On Wednesday 29 September 2004 12:22 pm, James Fischer wrote:
> 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'?"
>

There is no where that I have said that SC is the solution, I have only stated
that it is one of several aggregate approches that are considered and
followed.

If you take bees and allow them to build their own combs, they tend to build
small cell or something approximating it. Taking those same bees that build
not quite small cell, and starting them over again in a fresh and
foundationless hive a 2nd time one finds that the bees will continue to build
even smaller combs. I have cought feral swarms that when left to their own
devices have built combs that were a MAXimum of 4.9ish mm in the brood nest.
I have taken MY bees which have built 5.0-5.1ish cell and placed them in
fresh foundationless homes and they also reduced thier core brood areas
further. Amazing little bees and its amazing to watch what happens when you
let it happen.


2ndly, its not "just" the darwin factor. Small Cell is a part of 'the darwin
factor' not the other way around. In fact ALL aspects of beekeeping and in
fact LIFE are part of 'the darwin factor'. The question is whether your
practices are long term healthy or detrimental to the whole. Its a hard
picture to fathom, but a darwin viewpoint is a great deal grander than what
most poeople are accustomed to. Eventually all weakness will be squashed,
nature makes sure of that, the difference is whether we let nature do her
job, or we hinder her (hinder is really an intermediate term). If we continue
to hinder nature's purpose, then we end up where we are now, with an imminent
collapse of the majority of a species' population. You have to ask yourself,
do you want to keep weak bees or strong bees. Nature sorts them out for you
doing the selective work for you, and all you have to do is reap the benefits
of her work. Through our use of modern medicine, pharmaceuticals, and
deterent/poisonous chemicals in various aspects of our lives and beekeeeping
specifically since this is the topic of this discussion, we have actually
AIDED nature, but not to our benifit. We have aided nature in selection by
weeding out weaknesses in the pests and diseases that afflict us and our
living friends. Nature, through us, has removed the weaknesses in pests and
diseases. We now have pests and diseases that are no longer susceptible to
our treatments, forcing us to come up with new treatments for all of our
ailments. This in turn is just giving nature another tool to weed out more
weaknesses in our adversaries. This is darwinism, this is nature, and this is
life. It is why we have evolved into humans, and why bees have evolved into
bees. The lines of our most ancient ancestry were effected and selected by
nature, in which each new strength helps to compete, while each weakness is
weeded out one or more at a time. New forms of stress factors and challenges
to survival will continue to be placed upon us and all living things. This
game does not only include our friends, but also our neighbors which happen
to be our challenges (varroa, cancer, polio, etc etc etc). This is how we are
where we are today, both in modern medicine, and beekeeping. If we continue
providing challenges for our ailments to overcome, we will continue to see
our ailments overcome each barrier we place in front of it because WE KILL
THE WEAK with each treatment aiding nature do her job in selecting the
strong. THIS IS >>> THE DARWIN FACTOR <<<. More commonly known as evolution.



Now to answer your question strictly related to bees and small cell; small
cell does prove to be a large part of the varroa management factor in our
operations. By point:

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.

2) Varroa like any other parasite relies on good sources of nutrition. Large
bees produce more hormones and nutrient's than small bees. The varroa mite
has exhaustively been documented to prefer drones, and select as a 2nd choice
large worker cells, leaving smaller cells as a last alternative. This is part
of the darwin factor, the varroa mite has evolved with natural selection
along with the rest of the living world. Those practices which work best and
help lines of varroa compete with other lines have succeeded.

3) bees on small cell show evidence of certain hygenic activities that their
cousins (queen sister's brood) placed on large cell do not. The bees
recongize a worker cell that is infested with varroa and they chew the cell
out, pincing the varroa. The dead bee is later removed during house cleaning
periods. These practices are darwin factors as well, and what has allowed the
honey bees to continue to survive and evolve with its challenges. The bees
didn't just start doing this, its part of what they already have ingrained in
their ancenstry. Even supposing it IS a new activity of the bees, its
something that allows the bees to continue playing the game of life. It is
never-the-less something you do not see occuring with any regularity occuring
within large cell hives.


> 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

My only hive tools are my pocket knife and a shim of scrap wood. You either
have to accept or disbelieve that fact. That's entirely up to you, but
generally when one decides to disbelieve a bald statement like that, it
probably because you have trust issues. For what its worth, I don't have any
reason to lie about this. Why would I advocate something if it were not
working? This makes no sense, and it generally means that the incredulity you
experience is due to preconceptions you have precipitated yourself.

> and never lose a small-cell hive for ANY reason)

Who said that? In fact that's probably on the other end of the spectrum of
what we are discussing. Of course we are going to loose hives, it part of the
darwin factor, or evolution. The weak and failing die and the strong and
surviving compete. What we DO experience on the other hand is that once the
strong lines have established themselves both within our hives and have
imprinted their legacy in the surrounding gene pool that we DO have a larger
majority of surviving, and competitive pools of bees.

> , 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.

I'd say both and all else you failed to state here. Everything is part of
evolution, stresses, successes, strengths and weakness. How can you say that
bees can't tolerate varroa, varroa isn't some new breed spontaneously
becoming an epidemic, its a breed of pest that has been around for quite a
long time, longer than fathomable by many folks. The bees we have here in the
USA have at some point or points in their ancestry had to deal with varroa
and its ancestry since the genesis of their respective species. Its part of
who the honey bee is, its part of their environment that shaped and shapes
them whether past and present. Its one of the stresses that helped the honey
bee become who it is today, and will continue to shape its evolution during
its tenure on our planet. Further is the varroa is successully eradicated
(not remotely likely), another stress factor will fill the void and the cycle
will begin anew.

> (So, what, if anything, happens if one
> shakes the whole small-cell colony onto fully-drawn "normal-sized" comb?

The bees may reject it and abscond or squander. They may lay in it, and in
watching through several complete brood cycles, one sees that the bees'
hygenic habits change for the worse. They become lazy, inverse to them
becoming more vigorous as they are returned to smaller sizes.


> 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.


>
> 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.

> > 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?

I didn't say they rise and hover, I said they remain managed.

> That's interesting and new information, as it would mean that SOME
> varroa are reproducing, but not many of them.

Of course, if they didn't do so, they would not exist at all now would they?
Large cell beekeeping isn't a major part of the bees' ancestry, its a recent
event which has effected their recent short term adaptation, but isn't part
of their ancient evolution. 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. Just as us providing chemical and other treatments
has given nature another tool to exploit weakness in the varroa.

> 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.

If mite counts are not the issue but the bees' ability to manage its
coexistence with varroa, why would mite numbers be important? 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? That's pretty silly
wouldn't you agree?

If a boat floats, it floats. If it sinks it sinks.


> > 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.

Read the response to C

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

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. What would be a more appropriate measure of the success of varroa (and
pest/disease) manageability is the measure of strength of the hive and its
production and whether its still there tomorrow.


> 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.

Again, the result is what's important. Evolution has already performed these
tests, 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. Numbers on paper do not measure
whether a hive will survive and compete or not, the only thing that can do
that is the continued success or failure of the bees. We should stop
monitoring the varroa and perhaps start monitoring the bees? How's that catch
you?


> 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.

Why would it cause hard feelings? Those of us that survive will continue while
those who do not, quite simply do not. I am not here to play games, I am here
to live.

>
> 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"?

So are you saying because you don't understand the successes of bees that the
percieved benfits aren't forthcoming? Sounds like more silliness to me.



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

Ceremony and perception sometimes bleed into one another. Are you going to
continually and ceremoniously be the devil's advocate while people genuinely
perceive you to speak truth? The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

--
Scot Mc Pherson
[log in to unmask]
http://linuxfromscratch.org/~scot
http://beewiki.linuxfromscratch.org
AIM: ScotLFS ICQ: 342949 MSN:[log in to unmask]

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