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'?" 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 and never lose a small-cell hive for ANY reason), 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. (So, what, if anything, happens if one shakes the whole small-cell colony onto fully-drawn "normal-sized" comb? 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.) Are small-cell beekeepers simply unwitting "SMR breeding program Do-It-Yourselfers"? If not, how would anyone know for sure? > 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? That's interesting and new information, as it would mean that SOME varroa are reproducing, but not many of them. 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. > 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. c) Sit back and wait for the results, which will be initially authoritative on the sole point of "do these colonies really survive varroa?". 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. 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. 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"? jim (Yes, I am an agent of Satan, but my duties are purely ceremonial) :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/BEE-L for rules, FAQ and other info --- ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::