Hello Bill & All,
I worked 16 hours yesterday and have got plenty to do today but feel
compelled to comment on my friend Bill's post.

> I used smaller cell size foundation that Dadant sold some years back. I
> had excellent results from it with few mite problems. I could not
> attribute my success to it because I also used Apistan.

Why in the world would you use Apistan if you are running a test of small
cell size?  Using chemicals on hives with small cell size is what I am
hearing from those trying the foundation.  Now I am hearing they are using
coumaphos also.  Most say small cell works great. "Course I am still
treating with Apistan or Coumaphos!"   In my opinion we are learning
absolutely zero from those tests.

My friend Barry Birkey said he would post his *honest* results from last
winter on Bee-L if you remember. We have not heard a word yet. Please give
your conclusions from last winter Barry.

But during the  time I used it I lost no hives over the winter to either
mite. Mt
> tracheal counts were near zero every spring.

What has small cell to do with tracheal mites?  Were you using any
treatments for tracheal mites?  I know you said at one time you tried
Buckfast bees.  Is this hive from a Buckfast queen or mating?

> One hive was weak going into the winter and I was cutting down on the
> number of hives so I did not treat it with anything. It made it through
> fine.

Leave alone won't work in beekeeping today.  My tests with leave alone and
todays mites.  Some will survive the first winter but none has survived the
second.

> A friend had lost all his hives every winter for three years running and
> was about to give up beekeeping. I gave him the "hive that would not
> die". That was three winters ago. It is still going strong and was on
> the smaller foundation. Obviously there have been new queens so it is

**> not the bees. >**

According to Dee Lusby small cell  only accounts for a third of her success.
I would suggest those bees are hygienic and possibly SMR.

> I realize that it may not bee cell size, since we now have resistant
> varroa, but so does my neighbor with my old hive.

I believe the above should read "resistant to varroa bees" instead of
"resistant varroa".

> I intend to shift to a smaller cell size for all my hives. If my
> experience is because of the smaller cell size and not other factors,
> then maybe 4.9 is not essential in colder climates but slightly larger
> will also work.

Dee Lusby stated to me in direct email her results with small cell improved
greatly when they reduced from 5.0mm to 4.9mm.  Does not seem like a big
difference but what she told me.  Reducing down involves transition comb
which is  every size in between large and 4.9mm.  If reducing down was as
easy as giving a sheet of foundation 4.9mm and coming back and *presto* the
whole sheet is 4.9mm then many larger beekeepers might jump on the band
wagon.  Many times the bees will simply ignore the 4.9mm size on new
foundation and draw whatever size suits them.
Sincerely,
Bob Harrison
Odessa, Missouri