Eric Brown wrote:

>First, small cell beekeepers are clearly well out of the mainstream (as am
>I), and so there are a lot of management differences that might be the
>cause of whatever successes small cell beekeepers have had.  In fact, it
>seems to me that the vast majority of beekeepers who take their bees very
>seriously, don't blindly accept the standard practices, and are willing to
>do costly and labor-intensive things for their bees are quite successful
>beekeepers (in terms of varroa), regardless of whether they use small
>cell.  Joe speculated that small cell failures might be beekeeper failures,
>but I would counter that "small cell successes" might be "beekeeper
>successes" having little or nothing to do with cell size.
>
>
I noticed in replies to your posts that a key to success was culling of
the ones that did not make it. That seems to be more the bee than the
cells. That is a standard technique for most of us in the North who
raise their own.

Second is new comb, which is always a good beekeeping practice.

And there is always the "other measures", which seem to crop up in most
discussions.

I have asked knowledgeable beekeepers and still have not seen a
scientific study on small cells that has controls and varroa pressure
over time, especially in the north. I have no problem with the claims of
those who have succeeded with it, but I can claim excellent
overwintering with my techniques and 4.9 cell is not involved. Plus, I
can use standard equipment, no contamination, and keep it simple (and
illegal with OA). I did use 5.0 and it seemed to work for a while.

If I was a commercial operator outside the current AHB areas (of which
FL is one), I would want some good data before I ventured out into a
promising but unproven management technique. Especially if some
knowledgeable  and exceptional commercial peers have tried it and found
it wanting.

Bill Truesdell
Bath, Maine

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