D. Murrell wrote:

> Bill, I'm interested in your small cell experience. Could you elaborate?
> Maybe on a new thread.

Based on Dee's comments my small cells were not small enough.

Way back when Varroa was first found in the US, Bee Culture published my
letter to the editor. I said we were breeding for Varroa with large bees
since AHB emerged quicker than EHB and did not have a Varroa problem. My
supposition was that the smaller bee was the cause of the quicker
emergence. A Swedish researcher proved me wrong, but I was still
intrigued by small bees. I knew the US beekeeping industry bred for a
larger bee, so, obviously I could breed for a smaller one. When the 5.0
foundation first came on the market, I shifted some of my bees to it.

As you who have been around for a while know, I was the editor of our
State newsletter, so did a lot of trials of different, new things. I
even tried menthol candy for Tracheal mites. (The person who posted that
swore by it as it being 100% effective and cheap. I liked the cheap
part.) I would only try something new on a colony or two, so at least I
would have some survivors and continue keeping bees. The rest got
treated better.

The 5.0, as opposed to Dee's experience, was a resounding success. When
Tony Jadczak inspected my bees he said I should patent them since they
were so healthy. But I did not rely on cell size alone. I grew my own
queens. I treated with Apistan. I used grease patties. I followed George
Imire and Tony Jadczak's beekeeping practices. So there was no way that
I could ascribe everything to small cell. (An aside. If you are able
learn the details of some of the "successes" with Varroa you will often
find a step that counters the entire experiment and is the real reason
for the success. Usually it is the application of a proved miticide at
some time in the "experiment" to achieve some result like mite drop. Or
the addition of the proved miticide as an adjunct to the method. Or
something else, like an open bottom when treating. It is interesting to
look at these "studies" when details are submitted. Sort of like trying
to "find Waldo". Unfortunately, most do not give many details.)

I did have one colony that was marginal. It survived every winter but
gave no surplus every year (my strength of colony measurement), so I
decided to let it die off by not treating it and left it alone for the
winter. It survived with no treatment.

I had been helping a new beekeeper, who was failing miserably every year
in a very poor location. So I gave him the colony. We ended up calling
it the "Hive that would not die", since out of all his colonies, it
always came through. At least for as long as that queen and a few
descendants were around. Eventually, it also succumbed.

I grew my own queens during this time, another variable, and one of the
most important. So I ascribed the survival of that colony to the queen,
not cell size. The same for my general success with my bees. I loved to
tell my fellow beekeepers if you want to be a good beekeeper have the
best bees. The best bees come from a good queen.

If you listen to most, not all, of the small cell beekeepers, they
follow my path. Shift, and if successful in that, grow your own. After a
few years, you will have a successful bee in your area.

But then I was diagnosed with cancer. Plus, my hip went out and my bees
were left alone for two years. It did not matter if they were on 5.0 or
larger comb. It did not matter if they were on plastic or natural
foundation. They all went downhill quickly.

Tony Jadczak was kind enough to rescue me by requeening all my colonies
and by then I had started to look at my bees and care for them as I
should, mostly because all my operations were over and I had no more
detectable cancer (you are never "cancer free", it is just that it is
not detectable). Again, thanks to many on this list for your prayers.

So I had small cell (albeit not small enough), plastic, home grown bees,
  large cell, new world carniolan, and on and on, but my bees faltered
because of my neglect. They did not make it on their own. Granted, they
did better than most would, but they would have all been dead within
another year.

So there was only one major factor in the health of my bees, and it is
one that I continually harp on in this list and that is the beekeeper.
George Imire's addiction to caps when he says BEEHAVER is justified. The
beekeeper makes the difference.

Once I was involved with my bees, even with my bad hip and now a bum
knee, my bees are again healthy, producing very well (too well for me
since I keep them for pollination of my trees, not for honey), and
survive winter better than most (except Tony Jadczak) in Maine. However,
the one on 5.0 is the least productive, just like my hive that would not
die. But I ascribe that to the queen and not the 5.0.

I bought some 4.9 to give it a try. And I am going to experiment with
mediums for a colony. But they will not be definitive studies, but only
for me to see what differences they might make.

If you look at small cell success, I find the beekeeper is a major
factor, as is the bee. It takes time to get there and while you are
moving in that direction, you are selecting for a better bee. You
discard failures and promote success so the bee gets better adapted for
your area. If I visited Dee's operation I would be impressed. I would be
impressed with Bob's, also. Both are doing the same thing, working for a
better bee that can handle Varroa. The difference is in the path. And,
for whatever reason, Bob has more science on his side.

Finally. What I have seen in nature mirrors my experience with my bees.
Nature, in Maine, is not a beekeeper. The bees are left to fend for
themselves, just as I let them over those two years. If 4.9 is natural
and does all that it is purported to do, we should have feral bees all
around us, but we no longer do. Squash growers are asking for
pollination services since the beekeepers in their areas lost their bees
and gave up. Fellow apple growers are complaining about poor harvests
while my trees are loaded with apples (as are all the apple trees in my
neighborhood, thanks to my bees).

There are few feral bees. But that should not be so, if 4.9 is natural
and works. In fact, we should not have a feral Varroa problem if 4.9 is
natural. (Dennis shows it is not but that there is a range of sizes.) If
we find feral survivors and they are on 4.9, is it the bee or the cell size?

Something is going on, but we still do not know what. So I await the
definitive study.

Bill Truesdell
Bath, Maine

-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and  other info ---