and ends from the
great Swalwell Alberta "everything must go" sale?  :)

I'd speculate that the ultimate test would be to take some
number of colonies, and see what happens when they are place
upon "standard-size" comb, and then upon "small-cell" comb
and visa-versa.  If cell-size is the controlling parameter,
I would expect to see varroa move in and take over, and I
would expect that I could shake that same colony back into
a hive of small-cell comb, and see the varroa problem reduced
or eliminated.

Given the losses that those transitioning to small-cell are forced
to take, one problem is how to isolate "converting to small cell"
from "breeding from the varroa survivors".

But Dennis Murrell said something interesting:

> Other queens from commercially available stock  were introduced
> into some of the small cell hives. They have performed equally
> well on the small cell comb.

This appears to contradict any "breeding from the survivors" explanation.
Interesting.

Of course, there are others reporting varroa resistance who have not
modified their comb size.  In the March 2003 issue of "Bee Culture",
an ad for "Bee Weaver Apiaries" says:

        "Bee Weaver colonies (~5000) did not need
        treatment for mites in 2002, and thus far,
        have not declined due to an infestation..."

5,000 colonies is a much larger sample size than any small-cell
beekeeper or study known.  The ad does not say which of their
breeds of bees have such varroa resistance, and they offer several
specific lines - "Buckfast", "BeeSMaRT", "All American", and "Russian".
If they have done this with ALL their lines of bees, and 5,000 colonies
is more than one would expect to support a single line, that is also
"interesting".  Very, very interesting.

So, let's see...

1)  We need to use "a mix of breeds" of bees that are clearly having
    problems with mites.  No use running the test with mite-resistant
    bees, is there?  (But if mite-resistant bees are becoming so common,
    what's the point of testing the "small cell" approach anyway?)
    Anyway, we need more than one breed of bees, for sure.

2)  We need to transcend the time-consuming task of "forcing" the
    bees to draw smaller comb, so I guess we need to commission whoever
    makes the fully-drawn "Permacomb" to create a "small-cell" version
    of the product.  (This would not be cheap - tooling is expensive!)

3)  We then toss a coin for each of "n" colonies, where "n" is at least 50,
    and put "heads" colonies on pre-drawn "small-cell" plastic, and "tails"
    colonies on pre-drawn "normal-cell" plastic.

4)  We then need a heavily-armed 24-hour guard service to keep watch over
    the hives.  Maybe video cameras would be cheaper...

5)  We "turn the crank" for a decent interval of tracking and recording
    mite populations versus brood area for each colony using a standard
    method, consistent for all colonies.

6)  Now the fun part - we swap 'em.  Colonies that were on small-cell
    go to "normal", and those on "normal" go to small-cell.  We keep
    the colonies in the same hives in the same locations, we simply
    shake the bees off the combs, and transfer combs between hives.

7)  Repeat (5) for the same "decent interval", recording data as before.

8)  Lastly, get a real statistician to do the data-crunching in isolation
    from any influence from anyone who "knows" anything about bees.

This approach would isolate cell size as a single controlled parameter,
and would allow a fair "bake-off" where, all other things being equal,
cell size would be the only variable.

(This preliminary test plan subject to massive revision without
 notice, please fire at will with any pot shots that come to mind!)


        jim (who hopes the prize is a honey refractometer,
             'cause he dropped his hard-to-find-anymore
           1970-ish Atago down a flight of stairs, and it
           is a refractometer no longer.  It is a "re-fractured
             refractometer", a fraction of its former self,
           that will refract no more.  It is a dead parrot.)

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/BEE-L for rules, FAQ and  other info ---
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::