Dick said:

> Ascribing their success...

But there has been no consistent evidence of "success".  
Dee's own large-scale losses are only the latest evidence 
that small-cell is much less a panacea than the claims 
made might lead one to believe.  

I've not heard any post-mortem data from Dee's bees sent for 
analysis, so I'm going to jump to the conclusion that the 
proximate cause of Dee's losses was something more mundane 
than "CCD-like symptoms".

Why the focus on Dee's bees?  Is this a "personal attack"?
Not at all - Dee constantly offers her own operation as 
anecdotal evidence that her METHODS are the key elements 
in her miticide-free and medication-free operation, rather 
than the crossbred genetics of the bees themselves, the 
location, and/or other "passive" factors.

> small cell, housel positioning, unlimited brood nest etc. may not
> be scientific but I don't think that gives you the right to call 
> them false statements if Dee believes them and you can't prove 
> them false.

The burden of proof is not on anyone else to "prove them 
false", the burden of proof is on those making the 
claims to provide strictly vetted data in support of their 
claims. I'll say it yet again:
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

While the use of the term "false" may seem harsh, a 
prudent beekeeper can conclude that unproven claims 
are NOT proven true.  And if something is "not 
proven true", then how would you have us describe it?


But the bulk of the evidence at hand today certainly
does tend to specifically "prove them false".  
I'll summarize below as best I can:

1) SMALL CELL

The controlled studies done in both GA and FL (yet to be 
published) show more mites per 100 worker brood cells in 
small-cell colonies than in conventional control colonies.  
The small-cell camp heard of the GA results, and dismissed 
the study as "flawed" due to the co-location of the two 
types of hives, but they were unaware of the FL study, 
which isolated small-cell from conventional hives, and 
showed the same statistically significant trends.  So, 
regardless of whether small-cell colonies are co-located 
with non-small-cell colonies or not, the results are the same.

The next critique being trotted out is that these studies 
were "too brief" to show the impact of small cell, but 
this is contradicted by both the use of existing 
established small-cell colonies in both studies, and 
the claims of the small-cell practitioners themselves, 
who have never claimed that multiple years are required 
once one has "downsized" to see the "downsized" bees 
fare better than non-downsized bees.

Just to confuse matters further, there have also been 
statements made by Randy about the new "HoneySuperCell" 
pre-drawn plastic small-cell comb, but his claims were 
based upon either 48-hr or 24-hr passive mite drop counts 
(his article text did not agree with his charts on this 
key point) rather than the more rigorous "mites per cell"
data used in the two controlled studies. As a result, 
his drop counts cannot even be compared with the standard 
"72-hr drop and divide by 3" approach used in the bulk 
of studies that utilize passive mite drop data, and may 
have been skewed by the weather (which is why 72 hrs is 
the standard).

It was also unclear where, except in bridge comb, drone comb 
might have been in the "HoneySuperCell" colonies.  All other 
things being equal, the limited number of drones certainly 
would have a significant impact on mite counts, but limiting 
or eliminating drones would have long-term negative impact 
on the productivity of colonies deprived of the ability to 
raise as many drones as they would like.

2) HOUSEL POSITIONING

This practice is far too dependent on the perception of the 
beekeeper, as combs tend to defy consistent evaluation and 
classification as to the "orientation" of the comb.

"Housel Positioning" is the "N-Rays" of beekeeping.  If 
you've never heard of "N-Rays", it is a tale of how some 
French scientists fell victim to self-delusion and hubris: 
http://skepdic.com/blondlot.html

Even true believers among the small-cell faction have a hard 
time drinking the Kool-Aide on "Housel Positioning", here's 
just one:
http://www.bwrangler.com/bee/shou.htm


3) UNLIMITED BROOD NEST

I don't see this as a controversial practice as much as 
a misunderstanding of brood nest comb utilization.

Diana Sammataro's "Beekeepers Handbook" rates one Langstroth 
deep frame as having 3350 cells per side, 6700 total frame. 
Your actual number may vary, of course, and small-cell frames 
would tend to have even more cells.  Given an average of 21 
days of maturation time for a worker bee, and a laying rate 
that would tend to max out at about 2,000 eggs per day, one 
can do one's own math, using any slop factor one wishes for 
the percentage brood-cell utilization within each frame, 
and any egg-laying rate you like.

Bottom line, there is a limit to how much space needs to be 
allocated to brood chamber, as the queen can only lay so fast.  
Clearly, "unlimited" space is neither needed nor within the 
realm of possible utilization.  So, the phrase "unlimited 
brood nest" evinces either a profound and willful 
ignorance of basic bee biology and behavior, or a psychological 
need to describe a complete LACK of management as a form of 
management with some sort of intangible advantage or benefit.

****************************************************
* General Information About BEE-L is available at: *
* http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/default.htm   *
****************************************************