THE REGRESSION FORUM

[derbeemeister]

>In this day and age anyone who is anti-science is simply blind to the fact that their very existence depends on the great effort and success of other people.

I'm frankly trying to figure out how to respond to such an absurd statement.  Humans have been here an awfully long time without any of what we think of as "science".  

Michael, if you are trying to end this discussion, calling my statements absurd is a good way to do it. If you were to remove all the scientific advances from most people's lives, they would be living in tents and hunting wild turkeys for dinner.

There is nothing wrong with that, of course, but you would probably yearn for a gun (science there) and maybe a doctor if your wife is dying giving birth or if your kid's leg is rotting off due to an infection (more science).

What I MEAN is that almost every activity we engage in is dependent on a scientific discovery. As far as dismissing the doctrine because of who supports it, you are right. Just because Newton believed in God, we don't discount his great contributions.

But let me ask you: which would mean more to you. If I said my opinions are based on experience I gained from working with bees since 1974 (same year as you) or if I was instructed by space aliens?

Herve

[derbeemeister]

You said, "Because it goes against everything I know about bees."
I have to wonder then just what is it you do know about bees.

This (2005) was my first year messing with bees nad I learned very early that the natural size cell for bees is around 4.9. Not because I read it somewhere but because it is what I have seen from the bees that have taken care of themselves with out man's help.

Well, I won't say that I have learned more in 30 years than you did in your first year, but I must point out that the size of bee cells and size of the bees themselves vary according to the different races, ranging from small in africa to large in northern europe. The larger bee may in fact be an adaptation to winter cold. the cell sizes are documented in Eva Crane's books. She has 70 or 80 years of bee experience, but hey -- that isn't much

Herve

[Michael Bush]

http://www.beesource.com/pov/lusby/table.htm

Here is a chart from Baudoux's studies on cell size and bees size.

When you look at the volume of the cell you can see that in three dimensions it's almost twice the volume when you go from 4.7mm to 5.9mm.  If you go from 4.925mm to 5.555mm it’s a difference of 222 cubic mm to 301 cubic mm.  That’s a ratio of  about 2 to 3.  That’s a pretty big jump.

As for comparing bees to humans, I will simply ignore that since it is totally irrelevant. Bees are not humans.  

As far as bees being smaller in the past, it’s easy enough to find ABC XYZ of beekeeping books so lets look under “Cell Size”.

Here’s some quotes from them:

ABC & AXY of Bee Culture 38th Edition Copyright 1980 page 134

“If the average beekeeper were asked how many cells, worker and drone comb, there were to the inch, he would undoubtedly answer five and four, respectively.  Indeed some text books on bees carry that ratio.  Approximately it is correct, enough for the bees, particularly the queen.  The dimensions must be exact or there is a protest.  In 1876 when A.I. Root, the original author of this book, built his first roll comb foundation mill, he had the die faces cut for five worker cells to the inch.  While the bees built beautiful combs from this foundation, and the queen laid in the cells, yet, if given a chance they appeared to prefer their own natural comb not built from comb foundation. Suspecting the reason, Mr. Root then began measuring up many pieces of natural comb when he discovered that the initial cells, five to the inch, from his first machine were slightly too small.  The result of his measurements of natural comb showed slightly over 19 worker cells to four inches linear measurement, or 4.83 cells to one inch.

Roughly this same information is in the 1974 version of ABC and XYZ of Bee Culture on page 136; the 1945 version on page 125; the 1877 version, on page 147 says: “The best specimens of true worker-comb, generally contain 5 cells within the space of an inch, and therefore this measure has been adopted for the comb foundation.

This is followed in all but the 1877 version, by the way, with a section on “will larger cells develop a larger bee” and info on Baudoux.’s research.

So let’s do the math:

Five cells to an inch is five cells to 25.4mm which is ten cells to 50.8mm.  This is 4mm smaller than standard foundation is now.  4.83 cells to an inch is 5.25mm which is 1.5mm smaller than standard foundation.  Of course if you measure comb much you’ll find a lot of variance in cell size, which makes it very difficult to say exactly what size natural comb is.  But I have measured (and photographed) 4.7mm comb from commercial Carniolans and I have photographs of comb from bees Pennsylvania that are 4.4mm.  Typically there is a lot of variance with the core of the brood nest the smallest and the edges the largest.  You can find a lot of comb from 4.8mm to 5.2mm with most of the 4.8mm in the center and the 4.9mm, 5.0mm and 5.1mm moving out from there and the 5.2mm at the very edges of the brood nest.  There is also variation by how you space the frames, or variation on how THEY space the combs.  1 ½” (38mm) will result in larger cells than 1 3/8” (35mm) which will be larger than 1 ¼” (32mm).  In naturally spaced comb the bees will sometimes crowd the combs down to 30mm in places with 32mm more common in just brood comb and 35mm more common where there is drone on the comb.  So what is natural comb spacing?  It is the same problem as saying what natural cell size is.  It depends.

But there is no doubt if you let them do what they want, for a couple of comb turnovers, you can find out what the range of these is and what the norm is.  The norm was (and is) NOT 5.4mm cells and it is NOT 35mm comb spacing.

[Michael Bush]

>>>In this day and age anyone who is anti-science is simply blind to the fact that their very existence depends on the great effort and success of other people.
>>I'm frankly trying to figure out how to respond to such an absurd statement. Humans have been here an awfully long time without any of what we think of as "science".
>Michael, if you are trying to end this discussion, calling my statements absurd is a good way to do it. If you were to remove all the scientific advances from most people's lives, they would be living in tents and hunting wild turkeys for dinner.

I am not trying to end the discussion.  You did not say we would be living in tents and hunting (which is also an absurd statement since people who would be considered pretty "unscientific" have been living in houses for many millennia), you said, "their very existence depends on" it.  That's a pretty large leap from their very existence depending on it to them living in some primitive way.

>There is nothing wrong with that, of course, but you would probably yearn for a gun (science there) and maybe a doctor if your wife is dying giving birth or if your kid's leg is rotting off due to an infection (more science).

I have never had anything against science except for the blind belief that what comes to us that is supposedly science, is all true without questioning for ourselves.

>Just because Newton believed in God, we don't discount his great contributions.

>But let me ask you: which would mean more to you. If I said my opinions are based on experience I gained from working with bees since 1974 (same year as you) or if I was instructed by space aliens?

You are reaching for the absurd.  Daring to ask what evidence there is that the honey bees were not here, is a reasonable question.  Daring to ask how we know the mites weren't already here, since none of us even looked until the bees died from them, is a reasonable question.  A reasonable person would know, even if they WERE instructed by space aliens, not to tell anyone that.  So it's safe to assume they are not reasonable.  :)

George Washington Carver came up with thousands of uses for the peanut.  A lot of pretty amazing discoveries.  He says Jesus told them to him.  I wasn't there, so I don't know, but the fact is, whether you believe Jesus had anything to do with it or not, those things still work.  The question isn't whether Jesus showed them to him or not, since you can't prove that, it's whether what Mr. Carver presented that you could do with a peanut works.  And it does.

[Finsky]

http://www.beesource.com/pov/lusby/table.htm

That seems good table!

Bwrangler wrote:
http://bwrangler.atspace.com/bee/ssiz.htm

"I've measured bees from both large and small cell hives. My measurements indicate bee size changes with the season. And that cell size has very little, if any influence on the bees size."

******************

But those comb size calculations during 150 years?  I cannot imagine how it effects to incoming honey yield.

My thesis is that bees, what ever they are, collect nectar from flowers what  flowers have.  Hives compete with each other but busy bees cannot ad the bee yard's total yield. I mean, I waste my time to find out the variation of good pastures.

You can get a lot of calculations but these not help got get more honey. So it is vain.


.

[TwT]

I have read that also Finsky, but from my understanding the size of the bee during seasons has nothing to do with the small cell idea, the idea from what i understand is that the bee hatches earlier in small cell and interupts up the varroa reproduction, I might not be right but thats what i understand. MB, have you used a OB hive and counted the days of hatching? now I still think the resistance in the bee itself is the key, even if small cell works, I still dont believe that every bee colony can survive but I still want to try a hive or two just to see for myself. Finsky, Thanks for the honey production questions you answered, I still want to pick your brain on honey production, I will have a few more questions for you but I need to get my question right....  

[TwT]

I would like to get finsky's OA drizzle method down because he stands behind this treatment.... I think hes got it down..

[AdmiralD]

Bwrangler wrote:
http://bwrangler.atspace.com/bee/ssiz.htm

"I've measured bees from both large and small cell hives. My measurements indicate bee size changes with the season. And that cell size has very little, if any influence on the bees size."

I have read that also...I have also read from Bwrangler that the size of the bee changes during the season [gets larger as the season gets warmer]and that the bee also tends to manufacture larger cells during honey flows and that the bee will winter on small cell [begining in fall] which accounts for the healthier hives.  Bwranglers 'musing' are that small cell foundation tends to allow for smaller bees, quicker times from egg to adult bee, healthier bees as the small cell tends to thwart the reproductive cycle of the verrola. And Bwrangler tends to advocsate a 'natural' cell, where the bees make thier own sized cell during the season.

I suspect that using small cell foundations provides better protection from the mite during 2 critical times during the year, spring and fall. and is probably an impediment during the summer during honey flows  IOWs, small cell presents some advantages during spring and fall, and a different set of probleme than the larger cell doesnt have. And it presents some advantages during the honey flows and problems during rearing the brood with varrola...

[Finsky]

what i understand is that the bee hatches earlier in small cell and interupts up the varroa reproduction,

So they say...

Yes, I have read it, but have not found any data from that from European bees. I have read that africanized bee emerges earlier. The worker from European queen + africanez drone emerges 1 day earlier.  

Who can find data from shorter brood cycle for European bee than 21 days?

[Finsky]

What they say ?

(This page under repair, January 18, 2006)

http://www.ars.usda.gov/Services/docs.htm?docid=2744&page=13

Our project focused on finding varroa-resistance in honey bees from the U.S.

Initially, we found no bees that could survive varroa infestation without chemical control. Short field tests (Figure 1) were used to carefully measure growth of bee and mite populations in colonies that had genetically different queens.  We defined resistance as the ability of a colony of bees to significantly limit growth of mite populations below the average colony.  In any group of colonies, there is considerable variation in the rate of growth of mite populations.  We hoped that small genetic differences between colonies of bees mediated differences in growth of mite populations.

Continue .....   " We now have varroa-resistant stocks of bees inbred for the SMR trait, and these colonies greatly limit mite growth.  The U.S. queen rearing industry is geared toward the production of naturally mated queens, which makes the production of commercial inbred resistant queens very unlikely (unless queens are mated in an isolated area such as an island).  However,  queen producers can readily produce hybrid queens.  We found mite growth to be intermediate between resistant bees and susceptible bees when resistant queens are free-mated with susceptible drones (Figure 6).  Although colonies with hybrid queens (resistant x control) had intermediate populations of mites, they had half the mites found in the susceptible controls. Hence, even hybrid queens should provide beekeepers a tangible level of resistance. "
.
.

[TwT]

So they say...

Yes, I have read it, but have not found any data from that from European bees. I have read that africanized bee emerges earlier. The worker from European queen + africanez drone emerges 1 day earlier.

Me to. I have read that AHB crossed with EHB, when they tried to raised these crossed queens that the queen with the stronger african traits hatched a day earlier and killed the other queens, that is why when they put 1000's of EHB hives in southern Mexico to inter breed with AFB and try to stop the invasion, it didnt work, all they got was africanized bee's.

Who can find data from shorter brood cycle for European bee than 21 days?

I would like to see this also, MB this goes back to the question, have you seen your bee's hatch in 19 days? I know on the internet its your word vs others, is there away if they do hatch earlier on small cell you can prove this with some proof that others can see, I dont know how to do this but it would help with these discussions about small cell.

[TwT]

Value of this ?

(This page under repair, January 18, 2006)

http://www.ars.usda.gov/Services/docs.htm?docid=2744&page=13

Our project focused on finding varroa-resistance in honey bees from the U.S.

Initially, we found no bees that could survive varroa infestation without chemical control. Short field tests (Figure 1) were used to carefully measure growth of bee and mite populations in colonies that had genetically different queens.  We defined resistance as the ability of a colony of bees to significantly limit growth of mite populations below the average colony.  In any group of colonies, there is considerable variation in the rate of growth of mite populations.  We hoped that small genetic differences between colonies of bees mediated differences in growth of mite populations.

thats interesting Finsky, we have people that say they haven't treated hive's for years, I know myself that my father has 4 hives that are going on 9 years and 1 going on 12 years with no treatment of anykind, the hive going on 12 years old I got from his friend that his father-n-law died 11 years before and the hive has set behind his house that time and always had bee's in it, it didnt even have frames in it just 4 support bars going across the hive body, dont know if he is in a isolated area or what but I know he uses no kind of treatment at all and his bee's are on standard foundation. he lives in Denham Springs, Louisiania.

[Finsky]

thats interesting Finsky, we have people that say they haven't treated hive's for years.

I believe that there are those. I know one hive 5 km fom my beehives. It have lived 8 years continuously in that building. But when those bees have tested, they do not indicate enough mite resistancy.

But I understand that the level of varroa in profitable beekeeping is so low that natural protection cannot compete with chemical cure.

Germans say that they have found from Carniolans as effective mite killers like Russian bee.

But the level...

[Michael Bush]

>Who can find data from shorter brood cycle for European bee than 21 days?

I’ve timed mine in the observation hive on several occasions with different races on 4.95mm cells (4.85mm inside diameter).  In eight days they are capped and in 19 they emerge.  These were commercial Carniolans and Italians.

But I’m not the only one.  Other’s on Beesource have tried it and have arrived at the same numbers.

And I’m not the first one.  Huber timed it back in 1791.  If you think about how many days have elapsed on the first day (0) and how many have elapsed on the 20th day (19) you’ll see the same results:

"The worm of workers passes three days in the egg, five in the vermicular state, and then the bees close up its cell with a wax covering. The worm now begins spinning its cocoon, in which operation thirty-six hours are consumed. In three days, it changes to a nymph, and passes six days in this form. It is only on the twentieth day of its existence, counting from the moment the egg is laid, that it attains the fly state."
François Huber (1750-1831) 4 September 1791.

>I would like to see this also, MB this goes back to the question, have you seen your bee's hatch in 19 days?

I have timed it multiple times with multiple races, in 4.95mm cells in an observation hive kept at 70 F (by the thermostat in my house).

>I know on the internet its your word vs others, is there away if they do hatch earlier on small cell you can prove this with some proof that others can see, I dont know how to do this but it would help with these discussions about small cell.

It is an easily reproducible experiment and the only difficult item to get is some small cell comb and that only takes a brief amount of time letting the bees draw their own comb.  But if you buy some PermaComb from John Seets, heat it to 200 F in an oven, dip it in 212 F beeswax, shake off the excess wax and put it in an observation hive.  Mark the cells as the queen lays in them with numbers or letters and note the time.  At 7 ½ days or so start looking for cappings as often as you have time.  At 18 days start looking for them to emerge.  Note the time of each one getting capped and each one emerging.

[derbeemeister]

>>>Daring to ask what evidence there is that the honey bees were not here, is a reasonable question. Daring to ask how we know the mites weren't already here, since none of us even looked until the bees died from them, is a reasonable question.

The evidence that honey bees were not in the Americas is supported by the fact that the settlers performed such heroic acts as bringing them across the Atlantic in the 1500s and around the tip of South America to California in the 1800s. If there were bees in these areas already, they wouldn't have gone to so much trouble.

The evidence of varroa not being in the US prior to the late 1980s is that people like Roger Morse were traveling the globe visiting places where varroa were already a problem trying to get a handle on what they were doing to control them, BEFORE we had varroa in our bees. Our bees have been intensively studied for parasites since the discovery of the tracheal mite. The borders were closed to prevent the importation of any further pests like varroa (which would be pointless if we already had them. the borders are still closed because there are some more ugly pests we don't yet have)

Hundreds of thousands of eyes have been closely focused on the honey bee for the last two hundred years, and there is very little that escapes being noticed. In fact, people are studying the varroa mite to see if there are parasites of IT, that could be used to kill them off.

I won't stay here in this forum, if my comments are not welcome. Your continued use of the term *absurd* is annoying at best. I may think your comments are lacking in merit, but I encourage you to present them.

By the way, you never did supply one single study where small cell hives were compared to regular size cell hives in any systematic way to determine what the ACTUAL effect of the cell size would be.

Herve

:?:

[Jerrymac]

By the way, you never did supply one single study where small cell hives were compared to regular size cell hives in any systematic way to determine what the ACTUAL effect of the cell size would be.

After thinking it over I have come to the conclusion that there has been these side by side studies. Most small cell beeks started out with large cell bees and lost the battle. They went small cell with same bees in the same location, the only thing I see having changed was the cell size.

[Kris^]

The chief proponents of small cell beekeeping are vehemently anti-science.

That's a pretty broad statement.  People are complex, and I suspect what you suggest may not be valid.

Right now, the only treatments approved in the US for varroa control (that I'm aware of) are Apistan and Check-Mite, with MiteGone formic acid pads coming on line.  All fairly expensive treatments requiring special handling and subject to obsolescence due to increased resistance.  So . . . why isn't oxalic acid treatment discussed more in the mainstream literature and promoted as an alternative?  I understand it's used often in other parts of the world.  Has there been a lack of scientific studies as to its effectiveness?  I don't think so.  Perhaps the answer to this question lies in a different question: who benefits financially from the promotion of current treatments?

For the same reason, I'm leery of Monsanto GM crops.  Who benefits by locking in the market for Roundup?  And what happens when weeds eventually develop resistance to Roundup?  (I do believe in Darwinian evolution).  Do we want to place all the fruits of our "green revolution" in one corporate basket?      

I know, I know -- GM crops have been studied and tested and show no detrimental effects to human.  But that's just what the studies tested for.    What about unintended side effects?  As it so happens, Monsanto has inserted a "tag" gene into its GM crops that has no effect on Roundup resistance, but serves to identify the crop as "Roundup Ready."  But this "tag" gene also has the effect of increasing resistance to tetracycline.  Now, horizontal cross-species transfer of genetic material has been demonstrated between GM crops and bacteria.   And ten years ago, several million acres of GM crops were planted in Canada, north-central USA and Argentina.  So isn't it curious that the first reported cases of tetracycline-resistant American Foul Brood were reported in two geographically isolated places simultaneously in 1996 -- Wisconsin/Minnesota and Argentina?  Correlation isn't necessarily proof, I know.  But who will fund the research to test the proposition that trans-species transfer of teracycline resistance from GM crops to AFB bacteria has made AFB antibiotic-resistant?  Who would benefit financially?

Back to the subject of this thread.    :shock:   I can see many reasons to hope there is a way to control varroa other than by the "approved" methods.  I'll be trying "natural cell" this year, too, but only as a side effect of my real motivation.  I'm a cheap farmer.  If I can build serviceable boxes and frames at 1/4 the price of buying and shipping, it's a no-brainer for me.  (And a not-unpleasant way to spend a Saturday.)  And rather than using full foundation, I plan to use starter strips, at least for the brood boxes.  I suspect that without a pre-formed guide, the bees will probably build many different sizes of comb, to suit their needs, including small cells.  If I feel so inclined, I may measure it and see what the range of sizes are.  And if I see a reduction in varroa mites, that's a happy occurance.  But I'll still be treating with oxalic.  Because I also hate the price of buying and shipping spring packages!    

-- Kris

[Michael Bush]

>The evidence that honey bees were not in the Americas is supported by the fact that the settlers performed such heroic acts as bringing them across the Atlantic in the 1500s and around the tip of South America to California in the 1800s. If there were bees in these areas already, they wouldn't have gone to so much trouble.

That is still an assumption.  I'm not saying it's not a reasonable assumption.  But it's an assumption all the same.

>The evidence of varroa not being in the US prior to the late 1980s is that people like Roger Morse were traveling the globe visiting places where varroa were already a problem trying to get a handle on what they were doing to control them, BEFORE we had varroa in our bees.

And I would say that's reasonable evidence to refute a reasonable question.

>I won't stay here in this forum, if my comments are not welcome. Your continued use of the term *absurd* is annoying at best. I may think your comments are lacking in merit, but I encourage you to present them.

>>>>In this day and age anyone who is anti-science is simply blind to the fact that their very existence depends on the great effort and success of other people.
>>>I'm frankly trying to figure out how to respond to such an absurd statement. Humans have been here an awfully long time without any of what we think of as "science".
>>Michael, if you are trying to end this discussion, calling my statements absurd is a good way to do it. If you were to remove all the scientific advances from most people's lives, they would be living in tents and hunting wild turkeys for dinner.
>I am not trying to end the discussion. You did not say we would be living in tents and hunting (which is also an absurd statement since people who would be considered pretty "unscientific" have been living in houses for many millennia), you said, "their very existence depends on" it. That's a pretty large leap from their very existence depending on it to them living in some primitive way.

How can I describe the statement that "their very existence depends on" science in any other way when humans DO exist in many places without these “scientific” advances and obviously have for many millennia?  Or the statement that without science we would all be living in tents?  Like people couldn't figure out how to build houses until some scientist showed them?  I am sorry I cannot think of a more polite term to describe the logic or probability of those statements.

>By the way, you never did supply one single study where small cell hives were compared to regular size cell hives in any systematic way to determine what the ACTUAL effect of the cell size would be.

For reasons unknown to me none of the “scientists” seem to show any interest in investigating the possibility.  I've compared capping and emergence times myself.  I've had hives of both types myself.  I suppose without a study all of that is just my imagination.  I've challenged anyone willing to try to duplicate them and those who have tried have succeeded. And, oddly enough, those who have not tried are still demanding a quote from a study.

>After thinking it over I have come to the conclusion that there has been these side by side studies. Most small cell beeks started out with large cell bees and lost the battle. They went small cell with same bees in the same location, the only thing I see having changed was the cell size.

http://www.funpecrp.com.br/gmr/year2003/vol1-2/gmr0057_full_text.htm

Here's one on cell size and it's influence on Varroa infestation of the brood cells.  I'm sure those who wish to discount it will do so because it was done on AHB.  But the fact remains that with the race constant and all other things constant it was a test on the difference in the amount of mites infesting brood cells based on cell size.

From that document:
"DISCUSSION
Varroa mite infestations in Africanized honey bee brood are clearly affected by comb cell width. When compared in the same colony, the largest brood cells, those in Carniolan combs (mean of about 5.3 mm inside width) were about 38% more infested than the Italian comb brood cells (mean of about 5.15 mm), which in turn were about 13% more infested than the self-built Africanized combs (mean of about 4.8 mm)."
This makes a difference of 51% from the 4.8 to the 5.3mm cells. Our typical foundation here in the US is 5.45mm. They were measuring the inside of the cells, not counting the cell wall so that would make our foundation 5.35mm by that measurement. The cell wall is about 0.1mm ( http://www.sciencenews.org/sn_arc99/7_24_99/bob2.htm ) so that 4.8mm size in their experiment is about a 4.9mm cell by the "across ten cells" method of measuring. My "natural" comb seems to run about 4.6mm to 4.9mm in the center of the brood nest with 4.85mm being the most common.
Large cells mean one day longer postcapping times compared to small cell. One day longer postcapping time means those mites reproduce more. http://www.csl.gov.uk/prodserv/cons/bee/varroa/ModellingBiologicalApproaches.pdf
"Shortening the post-capping time
Shortening the post-capping time reduces the number of offspring
that can be produced and the time for the last offspring to
successfully mate prior to emergence. Post-capping periods for
worker European bees have been reported to vary from 268 to 290
hrs (Harris and Harbo 2000) and the model is based on a post-capping
period of 288 hrs for workers and 336 hrs for drone brood.
Worker Africanized bees usually have a post-capping period 20
hrs shorter than European bees (Rosenkranz 1999). However,
among European bees there is significant variation in the average
duration of the capped period and this is a heritable characteristic
(Harris and Harbo 2000), but it can be affected by climatic conditions.
European Apis mellifera carnica bees had a worker postcapping
time only 8 hrs longer than Africanized bees at the same
tropical site (Rosenkranz 1999).
The model predicts that, in order to bring about a 25% reduction
in mite population growth (excluding the possible effects of
reduced mating success and fertility of daughter mites) the postcapping
period for worker brood needs to be reduced by 7% (20
hrs) for worker brood, by 9% (30 hrs) for drone brood and by 7%
(20hrs worker, 24hrs drone) for both. This results in a post-capping
time close to the minimum reported for worker brood, but
drone brood has greater phenotypic variation (de Jong 1997) suggesting
that it may be possible to breed bees that produce drone
brood with a shorter post-capping period. Buchler and Drescher
(1990) reported that 25% of the variation in mite populations in
their colonies could be accounted for by variations in the post-capping
period, which fits in well with the results of our model.
However, in a survey of European bees an average 8.7% reduction
of mite infestation rate was calculated for each 1hour reduction in
the capping time (de Jong 1997). This is a much larger effect than
our model predicts, suggesting other factors are confounding the
comparison in European bees."
This would indicate that a post-capping period that is 20 hours shorter would make the 25% difference that they think is critical to surviving mite infestations.
and also:
"Altering the invasion rate of brood cells by the mite
The model suggests that the invasion rate of worker cells would
need to be decreased by 96% to reduce the mite population growth
rate by 25% (Table 1). Such a large reduction is necessary because
mites which do not enter worker cells are available to invade drone
cells. Since mite reproduction is greater in drone cells, only a proportion
of these "displaced" mites need to enter drone cells to balance
the loss of population growth. The attractiveness of the brood
to varroa mites may be affected by a number of factors which may
interact, including the size of the cell and the strength of the
pheromone signal."
And on the effect of cell size and invasion rate and pre capping times:
"The size and shape of the brood cells
The diameter of the worker cell appears to affect the invasion of
varroa mites. In the absence of drone brood, the varroa infestation
rate has been reported to be 16-50% lower in the small Africanized
worker cells than in the larger European (Italian) worker cells
(Guzman-Novoa et al. 1999, Rosenkranz 1999). This in part may
have been due to a higher visitation rate by nurse bees as the
European larvae were larger and heavier, and to the longer periods
spent capping the larger cells which would increase the time period
over which a mite can invade the cell (Message and Goncalves
1995)."
The Harbo study mentioned above correlates capping and post capping times to genetics and climate, but there are studies correlating it to cell size. (see the one at the top) I have observed a one day shorter capping time (8 days) with small cell bees.
Also the model above assumes a 288 hour post capping time (12 days). I have not observed any longer than a 11 day post capping time on my small cell workers. I have not tried to measure the capping and post capping times on small cell drones, but plan to do so in the spring.
I also hope to measure the times down to the hour instead of the day. But they were 24 hours shorter in both cases but possibly a few hours shorter than that, because I was not constantly watching them so I have a window of possibly 7 or 8 hours shorter.
A few other studies.
http://www.beesource.com/pov/lusby/tektran99.htm
http://www.beesource.com/pov/lusby/abjdec1997.htm
http://www.beesource.com/pov/usda/stress.htm

[Michael Bush]

And while we are talking about scientific studies.
I love scientific studies. I have read many of them on many subjects from cover to cover. There is much to be learned by them. I often disagree with the conclusions drawn by the researchers though.
"Post hoc ergo proctor hoc" (After this therefore because of this) is the primary error in logic and is a trap fallen into by humans and animals alike. The big temptation of this error is that "Post hoc ergo proctor hoc" is a good basis for a theory. The error isn't using it for a theory it's using it as proof.
Let's examine the error of this, first. Every morning at my house, the roosters crow. Every morning after the roosters crow, the sun comes up. Does this mean that the roosters cause the sun to come up? Because we can't see any mechanism to connect them other than the sequence of events, most of us would assume that the roosters are not the cause.
Every culture I know of has folk tales and or jokes to make fun of this error. One in our culture is "pull my finger". Because you pull the finger and immediately afterwards something happens, your brain makes a connection and for a second you fall prey to this error. Then after a second or two you brain catches up with it’s processing and the absurdity of that connection hits you and you laugh. The Africans often tell the “roosters causing the sun to come up” story and the Lakota tell it as the horses whinnying. Foolish anthropologists often record these stories as if the people telling them believe this connection, but my experience with primitive cultures is that they tell these stories to teach the error of that way of thinking. Of course they watch to see if the anthropologists believe the foolish conclusion and after watching them diligently write it down without so much as a comment, or a chuckle the natives shake their heads at the foolishness.
I have done things while driving that were immediately followed by some noise. My first conclusion is that I caused the noise and I’m wondering what it is I’ve caused. After trying a couple of more times and the noise does not follow it, I find out it was one of my children making the noise. It was mere coincidence that they happened simultaneously.
Any “statistical proof” really constitutes no proof. As I collect a larger and larger sample it becomes more and more likely that what I’m seeing statistically is an actual connection and not a coincidence, but it never constitutes analytical proof. Unless I have a mechanism and can prove that mechanism is the cause, by some means other than simple statistics, then I only have an increasing likelihood.
I can prove this to anyone who understands basic probability. What are the odds that if I flip this quarter it will land on heads? 50/50. So I flip it and it comes up heads. What are the odds if I flip this quarter again that it will come up heads again? 50/50 same as before. So I flip it and it comes up heads. I personally have flipped a quarter 27 times in a row and got heads every time. Does this prove that the odds are not 50/50? No it proves my sample was too small to be statistically valid. How many times to I have to flip it before my results are an absolute fact? No matter how many times I do it, I only get closer and closer to the actual answer. It is not a matter of absolute proof but a matter of accumulating large enough sample. The larger the sample the closer I get to the answer, but it’s like the old math problem of going half way and half the remaining way and half of that and so on. When will I get to the end? Never. I can only get closer and closer.
This was just trying to prove that flipping a quarter has odds of 50/50. The life cycle of any organism is infinitely more complex than flipping a quarter and affected by more things than we can know. If I do a certain thing and get a certain result how many times will it take to prove absolutely that what I did contributed to that result? If I have a very large sample and I have a very large success rate compared to a very large control group with a very small success rate, it is very likely that my theory is correct. The smaller the sample, the smaller the difference in success rate and the more other variables that could contribute to success or failure, or even worse, the more skewed those variables are in favour of either group, the less valid my results are.
This is all assuming a lack of prejudice on the part of the researcher. As one of my teachers (he was a carpenter with a lot of wisdom, not a professor) once said, “everyone thinks their idea is better because they thought of it”. This seems intuitively obvious, but it is important. I have a natural prejudice to my ideas because they fit my way of thinking. If they didn’t, I wouldn’t have thought of them! This is why in the scientific community it is important to be able to reproduce the results. Reproducibility is a good test, especially if someone else is doing the second or third study than did the first. I may eliminate some of the prejudice and also it may change some of the other unmeasured and unaccounted for variables.
The second problem with research is the motivation for doing it. The motivation for doing research is almost (but not always) personal gain. A few actual altruistic people have a love of some fellow creature, or some fellow humans and is actually involved because they want to reduce suffering or solve someone’s problems. Unfortunately these people are not well funded and their research is usually not well received.
Most research is funded by and prejudiced by some entity that has an agenda to prove their solution and that solution has to be something they can market and sell, preferable with a patent of copyright or some other protection to provide them with a monopoly. There is no profit in, and therefore no money for, research into simple common solutions to problems.
I’m sure some will disagree with me, but I think some entities, such as the USDA, have their own agenda that has been revealed by observing them over time. The big agenda of any government agency is to get more money, more power and try to appear that they are serving the purpose they were put there for. In the case of the USDA, it’s obvious they have favored chemicals over natural solutions. They favor anything that appears to help the economy of agribusiness. This doesn’t mean just the small farmer/beekeeper etc. but the whole of agribusiness. They seem to like to see money changing hands because it helps the economy.
Just because research was done on a subject and the researchers came to some conclusion, does not make that conclusion the truth.
Now, while we are talking about facts, let’s talk about one of the reasons some people do not like science and prefer their own opinions. I covered one above, which is that we always like our own ideas because they fit our way of thinking, but the other is that people are fond of saying that something has not been proven scientifically as if that means it is NOT true because it has NOT been proven. Anything we have not proven is simply something that has not been proven. Because I have not proven it true does not make it false.
In 1847 Dr. Ignaz Philipp Semmelwis instituted the practice of hand washing before delivering babies. He came to this conclusion simply by the statistical evidence that mothers and babies who were attended by doctors who washed had less mortality than ones attended by doctors who did not wash. This was "Post hoc ergo proctor hoc" . The doctors washed and less babies died. This is not scientific proof and therefore his colleagues did not consider it scientific proof. Why? Because he could not provide a mechanism to explain it nor an experiment to prove that mechanism. Because he was a proponent of something he would not prove absolutely, he was driven out of the medical community as a quack. This is an example of something that had not been proven scientifically.
In the 1850’s when Louis Pasteur and Robert Koch created the science of microbiology and the “germ theory” of disease Dr Semmelwis’s theory finally was proven scientifically. Now there was a mechanism and they were able to create experiments to prove that mechanism. My point is, that it was true before they proved it and it was true after they proved it. The truth did not change because they proved it. There was, previous to this proof, evidence that would lead to the practice of hand washing, but not proof.
We live our lives and make decisions all the time based on our view of the world. This view is not truth, but it is based on our experience and our learning. Sometimes something comes along to change that view and we accept it because the evidence is strong enough. To ignore evidence that fits the pattern of what we see around us because it has not been proven is foolish. To ignorantly hang on to things that are proven to not be true is equally foolish. But just because the majority believe something to be proven does not mean has been. Just because the majority of people believe something is true does not make it true.
In conclusion, I would say, read research with a grain of salt. Look at their methods. Think about the contributing issues that they have overlooked. Pay attention to anything that would skew the population they are studying or the population of the control group. Look into whether or not the study has been duplicated and were the results similar or contrary. What was the size of the population? What was the difference in success? If there is only a small difference it may not be statistically important. Even if there is a large difference, was it duplicated at that large a difference? Also what might be the prejudices of the people doing the research?

[Finsky]

Back to base: Regression of beekeeping,

On Brittish forum it was just a question

"Iwas wondering if anyone can help me. Last year I visited an apiary that was close to oilseed rape. The owner of the hives explained that he uses something called a "New Bee Box" as a super. When the box is full he simply removes all the combs (there are no frames) and melts the lot to seperate the wax from the honey. .... ."


I answered:

* You should know that one kilo wax needs 8 kg honey from bees.
* One box Langstroth frames has 2 kilo wax and to produce that wax again bees consume 15-16 kg honey .

* From rape or canola hive may get 60-100 kg honey. It means 3-4 box filled frames and you loose in this business half from yield. Bees need 50-60 kg honey to build all 3-4 box combs again. Every year.

What a waste!

This system is the oldest system to get honey. Nothing new in this.