Bob's comments (">") in reply to Scot (">>") and I (">>>") help to
narrow down the actual mechanisms that can be observed, and might
be the actual result of "downsizing to small-cell". I'm going to
try to further narrow things down here.
Its a slog, sorry.
>> 1) When bees are raised on small cell brood combs, their brood cycle is
>> reduced by 1 or 2 days compared to bees on 5.4mm foundation. This reduces
>> the length of the number of brood cycles a female mite can complete, and
>> therefore reducing the growth rate of varroa populations.
> Certainly a possible hypothesis but not one generally accepted by
> reaserchers.
This is a simple thing that can be directly measured. If brood cycles are
shorter in small-cell hives, it should be easy (with an observation hive)
to see, and document. In short, this has to be true or false. Why do the
opinions of "researchers" vary on this point? Has anyone bothered to
look at this?
>> The bees recongize a worker cell that is infested with varroa and
>> they chew the cell out, pincing the varroa...
> This behavior has been observed in bees on all cell sizes.
OK, so is the whole "downsizing" process really nothing but the
elimination of colonies that DON'T have the hygienic behavior mentioned
above? If so, then this should be a universal activity in "small-cell hives",
one that can be directly observed.
>> How can you say that bees can't tolerate varroa, varroa isn't some new
>> breed spontaneously becoming an epidemic.
On Apis mellifera, it is certainly is "new". When Apis mellifera colonies
were brought by beekeepers within the natural range of Apis cerana, that's
when the trouble started. Had beekeepers not moved Apis mellifera colonies
into that area, varroa might have remained an obscure beastie mentioned
only in the acarological and entomological journals forever.
>>> 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.)
>> Of course changing the queen will change the character of the hive, I am not
>> even sure why you would bring this up. What will happen? Who can say,
>> changing the queen in any hive is the same as changing the queen in any
>> other hive. Its a weighted crap shoot.
The idea here is to keep the worker bees that are willing to live on and
work with the smaller cells, but swap the queen, to test if the smaller
cell size is the TRUE critical factor, rather than genetics. If a new
queen, never before exposed to small-cell comb lays eggs that hatch into
bees that continue to show the same resistance to varroa, that would go a
VERY long way towards eliminating the whole "genetics" issue from the equation.
>>> Are small-cell beekeepers simply unwitting "SMR breeding program
>>> Do-It-Yourselfers"? If not, how would anyone know for sure?
>> Yes they most certainly are. They question you probably SHOULD have
>> asked is whether these new SMR characteristics will continue to be
>> expressed if one returns the bees to large cell hives. That answer
>> is most likely -- sometimes.
Why only "sometimes"? That's where we get back into being unable to
isolate "breeding for survival" from "small cell" itself. That's why
colonies need to be moved back and forth between "small" and "large"
cell hives to see if the resistance follows the bees, or the comb.
>>> So your mite counts rise to a certain level each year,
>>> and then hover there?
>> I didn't say they rise and hover, I said they remain managed.
The what does the mite population, in terms of natural mite
drop over consistent intervals, look like? I'm assuming that
the count is non-zero. "Managed" is a qualitative term, and I'd
like to use quantitative terms, please.
>> The mite didn't just spontaneously occur, its simply found a new
>> weakness to exploit because of our dickering with the natural way
>> of the bees.
This is a silly statement, as it assumes that the "natural way of
bees" would have ever been preserved in any way once man figured
out how to "keep" them. It wasn't.
>> If mite counts are not the issue but the bees' ability to manage its
>> coexistence with varroa, why would mite numbers be important?
Because one cannot claim to control that which they do not measure.
Numbers would put some teeth behind the claims, and advance science
a bit.
>> Not knowing the number is not an impediment at all to small cell advocates.
>> We are already practicing sound successful methods of operation. Why do you
>> reject something that works? Just because you don't have the numbers?
Numbers allow one to differ between "there are no mite infestations here"
and "this allows us to stand up to mite infestation". Numbers also allow
one to better understand how much varroa pressure bees can tolerate, which
would be of value to those who are unable to commit the time/money to
downsizing, and are forced to use "treatments" to control mites.
>> Actually, if the bees survive, then THIS would answer whether the
>> bees survive. Numbers would be moot, because the bees are still
>> there or they are not.
Why is a complete and total rejection of even basic scientific
principles so common amongst small-cell advocates? Numbers are
NEVER moot. Numbers are how one measures and compares. Numbers
are how one proves that ANY approach to varroa "works" or "doesn't".
Numbers are how one proves that one did not treat on the sly, and
numbers are how one prompts others to compare their numbers with
yours, and either support or refute your findings. Without numbers,
one has nothing but apocryphal anecdotes.
>> Again, the result is what's important.
Agreed, but any "result" must be expressed in terms of measurements,
which are expressed in numbers. So without numbers, one has no result!
>> Evolution has already performed these tests,
No it clearly hasn't. There has not been enough time for any sort
of evolutionary result from varroa moving to Apis mellifera.
>> just because you don't comprehend the current results (which is
>> simply a matter of survival and competion and has nothing to do
>> with numbers), does not mean that the results are not conclusive.
There is no such thing as a "result" that is unsupported by "the
numbers". Without the numbers, one has nothing but an unsupported
claim. The numbers are the ONLY facts that can support a claim.
>> We should stop monitoring the varroa and perhaps start monitoring
>> the bees? How's that catch you?
That's rather common in research, but one would want to measure
both populations, if for no other reason than to verify that the
varroa population is non-zero.
>>> 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.
>> Why would it cause hard feelings?
Outrage at the bogus nature of the attempt, anger that any conclusion
about "small-cell" would be drawn from a faulty experimental methodology.
>> Ceremony and perception sometimes bleed into one another.
Yes, one never knows, do one? :)
> Are you going to continually and ceremoniously be the devil's advocate
Yes.
> while people genuinely perceive you to speak truth?
People's perception is accurate. I certainly do not lie, and if I
am mistaken, I am open to correction, and willing to change my view.
> The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
And I intend to walk every step of the way, my boot-heels
stained with the hearts and souls of gentle folks. :)
My intent is to answer two basic questions:
a) Where are we going?
b) And what's the deal with this hand-basket, anyway?
jim
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/BEE-L for rules, FAQ and other info ---
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
|
