Scot Mc Pherson said:

> Small Cell beekeeping is one wholistic front to keeping bees well.
> Its one of part of the whole darwin approach.

One question which I have never had answered coherently is
"How does one know that it is the small cells that are allowing
the bees to tolerate varroa, rather than just the 'Darwin factor'?"

In other words, assuming that we accept some of the credulity-stretching
claims made by some small-cell advocates (that they never use ANY treatments
at all and never lose a small-cell hive for ANY reason), are we seeing the
direct result of smaller cells, or are we merely seeing the direct result
of letting 80% of one's colonies die, and breeding from the stock that can
either tolerate varroa somewhat longer, or can truly tolerate varroa over the
long term.  (So, what, if anything, happens if one shakes the whole small-cell
colony onto fully-drawn "normal-sized" comb?  And then what happens if one swaps

out the queen?  And so on, each move aimed at narrowing down the actual
mechanism
at work here.)

Are small-cell beekeepers simply unwitting "SMR breeding program
Do-It-Yourselfers"?
If not, how would anyone know for sure?

> You will continue to see varroa in your hives, the difference is your
> hives will not crash because of it. The varroa population remain
> maintained instead of overwhelming your bees.

So your mite counts rise to a certain level each year, and then hover there?
That's interesting and new information, as it would mean that SOME varroa are
reproducing, but not many of them.  The lack of any mite count records over
time for even a single small-cell colony is a real impediment to the small-cell
advocates gaining acceptance for their approach.

> There is only one way to know for sure, its not through reading, its not
> through listening to others advocate it, and it is certainly not through
> the arguments about it, the only way is to find out for yourself

OK, here's I would "find out for myself":

a) Get some existing small-cell colonies that have been
   properly regressed by someone who knows how to do this,
   as my attempts at this failed.

b) Drop them off at a legitimate research facility for
   them to record mite counts and monitor the colony
   while doing normal beekeeper maintenance, but no
   mite treatments.

c) Sit back and wait for the results, which will be initially
   authoritative on the sole point of "do these colonies
   really survive varroa?".

d) Run a second study after the first, where we swap combs
   in and out, swap queens in and out, and so on in an attempt
   to narrow down root causes, and, one hopes, show that we
   can, in the same colony, increase mite counts, and then
   lower them again by merely moving the colony between combs
   left over from various stages of regression.  Or something.

Monitoring a colony or three for mite drop and "survival" with the usual
beekeeper
maintenance, but without use of miticides would be an easy and very low-cost
project
to run.  What studies have been done to date have stumbled on the "regression"
step,
resulting in some hard feelings on the part of the small-cell enthusiasts toward

the researchers.

U. Georgia is not too far from Sarasota, and I am quite sure that they will not
mind a small project that arrives at their door fully funded and fully equipped.

It would help to start with "completely regressed" colonies.  It would also
help to have some "transition" combs from some midpoint during the regression
process for step (d).

> and to keep a few small cell hives and keep them for more than just a year,
> it takes a while to see the continued benefits.

How does the colony survive during the period when one "can't see the benefits"?


          jim  (Yes, I am an agent of Satan, but
                my duties are purely ceremonial)

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