Beemaster's International Beekeeping Forum

BEEKEEPING LEARNING CENTER => NATURAL & ORGANIC BEEKEEPING METHODS => Topic started by: tillie on January 24, 2011, 10:03:50 pm

Title: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: tillie on January 24, 2011, 10:03:50 pm
At the Metro Short Course on Saturday, Jennifer Berry said (not an exact quote) "Don't let anyone tell you that small cell fights the varroa mite.  There have now been four studies and none of them showed that small cell made a difference." 

She also said that Dee Lusby has africanized bees in Arizona and she would therefore not have a Varroa problem - that it doesn't have to do with cell size but with the behavior of the africanized bee.  She said in the wild bees build cells from 4.9 to 5.3 mm.  From the back of the room another instructor said with his tongue in cheek, "But Jennifer, you didn't regress them properly."

So I throw this out there because I thought it was discouraging to new beekeepers and didn't help them keep their minds open.  I know Don K in Lula has his Varroa mites under control and all of his bees are small cell.  I also know that Michael Bush who doesn't use chemicals either, has small cell bees and no Varroa problem.

I'm sure all natural cell beekeepers do have some Varroa mites, but the bees are able to manage them, in my limited experience, when they can choose cell size.

I haven't made a conscious effort to regress my bees, but from year two I have only used foundationless frames and my bees are doing fine - if hives die at my apiary sites, it's because I made a clear beekeeper error and I usually know what it was - rather than that they died from Varroa.

Interested to hear what you all think,

Linda T in Atlanta
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: Kathyp on January 24, 2011, 10:19:03 pm
here is my admittedly non-scientific observation on small cell.  it's bunk.

i'll expand a bit as i duck  :evil:

look at the people who have gone treatment free.  they all have some things in common.  they have allowed weak hives to die.  they have cultivated queens and stock that are proven survivors.  SOME have their bees on small cell.  many, and i'd guess most from what i have read, have gone to "natural"  cell,  doing as you have done, and allowing the bees to draw what they need/want.

in addition to the above, most of us don't do things like drone comb manipulation, etc.  

small cell is like all kinds of other neat ideas.  they seem valid, they cost more, they end up being more cost and bother than they are worth.   and yes, there was at least one good study done on small cell that said it made no difference.  it's the only one i am aware of and it as in bee culture (i think?) a year or so ago.  i think it was also reposted here.
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: fat/beeman on January 24, 2011, 10:30:14 pm
well come to think of it maybe small cell is a bunk idea. that;s why lot of people sneak around buying hives of small cell bees when there bees die. :-X funny I make my living -full time not part time off bees. but who am I to doubt studies that maybe chemical company's might give big grants for. yep your right don't work=don't use it. use what makes your bees happy. I stopped defending it 5 yrs ago. that's why I sell 4.9 mills to the open minded. :roll: :-D

Don
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: tillie on January 24, 2011, 10:50:13 pm
And I, Don, am one of your most eager customers and talk up your bees all the time.....so I believe in what you are doing but was disappointed to hear Jennifer nay-saying so definitively.  If she had positively commented on natural cells or foundationless beekeeping, I would have felt better.

I have heard her say (and she did say this in another talk at the short course) that if you buy any foundation from anyone, including most organic beekeepers, it is laced with fluvalinate and other poisons.  She did a study at UGA that required that her control hive have foundation with no tracing of poison and in the end had to use popsicle sticks as starters because they couldn't find uncontaminated wax from anyone including beekeepers like Bill Owens who hasn't used chemicals ever in his hives.

Linda
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: BjornBee on January 24, 2011, 10:57:21 pm
I've had smallcell for years.

And like some others, when they first came out with comments against it (or the overhype and promotion of over inflated claims), I have been hammered for years. Before smallcell, it was FGMO. Then smallcell. And lately, I have been hammered by Warre groupies who email me from time to time with colorful language.

Oh well. The studies supported what I said before they came along. Such is life. Beekeeping is funny. I think we will be having this discussion 20 years from now. Right along with conversations of why one should not kill off all swarm cells, and why placing your hives in the sun is a good thing. It takes a lifetime to change the chant that some repeat after running their heads up some beekeepers butts, following like sheep, and always wondering why the grass is greener as claimed by those on the other side of the fence. But it never seems to be once you really take a look after taking off the blinders.

BTW...the comments were not controversial. Perhaps to those who don't want to hear it. But not to those who agree with Berry, or found their own findings in line with hers.

Could of made lots off selling smallcell. But I didn't. I never sold one hive of smallcell. Maybe that says a bit more than the others who actually sell it to the hopeful sheep in line, holding the kool-aid cup.
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: fat/beeman on January 24, 2011, 10:59:12 pm
I have talked to ms. berry after the state bee meeting when she said small cell was bunk. I had offered her chemical free wax to use in here study. to say organic beekeepers would have harsh chemical in there bees wax is bunk======gotta watch who's toes you step on when your receiving millions in grants.

well I am off my soap box now====sorry :mrgreen: :roll: :-D
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: Kathyp on January 24, 2011, 11:05:15 pm
 F/B  do you also raise your own queens, avoid saving weak hives, and are you careful with your genetics?  i have not met anyone who has bought into small cell without also ending treatments and watching genetics. 

no offense, but when you say follow the money, that doesn't just apply to chemical companies.......
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: deknow on January 24, 2011, 11:24:51 pm
None of the smallcell studies that have been performed even attempt to replicate what beekeepers that see success are actually doing.  As researchers, it is their job to figure out what studies to perform.

If I told you I had a balanced breakfast including a glass of orange juice, some bacon, a bowl of cereal, and a glass of milk, would you do a study feeding people orange juice and frosted flakes for breakfast in order to determine if my breakfast was balanced?  This is essentially what has been done in all of the studies I'm aware of.

Her position is not uncommon...Randy Oliver was quoted calling our conference "a cult meeting"...although his untreated HSC hives "refuse to die", he attributes this to offgassing of the HSC  :roll:

Erik Osterlund gave a talk on the small cell studies at our conference last year (at some point I'll try to get this up online), and I have a few comments from Erik and Michael Bush on the subject posted at our website:
http://thecompleteidiotsguidetobeekeeping.com/index.php/beekeeping/articles/92-small-cell-studies (http://thecompleteidiotsguidetobeekeeping.com/index.php/beekeeping/articles/92-small-cell-studies)

In any case, we certainly believe that small cell has helped us...we didn't have bees alive in the spring until we regressed.  Does it actually help?  What is the mechanism(s)?, Under what circumstances?  I don't know, but the data reported by the researchers thus far does not support their definitive claims.  I look forward to reading Tom Seeley's study.

Kathy, I've pointed out before, Michael Bush had success with small cell and commercial stock before he started breeding from survivor stock.

Don, we were told by another researcher that bees once regressed would not build 4.9 comb if given open (foundationless) frames.  We were to see her the next day, and asked if she would like us to bring in some 4.9 foundationless comb in a frame...she said "no".

deknow

deknow
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: tillie on January 24, 2011, 11:30:17 pm
What makes me sad is that taking an absolute stand on anything limits openness to the possibilities that there isn't just one answer to a question.  I watched the room of potential new beekeepers hanging onto her every word and that makes me sad.  I like Jennifer - have been at meetings where we all had a great time sitting together - but I don't think any of us should take absolute stands.

It's like the old adage - ask 10 beekeepers a question and you'll get at least 10 different answers - and that's what makes the field rich and interesting. 

Until we have a definitive answer about the varroa mite and its destructive abilities, then we should all stay open to possibilities and be willing to try variations on new things.

Linda T in Atlanta
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: Kathyp on January 24, 2011, 11:37:22 pm
Tillie, i agree.  that's one of the things that has ticked me off about the religion of small cell.  i don't think there's anything wrong with small cell if that's what you want to do, but to many insist that it is the answer.  it's also more expensive and cost is often an issue with new beekeepers.  the management of varoa depends on many things, but if genetics are not stressed, all the other things we  might do are pretty useless.  there are a whole lot of us keeping treatment free bees successfully because we have taken the time to get and nurture that survivor stock.  we are not doing it on small cell. 

the popularity of small cell has declined as more and more of us realize it's the bees, not the foundation.
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: hankdog1 on January 25, 2011, 02:51:15 am
i use foundation and don't treat just like kathyp is talking about.  when it comes down to it they could be very right small cell is bunk.  here is the one factor that nobody takes into consideration that when you decide not to treat and/or go small cell you as a beekeeper are willing to go where others aren't.  you actually care about your bees and what's going into them.  be it genetics or choosing areas where pesticides aren't used.  that being said your going the extra mile for your bees in the end that's what counts.  any idiot can throw chemicals in the hive weather it needs to be treated or not and alot do.  know a guy that treats for tracheal mites twice a year.  to the best of my knowledge even commercial beekeepers running huge operations don't treat for tracheal just not a problem anymore.  also if you read the old bee books the wax moth was the varroa 170 years ago.  in the end it's about the fact of people that are having sucess keeping bees without all the toxic chemicals no matter if it's done on foundation or small cell. 
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: Robo on January 25, 2011, 11:45:03 am
Tillie, i agree.  that's one of the things that has ticked me off about the religion of small cell. 

In all fairness, a good portion of the "small cell" religion as you and I see it, is in defense of comments like Jennifer Berry.  When you have something that works for you and someone else tells you it doesn't work,  it becomes personal real quick.

This is the same debate that was had decades ago with essential oils.   I can remember being one of those folks that it didn't work for and taking heat for not getting on the essential oils bandwagon.    Then it was food grade mineral oil,  first in drip bottles with a pipe cleaner at the entrance, then on the frame tops and finally with the fogger.  Then it was Thymol in FGMO, .......   What happened to these methods that where "the answer" of the times.

Now let me say,   I don't know if small cell works or not, but it is not the silver bullet that some claim it to be.   I have some hives on HSC and some hives on Large Cell foundation,  and a lot in between - all treatment free.  I see no difference between them in my apiary.  I'm with Kathyp in that I believe genetics has a lot more to do with it.   I was never successful trying to step regress hives.   So I did attempt to single step a bunch of hives with HSC.   I also stopped all treatments at the same time.   However, there was a time early on that HSC was on backorder and I had more feral removals than HSC,  so I just put them on 25 yr old large cell comb that I had.   Low and behold,  they all survived.   Since that time,  I have not purchased any new HSC,  and have been using large cell.   I'm going on 5 years without treatment and have only had 1 hive crash due to varroa. That was a swarm that moved into an empty stack of hive bodies I had sitting on a trailer, which put more creditability to my genetics belief.

Being open minded doesn't mean buying lock, stock, & barrel into someone else's beliefs.

The bottomline is if you have something that works for you stick with it.  If something works for you, it doesn't mean it will work for others. AND,  just because something doesn't work for you, doesn't mean it does not work for others.

I have to say,  Jennifer Berry has lost credibility in my book with her statement.   As a researcher,  she should know that you can't prove a negative and she just showed her personal bias with those statements.


No disrespect for Don, because he obviously has his act together and is successfully producing outstanding bees, but I don't see how you can definitively tie your success to small cell.  It is my understanding that small cell is not the only thing that separates your management from the traditional beeks. You claim chemical-free foundation and I know at one time you used FGMO and perhaps other natural remedies.   At best,  I see small cell as accountable for a portion of your success.   But making claims just begs questions from others.   Do you have any customers that have bought bees from you and are successfully keeping them on commercial large cell foundation?
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: Kathyp on January 25, 2011, 12:10:45 pm
thanks, Robo.  i think everything you said is dead on.  it just makes me sad when i get emails or calls from people who have heard about smallcell as a cure for mites.  the conversation is usually something like "i'm going to buy packages and put them on small cell foundation so i don't have to treat for mites.  what do you think?".  that same person might buy from fatbeeman, or MB and keep bees on small cell successfully, but you know darn well that when they dump that package on small cell and don't treat, the bees are probably not going to make it into a second season.

the people who encourage small cell need to explain clearly the entire system they use so that new beekeepers can evaluate the variables, or at least have a clear idea that small cell is part of the system and not the magic cure.
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: Michael Bush on January 25, 2011, 10:22:47 pm
I can only say I never succeeded at keeping them alive without chemicals until I went to small cell and have had no problems since.

http://www.bushfarms.com/beessctheories.htm (http://www.bushfarms.com/beessctheories.htm)
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: tillie on January 25, 2011, 10:58:37 pm
Hi Michael, 

I just read your page (again) on small cell and appreciate so much your chiming in.  I have felt so comfortable as a beekeeper because I've felt willing to listen to you, and Sam, and Don and count all three of you as my mentors (and Wyatt Mangum).  It's hard to be in a beekeeping community where the predominant opinion is to do it the old-fashioned way, although many of my Atlanta beekeeping comrades are not using poisons.

When my friend Julia and I do hive inspections for the Metro club and hold up our foundationless frames and show the beautiful comb the bees build; when we talk about working with the bees instead of trying to control the bees; when we talk about working WITH the hive instead of working ON the hive, I try to channel you, Sam, Don and others to make me feel grounded.  At the end of the inspection when the participants see our gentle bees and find that they don't need to be smoked to open the hive, I always feel like I've gained a little ground.  Or when someone says they read my blog and have tried some of the more natural ways to approach the bees, again I feel like I've gained a little ground.

We showed a movie that we made on how to harvest honey both without an extractor (crush and strain) and with an extractor at the Metro course.  In answering questions more than once, respected beekeepers and presenters said to the audience, "Well, that's just how Linda does it," with an emphasis on Linda because in that arena, I am seen as a renegade beekeeper.

So I will be keeping on with my natural cell approach to my bees, but it is disheartening to hear presenters at a short course with more than 100 participants take such a stand on "renegade" approaches to beekeeping instead of keeping an open mind.

Linda T in Atlanta
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: deknow on January 25, 2011, 10:59:10 pm
the people who encourage small cell need to explain clearly the entire system they use so that new beekeepers can evaluate the variables, or at least have a clear idea that small cell is part of the system and not the magic cure.

Hi Kathy,

It seems to me that there are 5 that are the most visible proponents of small cell, and all of them have presented their approach quite publicly.

Dee Lusby:  Wrote "The Way Back to Biological Beekeeping", available for free on beesource.  A bit tough reading, but it is there and it is rather complete.
Michael Bush:  http://BushFarms.com/Bees/ is about as complete a beekeeping text as exists anywhere, and it clearly outlines what he is doing.
Dennis Murrell:  http://beenatural.wordpress.com/  I admit that I've been remiss and have not read all of what Dennis has at his site, so I won't claim to know the details of what is there.
Don "Fatbeeman":  http://www.fatbeeman.com/  although i don't think don is completely "treatment free", he certainly has great bees with very little in the way of eo's and such.  He teaches classes, has utube videos, etc
Us (Dean Stiglitz and Laurie "Ramona" Herboldsheimer):  We run an extensive conference every summer for treatment free beekeeping with over 100 attendees every year, and top notch speakers from around the world, and we wrote "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Beekeeping" as a complete treatment free approach in 244 pages.

I'm not sure how much more clear or in depth we could be.

I will say that there is a pattern of people picking up the "small cell" concept, deciding it is a magic bullet that will succeed regardless of what other management practices are being used, speaking very loudly and with misplaced authority to beekeepers that have actual experience.  

But this pattern is part of beekeeping, we see a similar thing with Walt Wright's "checker boarding" method.  In order to prevent swarming, he suggests placing alternating frames of foundation and drawn comb ABOVE the active broodnest at the specified time.  Most people seem to hear about this without getting the details right, and takes 5 frames of bees/brood and alternates them with foundation....there are never enough bees in this situation to do something like that without really stressing the bees, probably chilling some brood, and really setting them back.

This doesn't make Walt wrong or a bad guy in any way....he is very clear about what he recommends.  Nonetheless, I expect hundreds or thousands of hives are subjected to this every year out of misunderstaing and misplaced authority (I've heard people recommend this to new beekeepers).

deknow
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: Kathyp on January 25, 2011, 11:01:11 pm
but there is a difference between natural cell and small cell.  i use natural cell also.  i figure the bees know what they need and i let them draw it.  that's a far cry from forcing them onto one size, either large or small.
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: Kathyp on January 25, 2011, 11:05:11 pm
i am only familiar with 3 of those people.  all of those do things other than small cell that can account for their success.  that's really my main point.  i don't care if people use small cell, but i submit, and many of us can back up this submission, that it is equally possible to keep treatment free bees without small cell.  if you can remove one piece of a management and still get the same results, that one thing is not responsible for success.  i suggest also, that if you do not have the right genetics, you will fail on small cell just as you will fail on any other size comb.
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: Countryboy on January 25, 2011, 11:42:13 pm
I've been doing small cell/foundationless for 2 years now.  This year I had a yard of 10 hives that were started as packages this year, or splits from packages.  These were all first year queens from Wilbanks.  I am not fully regressed, but I tried to have the core of the broodnest in all hives of PF small cell or foundationless frames.

New Year's weekend the weather was nice enough to look at them.  5/10 hives were dead, with plenty of honey remaining.  Hives with small cell were dead right beside live hives with small cell.

When I looked at all 42 of my hives, I had 7 of 15 Wilbanks hives die.  My only other losses were 3 weaker nucs that I was trying to overwinter.  My other hives were from last years overwinter hives, swarms, or headed by queens I raised this summer from my best overwintered hives.

There are roughly 300 hives in my county according to the list of registered apiaries.  I talked to owners of over 170 hives.  I could only find one who had treated their hives with any mite treatment, and that was a first year beekeeper who treated because he thought he was supposed to.  I talked to a local guy with a bee supply business, and he told me that almost no one in the county has bought any mite treatments in the past 2 years.  I live in an area that has minimal exposure to migratory bees.

I can't say if small cell/foundationless makes a difference.  At this point, it appears that not treating and local stock makes more of a difference.  (I recently read a study that found that non-native bees had a harder time digesting local pollens, and bees from warmer climates were not as adapted to making body heat.)

With that said, I like small cell if for no other reason than having more worker brood per frame.  Simply by having a higher density of cells, any given cluster size can cover more brood on small cell than they can on large cell.  In cold climates, this is important during early spring buildup.
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: Michael Bush on January 26, 2011, 09:47:09 am
>but there is a difference between natural cell and small cell.  i use natural cell also.  i figure the bees know what they need and i let them draw it.  that's a far cry from forcing them onto one size, either large or small.

But natural cell is still resolving the underlying issue, which is cell size.  I have done a lot of both and see the same end result.  Bees that have no Varroa issues.

Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: FRAMEshift on January 26, 2011, 12:23:20 pm
But natural cell is still resolving the underlying issue, which is cell size.  I have done a lot of both and see the same end result.  Bees that have no Varroa issues.

Michael, have you ever taken your natural cell bees and put them  back on large cell to see if the varrroa comes back?  That would be the real test of "cell size versus genetics."
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: Kathyp on January 26, 2011, 12:55:39 pm
Quote
But natural cell is still resolving the underlying issue, which is cell size.  I have done a lot of both and see the same end result.  Bees that have no Varroa issues.

how do you figure?  the bees draw different size cells for different use.  including, this year, tons of drone comb.  by your way of thinking, the drone comb should increase mite load. small cell gives the bees one choice.  seems to me that's a pretty huge difference.
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: FRAMEshift on January 26, 2011, 01:30:57 pm

 the bees draw different size cells for different use.  including, this year, tons of drone comb.  by your way of thinking, the drone comb should increase mite load. small cell gives the bees one choice.  seems to me that's a pretty huge difference.
This would be my explanation. The most dangerous time for mite damage is in the spring as new brood is emerging.  There is a high ratio of mites to bees.  Those bees are coming from the heart of the previous year's brood nest.  With natural comb,  that center of the brood nest has the smallest cell sizes.  And with small cell foundation the bees would of course be coming from small cells.  It is only with large cell foundation that spring brood would be laid in large cells.

Do you see spring worker eggs being laid in drone comb if small cell is available?  And even if you use small cell foundation, the bees are still going to build drone comb wherever they can.
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: Robo on January 26, 2011, 03:10:07 pm
That would be the real test of "cell size versus genetics."

I agree it would be interesting,  but I'm not sure it is the "real test" and would prove anything more (than Michael's success can't be fully attributed to SC) since there are already people on this board that have bees on large cell without treatment.

I think we get bogged down in trying to find a single smoking gun that is independently able to keep varroa in check, when it reality it takes a variety of factors.   That is why it is important for everyone to figure out what will work for them and not assume what works for others will work for them.

It is like trying to make Lasagna with one ingredient.  It ain't gonna happen.
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: Kathyp on January 26, 2011, 03:14:40 pm
Quote
That is why it is important for everyone to figure out what will work for them and not assume what works for others will work for them.


yup
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: fat/beeman on January 26, 2011, 06:31:21 pm
there seems to be some people think natural cell or natural drawed cell and small cell 4.9 that its different.
well I run 4.9 because I have a mill.the thing is some times I pull frames out of brood nest and only put a empty frame in. my bees been on small cell since 1989 they do build small cell{natural cell} most time. if they need drone cell they build it.bottom line is the bees will build what they need at the time. by letting them make new comb you help with out side chem's.
Don
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: FRAMEshift on January 26, 2011, 08:30:30 pm

I agree it would be interesting,  but I'm not sure it is the "real test" and would prove anything more (than Michael's success can't be fully attributed to SC) since there are already people on this board that have bees on large cell without treatment.

Right, it wouldn't prove much one way or the other if the natural cell bees had no varroa problem on large cell.  But if they had a big varroa problem, it would suggest that cell size is definitely involved.  This thread is about Jennifer Berry's claim that "small cell is bunk".  The best way to test that idea is to keep the genetics constant (same queen, same workers) and change only the cell size. 
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: Michael Bush on January 27, 2011, 02:40:02 am
>Michael, have you ever taken your natural cell bees and put them  back on large cell to see if the varrroa comes back?  That would be the real test of "cell size versus genetics."

I tried untreated bees on large cell enough times to know they all die.  I've tried commercial stock on small cell and they had no issues.  What would I accomplish other than kill some more bees?  I know it's not all genetics or the commercial stock wouldn't have died on large cell and thrived on small cell.
http://bushfarms.com/beessctheories.htm (http://bushfarms.com/beessctheories.htm)

>how do you figure?

You changed from large cell to natural.  Natural is NOT 5.4mm.  5.4mm is the problem.  You resolved it by going to natural cell.

>the bees draw different size cells for different use.  including, this year, tons of drone comb.  by your way of thinking, the drone comb should increase mite load. small cell gives the bees one choice.  seems to me that's a pretty huge difference.

By my way of thinking (and the results of Dr. Collison's research) they will raise the same number of drones no matter what you do foundation or otherwise, but I do nothing to stop them from raising drones and by my way of thinking that gives the mites something to damage that isn't the workers.

I started down the path of small cell natural cell a skeptic.  I let them build what they wanted to see if it would be smaller and it was.  I now use a mixture of many ways of getting smaller cells from natural comb to Mann lake PF 120s to wax dipped PermaComb to Honey Super Cell.  I get the same results.  No Varroa issues.
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: Kathyp on January 27, 2011, 11:30:20 am
Michael, i have never measured but by eyeball, my natural cell ends up being all different sizes.  i think we are going to confuse people by not making a distinction between what the bees will draw naturally and what we would force them to draw with foundation...whatever the size.

i am all for  natural cell for lots of reasons.  cost, laziness (on my part), letting the bees make the decisions about what and how many of sizes they want, and...i have never found ONE size cell in any hive i have dug out of any place.

are you saying that you can take bees from any source, t them on natural comb and be successful with them (mites)?  i would have to disagree with that from my own observations. 
if i get swarms from pollination hives, the odds of those bees living into or through a 2nd season without any treatment is really slim.  haven't kept track, but it's low enough that i don't even expect them to make it.  it's a pleasant surprise if they do. 

guess we could go on about this...really i wanted to clarify for new people the difference between small cell commercially produced, and natural cell.  i think we do enough to confuse them  ;)
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: TwT on February 01, 2011, 07:16:08 am
At the Metro Short Course on Saturday, Jennifer Berry said (not an exact quote) "Don't let anyone tell you that small cell fights the varroa mite.  There have now been four studies and none of them showed that small cell made a difference." 

She also said that Dee Lusby has africanized bees in Arizona and she would therefore not have a Varroa problem - that it doesn't have to do with cell size but with the behavior of the africanized bee.  She said in the wild bees build cells from 4.9 to 5.3 mm.  From the back of the room another instructor said with his tongue in cheek, "But Jennifer, you didn't regress them properly."


The small cell bee's in her study were supplied by Bill Owens, he has been on small cell for years, all his hives on small cell, these are the bee's that they used to draw out the new small cell foundation which was supplied by bill also, now if these bee's wasnt regressed properly then whats up? does this mean you cant buy new small cell foundation when you have small cell bee's because they will not draw it out correctly, I doungh that! one thing I do know this study did was to change Bill Owens mind on what foundation selection, he said it wasn't worth the extra expense, he said he thinks its more of the bee's thems selves, its everyone own choice to what they do, if it works for you keep it going, myself I dont treat with anything and use regular foundation but I have lost hives but the hives I breed from have been going for years and these were all removal hives, thats why I have a test yard for swarms and removal hives to see how they do.
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: AllenF on February 01, 2011, 11:36:15 am
Ted,  Hate to change the subject, but when did you leave Georgia?  I see you are in LA now.
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: TwT on February 01, 2011, 12:14:04 pm
I moved here last March, still have my home and hives in Ga. atlest what hives have made it without be touched for the last 18 months, had health problems for a while then other stuff on top of that. came here to visit family and got a good job so I moved. my oldest daughter is close. she goes to college at North Western state here in La. everything seems to gettikng a lot better  ;)
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: AllenF on February 01, 2011, 12:17:57 pm
I figured you were looking for those great big shakes they got down there.
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: lenape13 on February 01, 2011, 01:35:26 pm
I have commercial bees on foundation, swarms and splits from commercial bees on foundation and natural comb, and ferals on both foundation and natural comb and I am completely treatment free.  Guess what, all of them are doing fine.  My ferals seem to thrive better, and are usually the better producers.  They are also the more hygenic, which would leave me to believe it's the genetics factor.  Can't prove anything, just my observations. 
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: Bee Happy on February 01, 2011, 08:36:26 pm
I have commercial bees on foundation, swarms and splits from commercial bees on foundation and natural comb, and ferals on both foundation and natural comb and I am completely treatment free.  Guess what, all of them are doing fine.  My ferals seem to thrive better, and are usually the better producers.  They are also the more hygenic, which would leave me to believe it's the genetics factor.  Can't prove anything, just my observations. 

Yep, I think the "best studies" will be the ones who scrupulously observe results. I haven't been beekeeping long enough to attach myself to any single specific conclusions; but I tend to listen to the whole approach of people who are getting results. (without synthetic chemicals)

Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: Acebird on February 16, 2011, 08:07:35 pm
Quote
Until we have a definitive answer about the varroa mite and its destructive abilities, then we should all stay open to possibilities and be willing to try variations on new things.

If there is one prediction I can make about beekeeping there will never be anything definitive about beekeeping.

Quote
so I just put them on 25 yr old large cell comb that I had.

If the comb is 25 years old is it still large cell?  If the cell walls get thicker the cell size gets smaller.  No?

Quote
but you know darn well that when they dump that package on small cell and don't treat, the bees are probably not going to make it into a second season.
This sounds like an assumption.  How would you ever go treatment free if this were the case?


Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: Kathyp on February 16, 2011, 08:23:55 pm
Quote
This sounds like an assumption.  How would you ever go treatment free if this were the case?

this is an observation based on  my own experience and based on the experiences of people who have tried this will less, rather than more, success. i have done it by not buying  package bees or commercially raised queen.
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: Countryboy on February 16, 2011, 10:27:18 pm
So far this winter, I have lost 7 of 15 hives that were started last year as packages or splits made with purchased queens.
So far this winter, I have lost 3 nucs (that were weak to begin with) out of 27 nucs and hives from feral stock from swarms, cutouts, overwintered stock, or hives with queens raised from those genetic lines.

All hives have a similar mix of large cell, Pierco, foundationless, and PF small cell frames.  (I try to have 3-4 frames of foundationless and small cell in the center of the boxes, but outside frames are often larger cell sizes.)
3 years ago I tried powdered sugar on a couple hives, and decided it wasn't for me.  That was the last treatment I did.  Almost everyone in my county stopped treating 2 years ago.  We are in a fairly isolated area, with minimal exposure to any migratory operations.

From my observations, it appears that genetics are playing a larger role in survival than small cell in my bees.  This is not to say that small cell isn't doing anything - it just appears to me that genetics play a larger role in survival.
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: Acebird on February 17, 2011, 09:29:21 am
Quote
i have done it by not buying  package bees or commercially raised queen.

In your previous comment I thought you were implying the death rate was due to non treatment.

Quote
it just appears to me that genetics play a larger role in survival.

How can you be sure that the small cell is not influencing the genetics?  A smaller bee is a gentic trait.
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: Bee Happy on February 17, 2011, 11:25:19 am
If there is one prediction I can make about beekeeping there will never be anything definitive about beekeeping.

I might be a little slow catching on, but I'm seeing the overall pattern to be "There's more than one way to skin a cat, we're not sure the best way's been found, but it never hurts to keep looking for a better one."
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: Countryboy on February 17, 2011, 10:32:05 pm
How can you be sure that the small cell is not influencing the genetics?  A smaller bee is a gentic trait.

Small cell does not have the ability to affect genetics.  A smaller bee due to small cell is NOT a genetic trait.  It is a physical trait.  If the bee is put back on large cell, the offspring will not continue to be small bees.  This shows that it is a physical response, rather than a genetic response.

In Japan, it used to be common to bind girl's feet.  Their feet stayed tiny their whole life.  Their children's feet would still be normal sized unless their feet were bound too.

Small bees due to being in a smaller cell is no more a genetic trait than tiny feet due to being confined in a smaller shoe.

It's not a genetic trait for goldfish to stay tiny while in a small fishbowl either...
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: Acebird on February 18, 2011, 10:55:36 am
Quote
Small cell does not have the ability to affect genetics.  A smaller bee due to small cell is NOT a genetic trait.  It is a physical trait.  If the bee is put back on large cell, the offspring will not continue to be small bees.  This shows that it is a physical response, rather than a genetic response.

With the bound feet example didn't you just make an argument that it is genetic?  With large cell you are forcing the bees to be large like binding the feet to make them small.  If you leave the bee alone and let it make its own cell they will resort to small cell.  I think you shot yourself in the foot on that one.
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: Scadsobees on February 18, 2011, 11:19:05 am

Bees naturally draw comb anywhere from larger than drone cells to smaller than "small cell".  When I let my bees on empty frames, they usually draw giant storage cells.

Bees naturally draw small cell, large cell, drone cell, queen cell, and storage cell.  If we force them on either, it aint "natural" or "genetic".  Do a few cutouts and you'll see. 

At that point it is what is most convenient for US, since we are their keepers.
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: Acebird on February 18, 2011, 11:44:16 am
Quote
Bees naturally draw small cell, large cell, drone cell, queen cell, and storage cell.  If we force them on either, it aint "natural" or "genetic".  Do a few cutouts and you'll see. 


You could be right.  I am going by what I have read so far.  As usual there seems to be some disagreement among the experts on this topic.  So it is your expert opinion that if the bees are left on their own they will not decrease in size.  Do I have that correct?
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: buzzbee on February 18, 2011, 06:16:53 pm
Do not interchange small cell with natural cell size. Small cell can be seen as just as unnatural as large cell.
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: Acebird on February 18, 2011, 09:47:18 pm
Do not interchange small cell with natural cell size. Small cell can be seen as just as unnatural as large cell.

It is getting worse now.  What is natural cell vs. small cell?
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: Kathyp on February 18, 2011, 09:50:31 pm
natural cell is what the bees choose to draw.  it will be cells of various size for different use.  small cell is determined by the cell size on the foundation.  it is no more natural than giving them large cell foundation.

if you do foundatationless, you get natural cell.
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: Countryboy on February 18, 2011, 10:34:31 pm
With the bound feet example didn't you just make an argument that it is genetic?

No, I didn't.  The bound feet example made it very clear that it was NOT genetic. 

A genetic trait will still be evident in the subsequent generations.  If a girl had her feet bound, her children would have normal sized feet.  The only way her children would have tiny feet is if the children's feet were bound.  Every subsequent generation would have to have their feet bound for it to show up in every generation.  This clearly shows that it is an external influence (the bindings) which are causing the small feet, and not a genetic trait.

With large cell you are forcing the bees to be large like binding the feet to make them small.

Which is an external influence, and not a genetic trait.

If you leave the bee alone and let it make its own cell they will resort to small cell.

If you let the bees draw out comb of their choice, they will draw natural comb.  They will not draw small cell.

If generation after generation, you keep introducing foundationless frames into the center of the broodnest, eventually they will draw small patches of 'small cell' in the core of the natural comb broodnest...assuming you are fairly close to the equator.  (The farther from the equator, the larger the cells.)

Even the so-called fully regressed bees do not draw out full frames of small cell.

What is natural cell vs. small cell?

Natural cell is what bees choose to draw out, and cell size varies widely, even among cells all being used for the same purpose.  (Honey storage cells will vary in size, and worker brood cells will vary in size.)  Small cell refers to 4.9mm cell size.
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: Michael Bush on February 19, 2011, 03:09:26 am
I haven't worked at all at finding the combs I measured and photographed and posted on my site.  I simply pulled some combs that had no bees on them at the moment that were brood combs, took them in the house, laid them on the kitchen table with a ruler and photographed them.  I didn't look through the hive for them.  I've done this a few times with similar results.  I get as small as 4.7mm from regressed bees, as small as 4.8mm from unregressed bees and have seen pictures of feral brood comb from PA that was as small as 4.4mm.  But in that same hive you'll find larger cells around the edges of that small cell core.  Standard foundation is 5.4mm.  Small cell is 4.9mm.  So what is 4.4mm?  Or 4.7mm?  Or 4.8mm? Micro cell?
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: Acebird on February 19, 2011, 09:37:40 am
Quote
Even the so-called fully regressed bees do not draw out full frames of small cell.

Bees do not have a CAD system or a CNC plotter to make every cell the same.  If they happen to make a few smaller cells in an area it may require them to make larger cells to complete the geometry.  If you or anyone else could define what natural cell is (ratio of small medium and large) we as humans can produce that pattern using CAD and CNC programming.  It appears to me as an inexperienced no nothing beekeeper that this would only matter in the brood chamber.  What difference does it make what size the cells are in the supers where the bees are temporally storing honey?

Michael, is Greenwood, NE any where near the Equator?  That might explain your smaller cells. :-D
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: buzzbee on February 19, 2011, 10:38:46 am
And I am sure you can find larger feral brood comb.In either case,the foundation size is what man has determined would be best for the bees.And as stated "regressed" as in assisted by man.
Man forcing bees into smaller and smaller cell size is no more natural than putting them on large cell.
 It was not meant to be an argument,but bees do not always select"small cell".If left to foundationless,often the cells and bees get smaller as the cocoons remnants in the cells start to build up. But the new drawn comb can be perceptably larger.
 If wanting to be more organic or natural, foundationless is the better step than man made foundation. It may not be as productive on yield while  comb building ,but ultimately the bees will be what they want,not what we dictate.
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: Acebird on February 19, 2011, 11:43:04 am
Quote
If you or anyone else could define what natural cell is (ratio of small medium and large) we as humans can produce that pattern using CAD and CNC programming.


I am not suggesting dictating to the bees.  I am suggesting giving them what they would do on their own.  With a hundred years of beekeeping in the past you would think that the ratio of small, medium and large cell sizes would be a known.  Producing it is no harder than producing foundation of any given size.
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: deknow on February 19, 2011, 01:21:12 pm
...what bees would do "on their own" is tend to build up large enough to swarm...then swarm.  as beekeepers, we redirect this into surplus honey production...by adding boxes, providing empty comb (or frames, or foundation), by splitting hives, etc.

I'm a big fan of natural comb....most of our frames are natural comb, and we started doing this _before_ we had even heard of small cell.

The problem is, that "natural comb" built by bees that are enlarged via large foundation/comb continue to build larger comb, even in a foundationless system.

see Dr. Erikson discussing this in 1989 here:
http://beeuntoothers.com/index.php/resources/dr-erickson-sc (http://beeuntoothers.com/index.php/resources/dr-erickson-sc)

Quote
A few things to think about the article below:

1. "worker - comb measures very nearly 5 cells to the inch" and "true worker - comb generally contained five cells within the space of an inch" means that the size of worker comb is measured by the author as smaller than 5.08.

2. The last paragraph _seems_ to say that there was a push in 1888 to make the bees larger, that the author didn't think it possible simply by increasing foundation size...unless breeding were also brought into it. That the biggest problem was the propensity of larger bees to make too many drones, and that the use of all worker foundation overcame this hurdle, opening up the possibility to make the bees bigger.

I dictated and typed this right out of the original volume.

deknow

The ABC of Bee Culture

A Cyclopaeoia of Every Thing
Pertaining to the Care of the Honey Bee;
Bees, Honey, Hives, Implements, Honey-Plants, Etc.,

PAGES GLEANED FROM THE EXPERIENCE OF THOUSANDS OF BEE KEEPERS ALL OVER OUR LAND

And Afterward Verified by Practical Work in Our Own Apiary.

BY A. I. ROOT.
MEDINA, OHIO:

1888

Under: HONEY-COMB
Pages: 163-164

DIFFERENT KINDS OF CELLS IN THE HONEY - COMB

The bees build two distinct, regular sizes - drone and workers cells. The worker - comb measures very nearly 5 cells to the inch, on average. Some specimens average a little larger, and some little smaller; but when the comb is that all irregular, it is quite apt to be a little larger. That's specimens of true worker - comb generally contained five cells within the space of an inch, and therefore this measure has been adopted for the comb foundation. If there are five cells to the inch, a square inch would give, on average, about 25 cells, and 25 on the opposite side would make 50 young bees that would be hatched from every square inch of solid brood. As foundation is so much more regular than natural comb, we get a great many more bees and a given surface of comb, and here, at least, we can fairly claim that we have improved on nature.

The drone - comb measures just about 4 cells to the inch, but to be seen less particular about the size of it then with the worker. They very often seem to make the cells of such size as to best fill out a given space; and we, accordingly, find them of all sizes, from workers size all the way up to considerably larger than 1/4 of an inch in width. Drones are raised in these extra-large cells without trouble, and Honey is also stored in them; but where they are very large the bees are compelled to turn them up, or the honey would flow out. As the honey is kept in place by capillary action, if the cells exceed a certain size, the adhesion of the liquid to the wax walls is insufficient, of itself, to hold the honey in place. Where drones are to be reared in the very large cells, the bees contract the mouth by a thick rim. As an experiment, I had some plates made for producing small sheets of fdn., having only 3 1/2 cells to the inch. The bees worked on a few of these, the same thick rims, but they evidently did not like the idea very well, for they tried to make workers cells of some of it, it proved so much of a complication for their little heads that they finally abandoned the whole piece of comb, apparently in disgust. Bees sometimes rear worker brood in drone comb, where compelled to from want of room, and they always do it in the way I have mentioned, like contracting the mouth of the cells, and leaving the young bees are rather large birth in which to grow and develop. Drones are sometimes reared in workers cells also, but they are so much cramped in growth that they seldom look like a fully developed insect.

Several times it has been suggested that we enlarge the race of honey - bees, by giving them larger cells; and some circumstances seem to indicate that something may be done in this direction, although I have little hope of any permanent enlargement in size, unless we combined with the idea of selecting the largest bees to propagate from, as given a few figures back. By making the cells smaller than ordinarily, we can get small bees with very little trouble; and I have seen a whole nucleus of bees so small is to be really laughable, just because the comb they were hatched from, was set at an angle so that one side was concave and the other convex. The small bees came from the concave side. Their light, active movements, as they sported in front of the hive, made them a pretty and amusing site for those fond of curiosities. Worker bees reared in drone cells are, if I'm correct, sometimes extra-large in size; but as to whether we can make them permanently larger by such a course, I'm inclined to doubt. The difficulty, at present seems to be the tendency to rearing a greater quantity of useless drones. By having the hive furnished entirely with worker comb, we can so nearly prevent the production of drones that is safe enough to call it a complete remedy.

Quote
PRACTICAL TREATISE
ON THE
HIVE AND HONEY-BEE
BY
L. L. LANGSTROTH;
FOURTH EDITION
1884

COMB
Page 74
The size of the cells in which workers are reared never varies; the saying may substantially be said of the drone - cells, which are much larger; those in which honey is stored very greatly in-depth, while in diameter they are of all sizes, from that of worker to that of drone cells. As 5 worker, or 4 drone cells, will measure about one linear inch, a square inch of comb will contain on each side, 25 worker, were 16 drone cells.

Quote
from:
"The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Beekeeping"
Edited by Roger A. Morse, and Ted Hooper
(this particular text appears to be written by the editors)
1985

Page 79
"BEESWAX is used to build hexagonal cells with three faced bases. Normal honeycomb is of two sizes: worker comb has cells 1/5 inch (5mm) in diameter, and drone comb has cells 1/4 inch (6mm) across"


from:
"First Lessons IN BEEKEEPING"
By C. P. Dadant
Revised and rewritten by
M. G. Dadant AND J. C. Dadant

Revised and Reprinted 1946
Reprinted 1947

Page 30
"The cells in which the worker bees are reared measure about five to the inch or a trifle over twenty-seven to the square inch. The cells in which drones are reared measure four to the inch."

from: http://www.dave-cushman.net/bee/denwood.html (http://www.dave-cushman.net/bee/denwood.html)
Quote
Baudoux was an experienced beekeeper who made extensive measurements to back up his theories, but he had his detractors as well as his supporters. He was accused of adhering to the Lamarckian theory of evolution which claimed that characters acquired in one lifetime could be inherited by subsequent generations: a theory which was eventually discredited in favour of the Darwin/Mendel one. Even if the accusation is true it need not invalidate the theory that large cells produce large bees in a given generation. Also a peculiarity of the way bees produce comb may give a pseudo-Lamarckian effect, as I shall suggest below.

The controversy was followed up by researchers in many countries, most of whom concluded that the size of cells does indeed affect the size of the bees reared in them, though not necessarily to the degree that Baudoux had claimed. Much of the research was reviewed by Roy A. Grout who also made extensive measurements for his M.Sc. Thesis. He concluded in 1931 (among other things) that:
    "1. The size of the worker bee as represented by the size of the various parts is significantly increased through the use of brood combs containing enlarged cells.

    2. The average percent of increase of the linear measurements of the worker bee is directly proportional to the percent of increase of the diameter of the brood cell.

    3. The number of bees used in a sample in this experiment is not large enough to give wholly consistent results, but these results are in general significant and indicative."
On the question of whether, other things being equal, big bees are better than small ones, authorities continued to be divided, as indeed they still are. Some of the opinions on both sides were backed up by extensive experiments. Already before 1910 a Frenchman called Pincot reported independently of Baudoux that over two years, 30 colonies with large cells gathered 30% more honey than others. In 1965 C. Antonescu in Romania concluded after over 20 years of tests that:
    "Experiments with a large cell honey-comb in the conditions of the Socialist Republic of Romania (5.65 mm [about 720 per dm2. Ed.]) show that a large scale introduction of such honey-combs represents an important reserve for the increase of the bee-hive's productivity in all sectors. [Average yield increase 11.1-16.9%] To this aim it is necessary that the honey-comb should be build [sic] up first - during intense harvesting - in other colonies or in the respective colonies for honey-storage, and only afterwards it should be used for brood breeding."
On the other hand Marcel Arnst, a later compatriot of Baudoux, wrote in 1996:
    "I, myself, together with other beekeepers, often compared colonies on 750 cell foundation at a comb distance of 37 mm with colonies on natural built comb at a distance of 34 mm. The 'natural' colonies were always stronger, developed faster and had less winter loss. As a result, they gave more honey (an average of 20% in my apiary of 30 beehives). The bees were also healthier: This past year there was an outbreak of chalkbrood, only the 'natural colonies' had no trace. If foundation with the natural number of cells (±850) was available, I would fit all my hives with it."

Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: deknow on February 19, 2011, 01:27:17 pm
sorry...meant to post this from the cushman site as well (this is perhaps the most important point wrt what "natural cell" is):

Quote
At the same time one can also see how bees might tend to build similarly-sized cells to those in which they were themselves reared, independently or partly so of their genetic makeup. If bees
     a) are affected by the size of the cells in which they were reared; and
     b) use parts of their own bodies to gauge the size of the cells they are building (which seems to be the case), then necessarily that size will bear a relationship to the size of the cells built by the previous generation. Thus what might seem to be a genetic effect is in fact an environmental one. The bees are not genetically any different and yet they can pass on an acquired character to the next generation in a pseudo-Lamarckian way.

This has the important corollary that the "natural" cell size found in a colony which has been allowed to build its own comb (not from foundation) may actually be the size of the foundation used by the beekeeper from which the colony swarmed or was otherwise derived. Possibly this effect could persist over many generations, perhaps indefinitely.
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: T Beek on February 19, 2011, 05:50:34 pm
deKnow, you never cease to amaze.  Thanks.  I've been foundationless or "natural" going on five seasons so far and will never turn back.  What for?????? :-D

thomas

Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: Bee Happy on February 19, 2011, 11:41:10 pm
Keeping in mind I'm still a noob at beekeeping - I wonder if they begin by building a certain size comb in the nest - "natural" (5.0mm?) and then the cell walls thicken from "generations" of bee brood; with the cocoons accumulating as time passes - Making for smaller and smaller bees?
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: deknow on February 20, 2011, 12:16:41 am
yes, certainly cells get smaller with buildup of cocoons.

one of the issues is that it depends on what is being measured.  if you go and read the article i quoted from at dave cushman's website, there are citations to some of marla spivak's work in south america, looking at comb from bees that have never had foundation.  i've never seen the primary source, but heard it cited several times. the thing is, even in the article at cushman's site, it seems that "average cell size" may well be different than "average brood cell size".  i found an affordable copy of the book by spivak et al, and have ordered it so i can follow back some of the references cited there, and to read what was actually said.

wrt "natural" cell size, pretty much all the old books agree that worker cells are 5 cells to the inch or slightly smaller...5 cells to the inch is 5.08mm.

deknow
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: T Beek on February 20, 2011, 09:08:30 am
On another level bees are like us (I know, this contradicts some of my other posts negating such comparisons, but bare with me a minute). 

Humans have all kinds of reasons for the types and size of dwellings we reside in with 'different sized  rooms for different uses.  It can then be assumed that honeybees also "like to choose" cell size rather than leaving it up to humans, who are mostly clueless as to the bees needs (at least when it comes to cell size). 

Frankly, since going foundationless I've never understood the debate, if honeybees prefer to make their own comb and make it better than some company can, with less contaminants, and that's specific to "their" needs, then why not let them just make their own comb? 

This is the argument that cemented my core belief in foundationless and freed me from ever buying that stuff again.  Bees don't want it and they sure don't need it (and don't get me going on "plastic" :-D).  I've seen nothing in the last five years that would convince me otherwise, sorry.

Why any beek would knowingly support that part of the "industry??" is beyond me.

thomas
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: Acebird on February 20, 2011, 09:53:01 am
Quote
If foundation with the natural number of cells (±850) was available, I would fit all my hives with it."

If I understand all this forcing the bees on all small cell will decrease drone production.  What is the down side of this?
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: Robo on February 20, 2011, 09:53:29 am
Frankly, since going foundationless I've never understood the debate, if honeybees prefer to make their own comb and make it better than some company can, with less contaminants, and that's specific to "their" needs, then why not let them just make their own comb? 


I don't have a problem letting the bees build what best fit "their" needs. Funny thing is, most of those who are such proponents of letting the bees do what is best with building comb,  have total opposite position of the bees when it comes to ventilation :?

Seems like we are all for letting the bees do what they want when it fits our beliefs.
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: T Beek on February 20, 2011, 10:21:15 am
That's right Robo, and 'none' of us is exempt, none.
 
Not sure what was meant by your ventilation comment though, seems judgemental, but w/out explanation.  

Don't most of us keep bees in some kind of human created box and managed under human standards, first and formost???? Except folks like Te-te that is :-D

thomas
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: Bee Happy on February 20, 2011, 10:29:26 am
...jeez - put ONE garbage bag over a hive to keep the rain out ...  :roll: ...and you're a pariah among beekeepers forever...
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: Kathyp on February 20, 2011, 10:47:39 am
Quote
opposite position of the bees when it comes to ventilation

i don't  ;)
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: Robo on February 20, 2011, 11:45:53 am
Not sure what was meant by your ventilation comment though, seems judgemental, but w/out explanation.  

My point is if folks are so hung up on letting the bees do what they want since they know better than we, why do a majority of folks force upper ventilation and even screened bottom boards on the bees.  I have never seen a feral colony that didn't attempt to seal off their nest cavity.  I have even had hives completely propolize the screens in a vent box.  Put swarm traps with screened bottoms next to swarm traps with solid bottoms and see which they prefer. 

Now I'm not saying cell size is not important, and that man knows more about it than bees,but I personally don't put it higher on the list than nest heat and scent retention,  which a majority of us obviously do.   Why is that?   We have all heard the mantra "Cold doesn't kill bees, moisture does"  but I have yet to see a feral colony sacrifice heat and scent retention as part of moisture control.  Don't take this personally,  I don't know your thoughts/practices on heat and scent retention. My comments are based on the generally accepted practices expressed in the forum.  Just sayin.....

judgemental?
Quote
Why any beek would knowingly support that part of the "industry??" is beyond me.

Quote
That's right Robo, and 'none' of us is exempt, none.
That's is right. If foundationless works for you, that's great.  But like anything in beekeeping, what works for some doesn't work for others.  As shown in this thread, many beekeepers are successfully keeping bees on large cell without medicating or using pesticides/miticides.
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: lenape13 on February 20, 2011, 12:40:48 pm
...jeez - put ONE garbage bag over a hive to keep the rain out ...  :roll: ...and you're a pariah among beekeepers forever...

I know of a man who lost one of his best hives because the old lady who owned the property was worried about them over the winter months and wrapped them in a quilt.  Well-meaning, but the quilt got drenched, froze solid, and of course killed the hive.  He was upset, but couldn't bring himself to tell the woman about it.  He didn't want her to feel bad about it.  Lesson learned:  bees surrounded by a frozen block of ice don't stand much of a chance....
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: T Beek on February 20, 2011, 12:43:30 pm
Robo, So, I guess what you're saying then is that unlike honeybees,  'beeks are as different as people are different', right?? :-D :-D :-D 

I suppose you could've asked "why do we do 'anything' with honeybees?"

thomas
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: deknow on February 20, 2011, 01:39:53 pm
Robo,
Your point is well taken...but a bit inconsistent.

The most attractive swarm trap (about the volume of a single deep if I remember correctly), is nearly useless for honey production. 
Knowing what the bees choose for a nest is helpful when designing a swarm trap, but nearly irrelevant when actually managing bees for production.

I've certainly used and talked about using screened bottoms and top entrances...but I'm far from convinced that this is "better" or even "helpful".  Our best overwintering colonies seem to have open screen bottoms all winter...but we have also had good luck with other configurations as well.

Natural nests have no frames, no airflow around the outside of the combs, no combs are ever moved or culled...no cells are ever exposed to the outside air and UV from the sun, no queen is ever pinched or "introduced", never split, never had queen cells harvested, etc.

I was once asked (I think on a TBH or Warre forum) if we buy treatment free honey from TBH's or Warre hives....my answer was that we had never been offered treatment free honey from such systems, but would certainly buy it (even by the pail if barrels were not available).  I have a pretty good idea of what bulk honey sells for, and we pay top $$$...yet, still, no one has ever even tried to sell us honey from anything other than a Langstroth hive (and we get samples sent to us from far and wide).  I think that such "more natural" configurations are fine, but I don't know of anyone making a living from them.

deknow
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: Robo on February 20, 2011, 02:21:06 pm
Dean,

I don't disagree with anything you said.   My point being that we hear a lot of folks using "I'll let the bees do what is natural to them"  when it comes to comb building and are in disbelief why anyone would not choose to do the same.  But, THEY are inconsistent when it comes to other things like ventilation.  I have no problem with people choosing to do whatever fits their management style/purpose.  What does get to me is when they believe their way is the "best" for everyone.

Trust me,  I can differentiate the difference between a hobbyist and a commercial beek.   I choose not to medicate any of my colonies.  But I also understand why the big time commercial guys do.   Let's face it.  If all my colonies die, it will impact me, but I still can provide food and support my family.   The commercial guys depend on their bees to provide for their families.  Big difference.  These commercial operations don't want to treat either,  they are just stuck between a rock and a hard place.  It is easy for folks whose family doesn't depended on the survival of the bees to look negatively on the commercial guys who treat, but I'm not one of them.

You posted some very informative information on foundation making from Dee and Kirk Webster in another post.   I would like to hear why they don't go foundationless, if you know? It is not trivial to make ones own foundation,  time wise or the financial investment in equipment, so they must have a good reason.   I think it would be a great addition to this discussion.
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: Bee Happy on February 20, 2011, 03:04:46 pm
...jeez - put ONE garbage bag over a hive to keep the rain out ...  :roll: ...and you're a pariah among beekeepers forever...

I know of a man who lost one of his best hives because the old lady who owned the property was worried about them over the winter months and wrapped them in a quilt.  Well-meaning, but the quilt got drenched, froze solid, and of course killed the hive.  He was upset, but couldn't bring himself to tell the woman about it.  He didn't want her to feel bad about it.  Lesson learned:  bees surrounded by a frozen block of ice don't stand much of a chance....
That had to be hard to take.
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: T Beek on February 20, 2011, 03:08:39 pm
C'mon Robo, did someone actually say their way was the "best" way for everyone?  Seems like your putting way to much into this man.

Why can't some beeks just accept that foundationless (or natural) works GREAT for some of us who've tried it?  I'm telling you, I (just me now) love letting my bees make their own comb and I aint turning back brothers and sisters :-D  Uh-uh, no-way.

Although I might understand 'why' some commercial outfits use certain practices, I'm not gonna start excusing or forgiving them for those techniques that contribute little besides higher profits and more sick bees, sorry but bees aren't cattle and "some" commercial (bee barons) enterprizes are awful to their bees, as are some cattle barons.  

thomas
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: Acebird on February 20, 2011, 04:03:58 pm
Quote
have total opposite position of the bees when it comes to ventilation

I think the shape of the natural hive keeps moisture away from the bees.  This natural shape is not conducive to working with the bees so ventilation in a square box becomes necessary.
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: Robo on February 20, 2011, 04:20:50 pm
Quote
have total opposite position of the bees when it comes to ventilation

I think the shape of the natural hive keeps moisture away from the bees.  This natural shape is not conducive to working with the bees so ventilation in a square box becomes necessary.

What is a natural shape of a hive?  Is 2x4 stud wall a natural shape?  How about a dresser drawer or rock foundation? An owl nesting box?  I've seen ferals in many different cavities and they all seem to approach it the same when it comes to ventilation.
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: windfall on February 20, 2011, 09:21:15 pm
I for one am quite interested in this turn of the conversation. In searching through old threads the past month or two I have seen robo reference these more closed feral hives repeatedly. It makes perfect sense to me that a creature that utilizes scent and heat the way bees do would attempt to isolate their environment. And it seem to jibe with a number of schools of thought related to the warre sytem.
I also see (as deknow points out) that most/all keepers are trying to push the behavior of the hive outside the norm in order to generate surplus, and clearly many experienced beekeepers are having good success with open SBB and top ventilation. Is this a function of a hive made form thin walls and low thermal mass? Is it an outgrowth of a push to generate profitable surplus? Certainly I can't begin to answer these questions myself (yet). But i would love to hear the input of those with more experience.
I do have to say I hear what robo is saying about contradiction in folks singing the virtues of allowing bees to do what they want...in comb construction, but then forcing /placing the hive into a venting arrangement that is rare if ever in duplicated in nature (open SBB and top entrance together).
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: Countryboy on February 20, 2011, 09:41:24 pm
If I understand all this forcing the bees on all small cell will decrease drone production.  What is the down side of this?

Would you care to cite your source of this misinformation?  The bees decide how many drones to raise, and they will find a way to do it, one way or another.

I have never seen a feral colony that didn't attempt to seal off their nest cavity.

I have.  I've even seen colonies build open air hives that are completely exposed.  I've seen colonies in hollow trees with 6 inch openings.  I've seen bees in hollow trees with the tree split up the side for 6 feet - the bees made it look more like a net of propolis, with it having more holes than propolis filling the crack.  To be honest, most feral hives I've seen did very little to seal off multiple or large entrances.

Lesson learned:  bees surrounded by a frozen block of ice don't stand much of a chance....

I think it depends on how long the bees are encapsulated.  I had a couple of single deep hives this year have their entrances get drifted over, and then we had a couple nasty ice storms.  These hives did not have an upper entrance - no inner cover, and the styrofoam lid was sealed securely.  These hives had no ventilation, and both of them survived just fine.  I mentioned this to a retired commercial beekeeper from Canada, and he said he always worried about hives that were encapsulated in ice, but he didn't know of ever losing any from it.

Natural nests have no frames, no airflow around the outside of the combs, no combs are ever moved or culled

Natural configurations usually have combs oriented at an angle (often close to 45 degrees) to the entrance too.  I don't know that I have ever seen a natural colony whose combs were aligned straight on with the entrance, like a Lang, where a straight wind could blow right between combs either.
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: buzzbee on February 20, 2011, 09:55:34 pm
Just out of curiousity,how many of the open air feral  hives survived the winter in the north?  I have never seen one here in PA.
And on the reduction of drones,if a colony needs drones they will build drone comb between boxes and between frames or anywhere they can build comb if  needed.
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: Kathyp on February 20, 2011, 09:58:54 pm
only hive i have seen/removed that wasn't sealed well was one in a tree from last year.  picked up a nice swarm, but left the hive.  the tree did have a big split, but the hive itself was well above the split and protected.  

my thought on the ventilation thing is that folks in a wet area (like mine) lost hives over the years, opened them up and saw a wet and yucky clump, and drew the conclusion that the bees got wet and died.  in fact, the bees died and then got wet....   :-D  that's my opinion and i'm stickin to it!

no doubt that water dripping on the cluster in winter would be a bad thing, but even in the wettest of weather, the bees will manage the moisture if the cluster is of adequate size and the hive is warm enough.  heat also may play a part in disease control.  read a report a few years ago about the importance of high temps in hive to combat chalkbrood.  at that time i was having quite a problem with it.  over the summer i did not open the tops on the hive no matter how hot it got.  next year, no chalkbrood after a couple of years of fighting it.  can i prove it was the heat?  no, but i learned that the bees can manage the heat with no help also  ;)
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: Countryboy on February 20, 2011, 10:43:22 pm
Just out of curiousity,how many of the open air feral  hives survived the winter in the north?

There was a small swarm start to make an open air colony in a tree in my yard before I started beekeeping.  (They really helped to build my interest.)  It took 2 strong thunderstorms to wipe them out.  The first storm weakened them quite a bit, and the followup storm knocked down 2 or 3 combs.

A guy in the beeclub found an open air colony while deer hunting the end of Nov/beginning of Dec.  It was about the size of a basketball, and appeared to be a late season swarm.  It was alive at that point, but had died by New Year's.  He cut it out of the bush and brought it to a beekeeping class we just had.

I have seen a hive in a hollow log that was on its side.  It had a 2 foot hollow.  The bees made no effort to seal that off, and they overwintered.  That is the closest to an open air hive that I have seen overwinter around here, but they did have overhead protection.
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: JP on February 21, 2011, 01:19:09 am
This smallish external colony survived one of our coldest winters on record, even one night where it got down to 21F and froze everything in site.

I first observed it in January of 2010, let them over winter and removed them in March. The hive actually grew in size, how is a mystery to me.

http://picasaweb.google.com/112138792165178452970/March122010#5447932307370005122 (http://picasaweb.google.com/112138792165178452970/March122010#5447932307370005122)

About six years ago I removed a very large external colony that was attached to the underside of a porch but very close to an entrance that had been there three years.

Some of you may remember this one, it had eight inches of lawnmower handle imbedded in it.

https://picasaweb.google.com/pyxicephalus/BeePics03#4949323001457672210 (https://picasaweb.google.com/pyxicephalus/BeePics03#4949323001457672210)

https://picasaweb.google.com/pyxicephalus/BeePics03#4949323058831753234 (https://picasaweb.google.com/pyxicephalus/BeePics03#4949323058831753234)


...JP

Here's another good pic of that lawnmower hive: https://picasaweb.google.com/pyxicephalus/BeePics03#4949325919030804498 (https://picasaweb.google.com/pyxicephalus/BeePics03#4949325919030804498)
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: Acebird on February 21, 2011, 12:08:50 pm
Quote
Would you care to cite your source of this misinformation?

Maybe I misunderstood this quote.

Quote
COMB
Page 74
The size of the cells in which workers are reared never varies; the saying may substantially be said of the drone - cells, which are much larger; those in which honey is stored very greatly in-depth, while in diameter they are of all sizes, from that of worker to that of drone cells. As 5 worker, or 4 drone cells, will measure about one linear inch, a square inch of comb will contain on each side, 25 worker, were 16 drone cells.
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: deknow on February 21, 2011, 01:51:54 pm
...I don't really see how that quote relates to what you said.

The last passage of the Root quote that I posted, however, seems to say that larger cells will tend to encourage too many drones, but using a uniform foundation that is "large worker" size (an not quite "drone" size), eliminates this problem.

deknow
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: organicfarmer on February 21, 2011, 03:14:00 pm
I have talked to ms. berry after the state bee meeting when she said small cell was bunk. I had offered her chemical free wax to use in here study. to say organic beekeepers would have harsh chemical in there bees wax is bunk======gotta watch who's toes you step on when your receiving millions in grants.

well I am off my soap box now====sorry :mrgreen: :roll: :-D

Don,
May i use your soap box?
do you mean scientists could be influenced by who grant them the monies? I can't believe that. :-D
Actually research (on research) has shown just that: biased results, docted up numbers... to fit the 'donor's' intent. Let's ask for accountability and transparency. Such as source of major funding for U-Penn labs who are doing work on bees and chems.
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: Countryboy on February 21, 2011, 09:00:46 pm
Quote
Would you care to cite your source of this misinformation?

Maybe I misunderstood this quote.

Quote
COMB
Page 74
The size of the cells in which workers are reared never varies; the saying may substantially be said of the drone - cells, which are much larger; those in which honey is stored very greatly in-depth, while in diameter they are of all sizes, from that of worker to that of drone cells. As 5 worker, or 4 drone cells, will measure about one linear inch, a square inch of comb will contain on each side, 25 worker, were 16 drone cells.


I have no idea where you pulled that quote from, nor do I have any idea why you think it has any relevance to my request for you to cite your source, as that quote says nothing to support your claim that small cell will reduce drone production. 

It is also misinformation that the size of the cell worker are raised in never varies - if that were true, bees would refuse to raise worker brood in any size cell other than the exact 'proper' size.  Next you are going to tell me that drones are never raised in worker cells either...

Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: Acebird on February 22, 2011, 09:47:06 am
Duke it out with deknow he posted the original quote.
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: Countryboy on February 22, 2011, 10:55:38 pm
Duke it out with deknow he posted the original quote.

Please show me where he posted that putting bees on small cell will decrease drone production.

In post #52 he used a quote which said that larger bees had the propensity to raise too many drones, but that is not the same thing that you said in post #58 about forcing bees on small cell decreasing drone production.

Deknow did not make post #58 - Acebird did.

So where do you get the idea that putting bees on small cell will decrease drone production?
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: Acebird on February 23, 2011, 10:19:21 am
Quote
The difficulty, at present seems to be the tendency to rearing a greater quantity of useless drones. By having the hive furnished entirely with worker comb, we can so nearly prevent the production of drones that is safe enough to call it a complete remedy.

Reply #52
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: VolunteerK9 on February 23, 2011, 11:05:19 am
Although I have absolutely nothing intellectually stimulating to add to this subject, my reasons for using SC are simple. More cells per square inch=potentially more bees per frame. Anything else beneficial is just gravy on the biscuits for me. And I'm not worried about room for drones. Ive got drone cells in burr comb, around the bottoms of frames that weren't completely drawn out plus the foundationless frames dispersed everywhere else but I guess those are a different subject.
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: deknow on February 23, 2011, 11:37:41 am
Reply #52
errr, you have to put it in context in order to understand what Root was talking about.  He is talking about using using drone comb for making large workers...which will also lead to a large number of drones.  The remedy he is referring to is using large foundation that isn't so large as to be considered drone comb by the bees....but large enough to make for larger workers.

Quote
Worker bees reared in drone cells are, if I'm correct, sometimes extra-large in size; but as to whether we can make them permanently larger by such a course, I'm inclined to doubt. The difficulty, at present seems to be the tendency to rearing a greater quantity of useless drones. By having the hive furnished entirely with worker comb, we can so nearly prevent the production of drones that is safe enough to call it a complete remedy.
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: Acebird on February 23, 2011, 05:56:59 pm
I don’t know.  I keep reading it and to me it implies that drone production will decrease if the bees are on all worker cells.  In post #58 I was asking a question because I wasn’t sure what the gist of the whole post was.  I am sure there were other newbies that didn’t grasp everything that was in post #52.

Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: Kathyp on February 23, 2011, 06:06:00 pm
a good question would be why do you want reduced drone production? 
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: Acebird on February 23, 2011, 06:14:49 pm
I don't know you tell me.  I thought some people didn't want drones eating up all the stores.  Didn't the quote say the drones were useless?
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: Robo on February 23, 2011, 06:16:57 pm
I don’t know.  I keep reading it and to me it implies that drone production will decrease if the bees are on all worker cells

Ah, but that is not what you said.
Quote
If I understand all this forcing the bees on all small cell will decrease drone production.

Small cell has no more of an effect on drone production that 5.2 foundation.
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: Acebird on February 23, 2011, 08:22:54 pm
Super you got a newbie on a technicality.  Give this man a badge.
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: Robo on February 23, 2011, 09:15:06 pm
Sorry I tried to point out the root of the confusion/contention.   Now I remember why I went into ignore mode,  I shall now return there...............
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: Countryboy on February 23, 2011, 09:31:07 pm
I'm a firm believer that God gave me 2 ears and 1 mouth for a reason - that I should listen twice as much as I talk, especially if I am new to something.  When you are a beginner at something, it is a time for learning, and not a time for teaching.  It is better to appear an idiot, than to foolishly open ones mouth, and remove all doubt.
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: deknow on February 24, 2011, 12:06:16 am
Super you got a newbie on a technicality.  Give this man a badge.
this isn't debate class.  he didn't "get you on a technicality", he pointed out (precisely) where you are (or were) confused/mistaken.  If you are truly here to learn, you should be thanking him for his help instead of lashing out sarcastically.

deknow
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: Acebird on February 24, 2011, 09:25:53 am
Quote
When you are a beginner at something, it is a time for learning, and not a time for teaching.  It is better to appear an idiot, than to foolishly open ones mouth, and remove all doubt.

You have your ways and I have mine.  Other newbies learn at my expense along with me.  It is your belief that curtails newbies from learning.  It is called suppression.
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: backyard warrior on February 24, 2011, 07:03:14 pm
I really dont think anyone knows how to keep the bees healthy and alive honestly we debate this and that and what works and what doesnt.  In my eyes i dont think anything works we are losing bees and if all these senior beekeepers had it figured out it would be out there and beekeeping clubs and the goverment would make sure we all would be doing the right thing. I never saw anything in my life that has been around for so many years and yet everyone has a different theory to what works and what doesn't, so this tells me that this is a fairly new problem which seemed to start when the mites arrived and the increased use of chemicals in the food industry to produce large amounts of crops to feed the population.  So why is it the goverment pays farmers not to farm fields so they dont flood the market with large amounts of produce and bring down crop prices which will make it so they cant survive which would mean more supply than demand, why not stop pesticides and let the farmers farm all their fields and make an average income off all their land without chemicals and not recieve money to not farm fields apparently they are producing more than they are losing and therefore we dont need all the food we are capable of  providing with chemical control of pests on crops.  Back to the subject   :-X  Years ago when there wasnt any mites when i was in grade school in the 80s people had loads of honey and bees including my brothers ex girlfriends father he stoped keeping bees because of the losses and recently started up again and says its a whole different ball game compared to when he had bees he said " they made lots of honey and bees and i didnt have to do anything to them".  I really dont think the gov or the senior beeks know what to do or what works thats just my opinion.  I think local stock and survivor genetics is a start in the right direction. Mass producing bees and queens on fake pollen patties and dispersing them nationwide is all about money, not the health of the bees but quanity of bees to make up for all our losses.  :roll: The people need to wake up and realize this patch isnt going to work forever we need to get to the bottom of these issues like Bjorn has said and is saying trying to get something going with a petition.  :-\
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: tillie on February 25, 2011, 12:47:53 am
I just checked into this thread and had no idea when I started it a month ago that it would still be alive and kicking. 

What is obvious from the discussion is what we all know:  in beekeeping there isn't a right answer.  That's why the ongoing joke is ask 10 beekeepers a question and you'll get at least 10 different answers.

Tossing around ideas on this forum is a gift to all of us because if we can stay open to new ideas when they are presented, we might find that they are interesting ideas we wouldn't have thought of on our own.

At the same time, it is a peaceful place to discuss our differences and learn from each other.

Personally I'm glad for all I've gained from the many members here who have chosen to chime in when I have a worry or a question.

Thank you, Beemaster, for providing all of us with a place to explore our differences and hear the ideas of other beekeepers.

Linda T in Atlanta
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: Acebird on February 25, 2011, 09:30:31 am
Quote
I never saw anything in my life that has been around for so many years and yet everyone has a different theory to what works and what doesn't,

You see the same thing happening to the polar ice caps.  You can't screw around with mother nature and win in the long run.
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: T Beek on February 25, 2011, 09:32:37 am
 :?

thomas
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: Humanbeeing on February 28, 2011, 12:22:42 am
http://www.honeybeesuite.com/?p=2796 (http://www.honeybeesuite.com/?p=2796)
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: Robo on February 28, 2011, 09:12:41 am
http://www.honeybeesuite.com/?p=2796 (http://www.honeybeesuite.com/?p=2796)
The definitive paper on the subject by Berry, Owens, and Delaplane can be downloaded here.

Say's who :?
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: rdy-b on March 04, 2011, 01:14:15 am
http://www.ent.uga.edu/bees/documents/m08138.pdf (http://www.ent.uga.edu/bees/documents/m08138.pdf)
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: Humanbeeing on March 04, 2011, 02:41:31 am
First time I watched the videos of Dee Lusby working her bees, I knew they were Africanized. Dean Stiglitz seems to be beside himself and Ramona appeared just a bit nervous. It may have happened so gradually, that Dee didn't notice. All the same though, she does a fantastic job with them, so take notes. We may all be working Africanized bees some day.
It's all mind over matter. If you don't mind, it don't matter.
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: deknow on March 04, 2011, 03:45:05 am
errrr, ok...i can't argue with how things "seemed like" to you.  but having been there, i'll tell you that my biggest concern while filming was to avoid the teddy bear cholla (a cactus with gazillions of tiny, painful, barbed spines) that is everywhere underfoot and hard to avoid when you are framing video on a screen, going through 100+ hives/day, trying to learn from dee while staying out of her way, trying to get actual work done (none of this was staged or setup....it was filmed during the course of dee's routine spring workup, doing splits without smoke), all the while trying my best to accurately narrate what was happening and why...without a script, and without any foresight as to what will be in the box when they are opened, as this was the first inspection since the fall.

it's worth noting that neither of us are "thrill seekers" by any means (we don't even climb ladders higher than 5 or 6 feet), yet here we are, back at dee's for the 5th time in 4 years.

deknow

Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: rdy-b on March 04, 2011, 11:05:25 pm
First time I watched the videos of Dee Lusby working her bees, I knew they were Africanized. Dean Stiglitz seems to be beside himself and Ramona appeared just a bit nervous. It may have happened so gradually, that Dee didn't notice. All the same though, she does a fantastic job with them, so take notes. We may all be working Africanized bees some day.
It's all mind over matter. If you don't mind, it don't matter.
Do you have a link --i have seen this video sometime ago but cant find a link
 what i saw -might not be what you saw -but those bees wernt that hot and just needed smoke-but you already know not to smoke your nurse bees off of comb you are useing for your splits--RDY-B
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: Michael Bush on March 04, 2011, 11:59:39 pm
Last time I was in Dee's yards and she was throwing boxes around and slamming them down, one of the other beeks with us asked "I wonder what they would act like if you treated them normally."  I said "let's see".  We walked away from the area where she was working, puffed a couple of puffs of smoke in the entrance of a strong looking hive, poped the top and blow a couple of puffs over the top and proceeded to do a typical inspection without any of them paying any attention...

Dee is often more interested in getting the work done quickly than getting it done gracefully.  She is single handedly managing between 600 and 1000 hives.  She doesn't have time to be graceful.  I've seen a few of her hives that were hotter than I would tolerate, and NONE of them that were as hot as some bees from some queens I got from Texas once... not even in the ballpark.  If the worst I ever had to deal with was the hottest of Dee's hives, I'd keep beekeeping.  If the only bees I could get were like those Texas bees, I would quit beekeeping.  It would take all the fun out it.

Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: deknow on March 05, 2011, 01:15:41 am
link here:
http://beeuntoothers.com/index.php/resources (http://beeuntoothers.com/index.php/resources)

...now that i have a vimeo account, i want to re do these, as the google video resolution is low, and it's hard to even see how many bees are on the topbars.

deknow
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: BlueBee on March 05, 2011, 03:35:36 am
Watched your video deknow.  I can sure HEAR a lot of bees.

Wow, does Dee have a lot of bees! 

I’m beginning to think she is a super woman lugging around deeps like that.  And you say she deals with 600+ hives.  That is amazing.

Any rattlers out there?  Might be kind of hard to hear with all those bees.  Watch your step  :)
 
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: deknow on March 05, 2011, 04:04:02 am
yes, there are rattlers...and mountain lions, venomous spiders....and drug smugglers.  it is the wild west.

deknow
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: Acebird on March 05, 2011, 11:07:37 am
yes, there are rattlers...and mountain lions, venomous spiders....and drug smugglers.  it is the wild west.

deknow

So all the boarder patrol has to do is set up hives on the border and spray the people crossing with pheromones?  Maybe a potato gun loaded with banana paste. :-D

Graceful!  She had to kill more bees than I have in my hive.  I can't imagine any hobbyist adopting her technique.
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: FRAMEshift on March 05, 2011, 11:20:44 am
http://www.ent.uga.edu/bees/documents/m08138.pdf (http://www.ent.uga.edu/bees/documents/m08138.pdf)
Definitive works in science are rare, and this is not one of them.  :-D   Notice a few things about these results:

Only one of the three trials went through the winter and 70% of those hives died.  Did they die from mites? 

Bee populations were higher in small cell.  Is that because the large cell hives went though a break in their brood cycles?

Total mite loads in all cases were below actionable levels.  That means that if these trials accurately replicated real-world experience, we should never have to treat for mites.  Since that is not true, it tells me that these trails do not completely mirror actual conditions that affect mite populations.   :?

I know that these comments are off subject for this thread, but unrefuted references to this paper keep popping up and may mislead many beeks.
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: Acebird on March 05, 2011, 11:44:30 am
 
Quote
we should never have to treat for mites.  Since that is not true,


How do you explain the cases where it is true?
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: FRAMEshift on March 05, 2011, 01:01:23 pm
Quote
we should never have to treat for mites.  Since that is not true,


How do you explain the cases where it is true?
I mean that most beekeepers who use standard foundation also end up treating for mites.  In the other cases, maybe it's genetics or maybe it's small cell.   My point was that the experimental trials did not document the lethal explosion of mites that is the reason for the research in the first place. 

If we lived in the world of low mite counts that resulted from the experimental conditions, nobody would ever have to treat for mites.  So something about the trials is not reflective of the real world.
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: FRAMEshift on March 05, 2011, 01:57:23 pm
yes, there are rattlers...and mountain lions, venomous spiders....and drug smugglers.  it is the wild west.

deknow
Speaking of the wild west, do I hear you saying at  about 47 minutes in the Mendoza Canyon video that you "had Dee ordained as a minister" to marry you and Ramona?  Yes, Arizona must be a wild and crazy place.

The vids are great but it sure would be nice to hear what Dee is saying.  I get the impression she is dropping pearls of wisdom but they are drowned out by the sound of the bees.  :-D

Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: Acebird on March 05, 2011, 03:13:43 pm
Quote
I get the impression she is dropping pearls of wisdom but they are drowned out by the sound of the bees.
 

This is not intended to make anyone mad but the vids as a learning tool are nearly hopeless.  If it were not for the camera man narrating what was on the frames you could mistake them for furnace filters.  It is nearly impossible to get adequate sound quality from a camera mike especially out doors.  Maybe this would have been an excellent opportunity to do a slide show presentation like what is on Linda's site.

From a newbee's prospective:
What I got from this film is that with a strong hive you can split it with no concerns at all.  Anything will work.
You can be as rough as you want handling bees if you don't mind 20-30 thousand bees flying at your head.

Again, I am not trying to discredit what was done but only give my prospective on what I saw.
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: Bee Happy on March 05, 2011, 04:13:04 pm
[...]avoid the teddy bear cholla (a cactus with gazillions of tiny, painful, barbed spines) that is everywhere underfoot and hard to avoid [...]

deknow


I remember when I was 7-ish and we moved from "back east" to Tucson (we already had family there) - and being terrified when on the way out to play with my cousin when my uncle said "Watch out for the 'Jumping Cactus'." I couldn't help but wonder what kind of demented landscape I had been uprooted to.
They don't really jump, but when you come home with six or seven segments on your back and no memory of getting near one.... - it was the teddy bear cholla.
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: skflyfish on March 09, 2011, 02:26:17 pm
@deknow,

In the video you talk about the orientation of the foundation-less frame based on the hosel, if I heard right. It was hard to hear with so many bees buzzing. ;-)

The foundation-less orientation is not covered in your book, so could you explain it here?

Thx,

Jay

link here:
http://beeuntoothers.com/index.php/resources (http://beeuntoothers.com/index.php/resources)

...now that i have a vimeo account, i want to re do these, as the google video resolution is low, and it's hard to even see how many bees are on the topbars.

deknow
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: deknow on March 09, 2011, 03:28:46 pm
...dee doesn't use foundationless frames (at all), so nothing in the videos were referring to foundationless frames.

deknow
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: Humanbeeing on March 09, 2011, 09:55:20 pm
I thought Africanized bees were already bred in to the bees in Arizona? That's what Dee Lusby says in the article. So how do you tell for sure, without wing samples? She also said that they are no problem for the beekeeping industry. That led me to assume her bees are too.
http://www.beesource.com/point-of-view/africanized-honey-bees/some-beekeepers-believe-killer-bees-are-fraud/ (http://www.beesource.com/point-of-view/africanized-honey-bees/some-beekeepers-believe-killer-bees-are-fraud/)
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: deknow on March 09, 2011, 10:13:12 pm
...seems to me that reading comprehension would be an important skill when one is paraphrasing an article or a study...apparantly not.

deknow
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: Humanbeeing on March 09, 2011, 10:39:56 pm
I guess I missed it completely. Sorry, but I wasn't putting Dee Lusby down. I find her to be an amazing person, one I would emmulate. And I certianly wasn't putting down Africanized bees. I wish I had some. Afterall, they seem to be doing much better than the kept population. They are doing what Natural Beekeepers wish they could do with their bees, surviving in great numbers. And since we now know that smaller cell size probably isn't the reason, I would love to have a few hives of them, just to see what they do differently.
I'm sorry if I mistook your excitability, in the video, for being overwhelmed by so many thousands of bees in the air. I would certainly be overwhelmed, but I know you are much more experianced than I.
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: Countryboy on March 09, 2011, 11:45:24 pm
In the video you talk about the orientation of the foundation-less frame based on the hosel, if I heard right.

Michael Bush has some information on Housel positioning on his website.

...seems to me that reading comprehension would be an important skill when one is paraphrasing an article or a study...apparantly not.

That's more like it.
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: skflyfish on March 10, 2011, 08:50:09 am
Thanks CB!

After deknow's an off the mark reply, I did a lot more Googling and found out it was Housel Positioning he was referring to, as you point out. There are a number of discussions on this board as well. It is an interesting phenomenon. I looked at a lot of drawn comb yesterday and found it hard to recognize.

The best article I found (with diagrams) was here. (http://www.beesource.com/point-of-view/ed-dee-lusby/more-on-small-cell-foundation-for-mite-control/housel-positioning-how-i-view-its-importance-to-beekeeping/)

Jay

p.s. BTW, I assumed the frames were foundation-less as a lot of them Dee pulled out in the videos had comb that either, wasn't attached to the side(s) of the frame, or the bottom of the frame, as are with some of my foundation-less frames.

In the video you talk about the orientation of the foundation-less frame based on the hosel, if I heard right.

Michael Bush has some information on Housel positioning on his website.
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: deknow on March 10, 2011, 11:18:36 am
Dee makes her own foundation, and ALWAYS leaves empty space at the bottom...this gives the bees an opurtunity to build the 10-15% drone comb that they will always try to build.  Many who have seen these videos have assumed that they were "set up", and that the burr comb that most beekeepers evenetually find between boxes had been scraped....this is not the case, Dee gives the bees plenty of room to build the drone comb they want, and therefore there is very little burr comb between boxes.

deknow
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: Humanbeeing on April 04, 2022, 06:50:40 pm
First time I watched the videos of Dee Lusby working her bees, I knew they were Africanized. Dean Stiglitz seems to be beside himself and Ramona appeared just a bit nervous. It may have happened so gradually, that Dee didn't notice. All the same though, she does a fantastic job with them, so take notes. We may all be working Africanized bees some day.
It's all mind over matter. If you don't mind, it don't matter.

11 years ago I posted this and boy did I get some flack! I?ve been in Arizona for quite some time now and the truth is, a huge percentage of the bees here are AHB. Just last week I removed a full on AHB from a gully in the desert. All I have are AHB. They are superb bees and bee yards 20 miles from the nearest town are cheap to buy! I wonder how Dee Lusby keeps those genetics away from her bees?
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: Ben Framed on April 04, 2022, 08:46:10 pm
Humanbeeing I was not here 11 years ago but I am glad to see you posting now! I would like to hear more of you experiences and adventures of AHB beekeeping! I have a friend in Arizona but he not a beekeeper..

Phillip
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: Bob Wilson on April 06, 2022, 09:35:23 am
Kathy made a good argument about the genetics of the bees being the main issue rather than small cell.
I don't know about African genes being the issue, because it seems very doubtful that successful northern treatment free beekeepers like Micael Bush in Nebraska have africanized bees.
I am sure I don't. But mine are from feral, local stock on foundationless frames, not small cell.
Title: Re: Controversial comment by Jennifer Berry
Post by: Acebird on April 06, 2022, 04:21:50 pm

 All I have are AHB.
The genetics are not acceptable for commercial applications where people in agriculture would get badly stung.  They are not good genetics for villages or places near the general public.  Most states have requirement to exterminate them.