#4point9

In spain already quiet a few beekeepers are working with small cell bees. Spain hosts few beekeepers compared to Germany, but the average individual has more colonies. Many spanish professional beekeepers whose lives depend on their bees work here. 1000-3000 colonies are quite usual. Our problem is that we live of the bees and therefore our profession must work. But the weather alone is already a very big risk factor with the climate change giving the Spanish beekeepers a hard time. The catastrophic health of bees is a further issue. If we now switch to the system of small-cell bees, we face one more risk. The advantage is Dee Lusby and other beekeepers who have been working with small cells have done much of the pioneering research and we can use it as a base for our work. One big problem I see is that the beekeeper will at first have to adapt to the new situation. Working according to De Lusby’ system with bees, no longer has much in common with today's conventional beekeeping. Our first principle is that we DO NOT treat. The beekeepers must learn to recognize signs of crisis in the hive at the very first stage above all and also have to learn to respond properly. This is purely a matter of experience and can be learned within a few years., We can’t recommend these professional beekeepers to jump right into the cold water and switch immediately with a large part of their hives. It is necessary at first to start with 10 or 20 colonies, on order to accustom them to small combs and later subdivide from them. Thus, we can quickly multiply the number of small cell colonies and observe closely how the bees act in the new situation, train our reactions in crisis situations, learn how fast the genetics improve colonies through selective breeding with the most responsive hives and soon handle a larger number of colonies without treatment. This is not invented, it is based on experience. In the event of problems we can always rely on our colleagues who may have more experience. With Dee, I always got a reply within hours in response to my questions and I will be handling all inquires in the same manner. here is a recipe for success with small cell bees Read the full article

Who is telling us if the cell size impressed on the foundations is what the bees need? Dee Lusby discovered, after intensively studying beekeeping literature (from over 100 years and more), the cell size commonly used does not match the bees' needs. And yet the cell size is a critical factor. I’d even say the bee can’t live in harmony with nature without the right size. The Belgian professor Baudoux stated about 100 years ago "large cells, large bees, lots of honey" He experimented with extreme sizes, large and small, and incredibly, no one knows why, the cell size on all foundations remained at about 5.4 mm to this very day. It looks like the bee gets to its natural balance on a cell size from 4.9 mm downwards. At 4.9 mm, and the distance between the combs reduced to 32 mm, the temperature in the nest rises, reducing one day of the incubation period. At 20 instead of 21 days, the bees outrun the Varroa.The Varroa mite is of course aware of that, therefore in the summer it only breeds within the drone brood, as they can’t multiply within the worker brood. The Asian ‘cerana’ and African bees, without varroa problems, build small cells. here is a map of the cellsizes 100 years ago - click on the map to see it biggerObservations of Michael BushPre and Post Capping Times and Varroa 8 hours shorter capping time halves the number of Varroa infesting a brood cell. 8 hours shorter post capping time halves the number of offspring of a Varroa in the brood cell.Accepted days for capping and post-capping, (based on observing bees on 5.4 mm comb) Capped 9 days after egg laid Emerges 21 days after egg laid very important: reducing of comb distance to 32mm Another point is that small cell bees have a much longer life span, from 8 up to 12 weeks.The conventional large cell bees only have a lifespan of 6 weeks, which is considerably reduced by the use of chemicals, like anti Varroa treatments (Fernando Clatayud, biologist, Valencia, spain). This longer lifespan produces incredibly strong colonies as the work inside of the colony can be done by a lot more bees, which is a prerequisite for a healthy immune system. Ongoing stress by the same amount of work to be done by too few bees negatively affects the bee’s immune system. Dee Lusby found out that the cellsize of 4.9mm is the actual fundamental prerequisite, that the hygienic behaviour VSH appears, which means the active culling of Varoa mites from the infected brood cells. see hygienic behaviour VSH With this the topic addressed, there is still much more to be explained. The cell size is only one aspect amongst many that must be changed to get resistant bees.The history of cell sizes (Dee Lusby) - The first artificial comb foundation was made in Germany in 1842 by Gottlieb Kretchmer. - I would say our present era of problems began around 1891 in Belgium with the introduction of artificial comb foundation with 920 cells to the square decimeter which would equate to about midway between 4.6 cm and 4.7cm for 10 worker cells. cell sizes of different bee races (in europe and USA too big due to use of too big cellprints)A Prof U. Baudoux of Belgium published an article in Progress Apicole in June, 1893, advocating the use of larger comb cells, as a result of experiments duly described. It seems Prof Baudoux wanted to rear bees of extraordinary vigor, able to forage over a more extended flight-radius and to visit a multitude of flowers the nectar of which was, then (and probably still is), out-of-reach of their tongues.He experimented with cells up to the limit of 750 cells per square decimeter, the sizes of cells which he obtained by stretching wax comb foundation. Then encouraged by his experiences, he wished to do still better—”TO GO TO THE BOUNDS OF POSSIBILITY”. (Here is where our current modern-day problems begin with parasitic mites and their secondary diseases.)Prof Baudoux experimented with various sizes of foundation per the square decimeter, namely: 750, 740, 730, 710 and down to 675. He also experimented with various ways of measuring cells and devised his own measurement system for it. (Unfortunately, there was no corresponding correlation chart made for his devised measurement system, vs. the traditional way of measuring comb foundation that had been in use for over 2,000 years back to before the time of Christ, so beekeepers could go back and forth between the two measurement systems.)Prof Baudoux was so successful with his writing and his experiments, and so convincing , that manufacturing houses all started selling foundation with enlarged cells and claiming good results for the use of the same. Most of this work was done around the late 1920s through the 1930s and 1940s. (The result has been that this process of bigger is better with its resultant selling has never stopped, and continues up to modern day to the detriment now, that only enlarged oversized foundations (well beyond the bounds of possibility for bigger honeybees as envisioned by Prof Baudoux) are now only sold and standardized large at that, i.e. 5.7cm for 10 worker cells being about the largest). How do we measure cell size?The default is to measure 10 cells from wall center to wall center and then divide by 10. Dee Lusby: I would say our present era of problems began around 1891 in Belgium with the introduction of artificial comb foundation with 920 cells to the square decimeter which would equate to about midway between 4.6 cm and 4.7cm for 10 worker cells. The beekeepers there all adopted this size of cell. The experts of that time believed that it was advantageous to produce as many bees as possible on the least possible surface of comb. Thus there was said to be a premature narrowing of the cells throughout Belgium, and at the end of a few years the bees were miserable specimens. (We could say that this was then the opposite of today’s problem of bigger is better.)It was then that to combat so harmful a tendency that an idea was born with a proposed magnificent final (which we are still playing out today). A Prof U. Baudoux of Belgium published an article in Progress Apicole in June, 1893, advocating the use of larger comb cells, as a result of experiments duly described. It seems Prof Baudoux wanted to rear bees of extraordinary vigor, able to forage over a more extended flight-radius and to visit a multitude of flowers the nectar of which was, then (and probably still is), out-of-reach of their tongues.He experimented with cells up to the limit of 750 cells per square decimeter, the sizes of cells which he obtained by stretching wax comb foundation. Then encouraged by his experiences, he wished to do still better—”TO GO TO THE BOUNDS OF POSSIBILITY”. (Here is where our current modern-day problems begin with parasitic mites and their secondary diseases.)Prof Baudoux experimented with various sizes of foundation per the square decimeter, namely: 750, 740, 730, 710 and down to 675. He also experimented with various ways of measuring cells and devised his own measurement system for it.Unfortunately, there was no corresponding correlation chart made for his devised measurement system, vs. the traditional way of measuring comb foundation that had been in use for over 2,000 years back to before the time of Christ, so beekeepers could go back and forth between the two measurement systems.a fatal mistake old rhomb metod to measure: new metod from Baudoux ona fatal mistake The old method of measuring results in much fewer cells per dm² as the new one introduced by Baudoux. Before Baudoux foundations with about 5 cells per inch were used, which corresponds to about 800 - 830 cells per dm ² according to the old measurement at 5.0 to 4.9 mm. But there was no conversion system and foundation manufacturers , after Baudoux, in the 20s till the 40s, took over the rate of 800 cells/dm ², but applied the new method of measuring. Thus it came to a cell sizes of about 5.4 mm. And apparently no one is aware of this serious error, because the size is maintained to the present day. conversion table of the different measuring metods:Dee Lusby:Prof Baudoux was so successful with his writing and his experiments, and so convincing , that manufacturing houses all started selling foundation with enlarged cells and claiming good results for the use of the same. Most of this work was done around the late 1920s through the 1930s and 1940s. (The result has been that this process of bigger is better with its resultant selling has never stopped, and continues up to modern day to the detriment now, that only enlarged oversized foundations (well beyond the bounds of possibility for bigger honeybees as envisioned by Prof Baudoux) are now only sold and standardized large at that, i.e. 5.7cm for 10 worker cells being about the largest).Could this continuing trend towards bigger is better be an underlying causative effect creating todays problems of parasitic mites and their accompanying secondary diseases? Probably. But on what evidence would one place such a thought?Unfortunately for us all, it was not the large cell in itself for which Prof Baudaoux was working, but rather instead for the selection of a better bee. IT IS IMPORTANT FOR TODAY’S BEEKEEPERS TO REMEMBER THE TIME FRAME HERE, AND ITS PLACE IN HISTORY, AND ALSO THE FACT THAT THE MEASUREMENT SYSTEM DEVISED BY PROF BAUDOUX WAS NOT CORRELATED WITH TRADITIONAL MEASUREMENT METHODS. WHY? BECAUSE, AN UNDERLYING CAUSATIVE EFFECT FOR TODAY’S PARASITIC MITE PROBLEMS AND THEIR ACCOMPANYING SECONDARY DISEASES WAS BORN HERE!Equally unfortunate for us all is the fact that Prof Baudoux was a follower of what is called Lamarckian Theory, and believed that it was possible to improve the honeybee permanently, by giving her the chance to grow larger in each succeeding generation. However, to a follower of Darwinian or Mendelian theory, this is indeed a very uncertain doctrine; and the bees themselves appear to confirm this criticism (even today any beekeeper can compare the feral to those bees confined domestically), since even back in the early 1900s it was common knowledge that they tend to retrogress in the size of the worker comb cells they build when let alone, back to what is NATURAL as put forth by the laws of Nature and not by man’s artificially created and politicized rules.Dee Lusby:We have found through reading, that mills have been made in many sizes over the years, all the way up to 3-1/2 cells to the inch. THIS IS WHERE OUR INDUSTRY HAS GOTTEN INTO SO MUCH TROUBLE. CELL SIZES, THEIR SIZE, AND HOW TO MEASURE THEM. Most beekeepers universally agree that five cells to the inch is worker size and four cells to the inch is drone size in the feral population. But, the domestic sizes our bees today have ended up on, are quite different and have wrought havoc, as artificial combs have gotten bigger. The stress upon our honeybees caused by being out-of-balance with natural flora has opened Pandora’s box to foulbrood diseases, chalk, and viral infections. By being too big, our domesticated honeybees have taken on parasitic mite infestations as our now pseudo-drones,aka: worker bees, are perceived as a new food source by both Varroa and Tracheal mites. With all this damage being done, we find no teaching anywhere on the history of use of artificial comb foundation sizes in the USA, so our beekeepers can make rational decisions concerning proper usage.The various comb cell sizes (706, 711, standard, drone, etc) were originally designed with meaning, which is now forgotten in today’s modern world. No one person or company is to blame in the USA or elsewhere in our world for artificially increasing honeybees so big as to cause disease and parasitic mite problems that now encompass over 135 nations at catastrophic level, placing them in a situation out-of-tune with the reality of Nature. Nothing was hidden and everything was written and published out in the open.The only thing that has happened is that artificial supposition and an artificial domesticated system of beekeeping has so far prevailed over that found naturally occurring in Nature and has been taught.It began with a simple idea everyone wanted to participate in, i.e. scientists, manufacturing houses. Now through the passing of each successive generation (figure 20 years to each new generation), the growing disparity of size between feral and domestic hives dictates this bigger-is-better trend must be corrected and its underlying causative effects must be brought to light and taught, if beekeeping as we know it is to continue.In Belgium, Prof Baudoux measured workers in the range of 5mm to 5.17mm and 5.35mm per cell. (Ordinary drone cells he placed at 5.5mm next to 5mm for worker cells.) Even he found 5.5mm drone cells next to 5mm worker cells to be double in volume of cell contents for food confirming Mullenhoff’s results. When we then consider having today, foundation on the market as large as 5.7mm, it’s not hard to see how it would not be disastrous for beekeepers to use, because of parasitic mite attraction with a pseudo-effect on worker bees perceived as a food source just like that of drones.Yet, look how much foundation on today’s market is 5.44mm in size (close to the 5.5mm drone size measured by Baudoux).Wouldn’t this too, also be dangerous for attraction for parasitic mites, causing a pseudo-effect, with mites mistaking worker bees for drones?JUST HOW BIG THEN, IS TOO BIG?I would say too big is when a colony of bees starts to become distressed, which leads to stress, which leads to disease, which lets a beekeeper know through visual perception that something is wrong within the hive. Read the full article

I'll just summarize at the outset:The drones have, amongst others of course, the duty to first attract diseases in the hive on themselves in order to keep them away from the bees. This shows that the drone brood must be designed for the needs of the bees and not as we want it!By the recent studies of our survivor colonies we can now fully confirm what Dee Lusby has shown us many years ago: The interaction of small cells and the correct amount of drone comb on each comb is the basis of Varroa resistance. The varroa problem and the drones:As already discussed, the varroa within the small cell bees prefers the drone brood, as they can’t multiply within the small cell bees due to the breeding cycle shortened by one day. She knows it. One varroa in and one out, compared to the large cell bees with an average relationship of one in, one-and–a-half outThe bees conventional (5.4 mm cell size) happens to be almost as large as the drone of small cell bees. Therefore the varroa confuses bee brood with drone brood in the large cell bees, this means she thinks that the drone brood is bee brood. Also in the Asian bee, which builds small cells, the varroa prefers the drone brood. Dee calls this the pseudo-drone effect. And then it suddenly increases explosively in our large cell hives, where it settles in the bee brood.A few years ago, after a discussion on this topic in a beekeepers forum, I made an experiment to open 100 drone cells and 100 bee cells in several colonies: I found up to 200 mites in the drone cells and could not proof any within the bee cells. That changes, of course, in autumn and spring when there are no more drones in the hive and the Varroa is forced to move into the bee brood, where the bee then begins to clean the infected cells – if they have learned it! So it is clear that we need to find out how much and where bees want to have their drone brood. As you know, the mites prefer cooler areas of the hive. Experience has shown that each comb may not accommodate more than 10% drone cells. Therefore Dee leaves half an inch between each foundation sheet, where the bees can breed drones or not, up to the way they want. We cut a corner out of every foundation sheet, no matter which side, and then that is usually where drones are bred. Change (after intense study the area is now slightly larger than in the photo)The area of this corner is about 8% of the entire comb and measures approx 14cm x 9cm, what corresponds to what Dee Lusby leaves free below each foundation sheet.(Langstroth)We need to teach the bees to again keep these proportions. We achieve this through selective breeding, because they have apparently forgotten with the use of artificially produced middle walls over the last 100 years. If the bees would fill a honeycomb that only has a thin strip of wax welded on, entirely with drone brood, it would fatal for the colony. We never have to apply this technique with the ‘Varroa Drone catch comb’ (or whatever it is called). I’ve also had hives that would perfectly built the small cells (which sometimes can be problematic with strong honey flow) and were showing bald headed brood, but built almost no drone cells. That was the opposite extreme and then they soon developed the virus of deformed wings – without a chance. Very important:We need to adopt the habit of moving combs with more than 10% Drone brood to the sides and top of the hives at each inspection of the colonies, where the bees will fill them with honey and then sort them out.Do not just take them out, because one may think that it is a good way of getting rid of a many mites. I've already made this mistake in the beginning. The varroa mites nicely remain in the drone brood, but if we suddenly decimate the drone cells it will cause problems. You can now see that selective breeding is a key component. But more on this later.Dee has taught us some tricks here, without them you’ll have a hard time to cope. E.g. She showed us how, in an area with foreign hives, we can selectively mate the new queens with our own drones only. And how to change the queens of more than 50 colonies in the same day. But more on this later.Another thing is the problem of the tracheal mite, Acarapis woodi.When I arrived 25 years ago here on the island of La Palma, nearly all the bees perished due to the trachea. Then the beekeepers applied menthol and it went upwards again - until the varroa arrived.In the bees that hatch of 4.9 mm cells, the foremost part of trachea, or the frontal trachea opening, by which these mites can get into the inside of the bees, is so small that the mites no longer fit through - QED.Dee Lusbys bees had this problem in the beginning and it disappeared drastically once the cell size was reduced. Read the full article

This is about bees in Arnot Forest, New York State, USA. There has developed an isolated and resistant wild bee community : https://www.apidologie.org/articles/apido/abs/2007/01/m6063/m6063.htmlThe authoritative researcher is Tom Seeley, who has been studying these survivor hives for many years.Now, Tom Seeley always evasively responded to the repeated questions by Dee Lusby, which cell sizes these wild bees really build. Again and again he responded very negative to Dee Lusby's comments on the artificially enlarged cell size of our bees.Now a very interesting study appeared, in which Tom Seeley was significantly involved. Sasha Mikheyev, Assistant Professor of Ecology and Evolution at the Okinawa Institute of Science and Technology (OIST) in Japan, is the primary author.This scientific research from 2015 is about:Some honeybee colonies adapt in wake of deadly mites A new genetics study of wild honeybees offers clues to how a population has adapted to a mite that has devastated bee colonies worldwide. The findings may aid beekeepers and bee breeders to prevent future honeybee declines. To read here: http://news.cornell.edu/stories/2015/08/some-honeybee-colonies-adapt-wake-deadly-mitesand then Tom Seeley suddenly says that the bees are smaller in Arnot forest: Tom Seeley said: The surviving bees evolved to be smaller, suggesting these bees might require less time to develop. Since the mites infest nursery cells in hives, the shorter development time may allow young bees to develop into adulthood before the mites can finish their development. Mite-resistant honeybees in Africa are also small and have short development times, Seeley said. ,the full article: A new genetics study of wild honeybees offers clues to how a population has adapted to a mite that has devastated bee colonies worldwide. The findings may aid beekeepers and bee breeders to prevent future honeybee declines.The researchers genetically analyzed museum samples collected from wild honeybee colonies in 1977 and 2010; the bees came from Cornell University’s Arnot Forest. In comparing genomes from the two time periods, the results – published Aug. 6 in Nature Communications – show clear evidence that the wild honeybee colonies experienced a genetic bottleneck - a loss of genetic diversity - when the Varroa destructor mites killed most of the honeybee colonies. But some colonies survived, allowing the population to rebound.“The study is a unique and powerful contribution to understanding how honeybees have been impacted by the introduction of Varroa destructor, and how, if left alone, they can evolve resistance to this deadly parasite,” said Thomas Seeley, the Horace White Professor in Biology at Cornell and the paper’s senior author. Sasha Mikheyev ’00, an assistant professor of ecology and evolution at Okinawa Institute of Science and Technology (OIST) in Japan, is the paper’s first author.“The paper is also a clear demonstration of the importance of museum collections, in this case the Cornell University Insect Collection, and the importance of wild places, such as Cornell’s Arnot Forest,” Seeley added.In the 1970s, Seeley surveyed the population of wild colonies of honeybees (Apis mellifera) in Arnot Forest, and found 2.5 colonies per square mile. By the early 1990s, V. destructor mites had spread across the U.S. to New York state and were devastating bee colonies. The mites infest nursery cells in honeybee nests and feed on developing bees while also transferring virulent viruses.A 2002 survey of Arnot Forest by Seeley revealed the same abundance of bee colonies as in the late 1970s, suggesting that either new colonies from beekeepers' hives had repopulated the area, or that the existing population had undergone strong natural selection and came out with good resistance.By 2010, advances in DNA technology, used previously to stitch together fragmented DNA from Neanderthal samples, gave Mikheyev, Seeley and colleagues the tools for whole-genome sequencing and comparing museum and modern specimens.The results revealed a huge loss in diversity of mitochondrial genes, which are passed from one generation to the next only through the female lineage. This shows that the wild population of honeybees experienced a genetic bottleneck. Such bottlenecks arise when few individuals reproduce, reducing the gene pool. “Maybe only four or five queens survived and repopulated the forest,” Seeley said.At the same time, the surviving bees show high genetic diversity in their nuclear genes, passed on by dying colonies that still managed to produce male bees. The nuclear DNA showed widespread genetic changes, a signature of adaptation. “Even when a colony is not doing well, it can still produce a batch of males, so nuclear genes were not lost,” Seeley said.The data also show a lack of genes coming from outside populations, such as beekeepers' bees.The surviving bees evolved to be smaller, suggesting these bees might require less time to develop. Since the mites infest nursery cells in hives, the shorter development time may allow young bees to develop into adulthood before the mites can finish their development. Mite-resistant honeybees in Africa are also small and have short development times, Seeley said.Next, the researchers will study which genes and traits confer resistance to Varroa mites. The findings may help beekeepers to avoid pesticides for controlling mites and to trust the process of natural selection, and bee breeders to develop bees with the traits that have enabled bees to survive in the wild.The study was funded by the OIST and the North American Pollinator Protection Campaign. Here is the full study: https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms8991also as a pdf for download. The vast majority of mitochondrial genetic diversity in the old population (blue) has been lost in the modern population (red). The most common haplotype present in many modern bees and one of the old bees is identical to the mitochondrial haplotype 53 of A. mellifera ligustica (Italian). The modern population seems to have descended from a relatively small number of queens.wild bee hive in Arnot Forest:A comment:a beekeeper colleague has sent me a very interesting comment about Tom Seeley: Hello,Two weeks ago I was in Weimar, germany, at a bee Symposium, where also Seeley has given some lectures on the resistant bees in Arnot Forest.I asked him if he knew the bees of Dee Lusby and if the resistance of the bees in Arnot forest was also achieved through small cells.He replied that he knew the method of Dee but did not have contact with her, but he tested small cells and could not determine resistance in these hives.He also said that the resistance of Lusbys bees was only due to here africanized bees and had totally different genetics.In that respect your article surprised me, since some days ago you just stated the opposite. It was also incomprehensible to me that the researchers did not team up with beekeepers to further promote bee health and its conservation.Greeting W. This is very interesting what Tom Seeley has said in Weimar. He allegedly tested small cells and then found no resistance among his hives. BUT he clearly states that the bees are smaller in the Arnot forest:Tom Seeley said: The surviving bees grew smaller, suggesting that these bees need less time to develop. As the mites infest bee brood cells, the young bee can develop through the shorter breeding season before the mites can complete their own development. Mite-resistant honey bees in Africa are also small and have short development times, Seeley said. .And this is also highlighted in the research report:Changes in body size and shape Having found evidence of selection on developmental genes, we predicted that we would find morphological changes over time. Indeed, there has been an overall reduction in body size (head width: n = 64, t43.3 = -8.0, P = 4.0 × 10-10; intertegular span: n = 64, t62.8 = -8.6, P = 3.35 × 10-12; .......... African honey bees, which show resistance to V. destructor, are smaller than European honey bees honey bees of african descent. .And smaller bees require the construction of smaller cells in the brood nest, much like the african bees, which build cell sizes around 4.7mm.So why Tom Seeley is not able to imitate the situation of the small bees in the Arnot Forest? They are smaller and resistant, but he can not do it!Now Erik Österlund recently gave a lecture in Graz, Austria, and Tom Seeley was also among the speakers. Erik is a vehement advocate of small cells. He told me that he repeatedly asked T. Seeley about cell size of the bees in the Arnot Forest. He squirmed and did not want to make a definite statement, Erik said. This researcher Tom Seeley is a bit suspicious to me, because I red how he reported that he deliberately killed a resistant hive in Arnot forest in order to examine it. He handled a cyan compound and by his clumsiness he almost poisoned himself, he reports. Why on earth do you have to kill a survivor bee hive to be able to examine it ???And now comes the supreme impudence of Tom Seeley. He answered in Weimar to the question of our colleague:He also said that the resistance of Lusbys bees was only due to here africanized bees and had totally different genetics. .Ed & Dee Lusby got their bees analysed in 1986 by Prof. dr. N. Koeniger from the institute of bee investigations in Frankfurt, Germany. This has been published on Dee's website for many years, but again and again the same hostility towards Dee Lusby appeares. https://beesource.com/point-of-view/dee-lusby/lusbys-bee-biometrics/ Here Professor Koeniger wrote:We did the biometrics now and it resulted in clear differences of your black bees compared to the usual U.S. mixture. Your bees are quantitatively significant more towards Apis mellifera carnica und Apis mellifera caucasica. The Italian influence is very limited. .the original letter:Prof. Dr. N. Koeniger INSTITUT FUR BIENENKUNDE (Polytechnische Gesellschaft) Fachbereich Biologie der J. W. Goethe-Universitat Frankfurt am Main6370 Oberursel 1 Im Rothkopf 5 W.-GermanyMay 12, 1986Dear Mr. and Mrs. Lusby,Thanks for the letter of March 19th and the samples of bees. We did the biometrics now and it resulted in clear differences of your black bees compared to the usual U.S. mixture. Your bees are quantitatively significant more towards Apis mellifera carnica und Apis mellifera caucasica. The Italian influence is very limited.We thank you again for your hospitality. Hope to meet you some day again. Attached you will find the values of your samples (cubital index).SincerelyN. KoenigerAs Professor Koeniger says, the bees of Ed & Dee Lusby are clearly related to Carnica and Caucasica bees and show a clear difference to usual american bees.This has been public since 1986 and why does Tom Seeley dare to assert that Lusby's bees are africanized and that their resistance results in this fact?Does he do it purposely to discredit her? Read the full article

Who is telling us if the cell size impressed on the foundations is what the bees need? Dee Lusby discovered, after intensively studying beekeeping literature (from over 100 years and more), the cell size commonly used does not match the bees' needs. And yet the cell size is a critical factor. I’d even say the bee can’t live in harmony with nature without the right size. The Belgian professor Baudoux stated about 100 years ago "large cells, large bees, lots of honey" He experimented with extreme sizes, large and small, and incredibly, no one knows why, the cell size on all foundations remained at about 5.4 mm to this very day. It looks like the bee gets to its natural balance on a cell size from 4.9 mm downwards. At 4.9 mm, and the distance between the combs reduced to 32 mm, the temperature in the nest rises, reducing one day of the incubation period. At 20 instead of 21 days, the bees outrun the Varroa.The Varroa mite is of course aware of that, therefore in the summer it only breeds within the drone brood, as they can’t multiply within the worker brood. The Asian ‘cerana’ and African bees, without varroa problems, build small cells. here is a map of the cellsizes 100 years ago - click on the map to see it biggerObservations of Michael BushPre and Post Capping Times and Varroa 8 hours shorter capping time halves the number of Varroa infesting a brood cell. 8 hours shorter post capping time halves the number of offspring of a Varroa in the brood cell.Accepted days for capping and post-capping, (based on observing bees on 5.4 mm comb) Capped 9 days after egg laid Emerges 21 days after egg laid very important: reducing of comb distance to 32mm Another point is that small cell bees have a much longer life span, from 8 up to 12 weeks.The conventional large cell bees only have a lifespan of 6 weeks, which is considerably reduced by the use of chemicals, like anti Varroa treatments (Fernando Clatayud, biologist, Valencia, spain). This longer lifespan produces incredibly strong colonies as the work inside of the colony can be done by a lot more bees, which is a prerequisite for a healthy immune system. Ongoing stress by the same amount of work to be done by too few bees negatively affects the bee’s immune system. Dee Lusby found out that the cellsize of 4.9mm is the actual fundamental prerequisite, that the hygienic behaviour VSH appears, which means the active culling of Varoa mites from the infected brood cells. see hygienic behaviour VSH With this the topic addressed, there is still much more to be explained. The cell size is only one aspect amongst many that must be changed to get resistant bees.The history of cell sizes (Dee Lusby) - The first artificial comb foundation was made in Germany in 1842 by Gottlieb Kretchmer. - I would say our present era of problems began around 1891 in Belgium with the introduction of artificial comb foundation with 920 cells to the square decimeter which would equate to about midway between 4.6 cm and 4.7cm for 10 worker cells. cell sizes of different bee races (in europe and USA too big due to use of too big cellprints)A Prof U. Baudoux of Belgium published an article in Progress Apicole in June, 1893, advocating the use of larger comb cells, as a result of experiments duly described. It seems Prof Baudoux wanted to rear bees of extraordinary vigor, able to forage over a more extended flight-radius and to visit a multitude of flowers the nectar of which was, then (and probably still is), out-of-reach of their tongues.He experimented with cells up to the limit of 750 cells per square decimeter, the sizes of cells which he obtained by stretching wax comb foundation. Then encouraged by his experiences, he wished to do still better—”TO GO TO THE BOUNDS OF POSSIBILITY”. (Here is where our current modern-day problems begin with parasitic mites and their secondary diseases.)Prof Baudoux experimented with various sizes of foundation per the square decimeter, namely: 750, 740, 730, 710 and down to 675. He also experimented with various ways of measuring cells and devised his own measurement system for it. (Unfortunately, there was no corresponding correlation chart made for his devised measurement system, vs. the traditional way of measuring comb foundation that had been in use for over 2,000 years back to before the time of Christ, so beekeepers could go back and forth between the two measurement systems.)Prof Baudoux was so successful with his writing and his experiments, and so convincing , that manufacturing houses all started selling foundation with enlarged cells and claiming good results for the use of the same. Most of this work was done around the late 1920s through the 1930s and 1940s. (The result has been that this process of bigger is better with its resultant selling has never stopped, and continues up to modern day to the detriment now, that only enlarged oversized foundations (well beyond the bounds of possibility for bigger honeybees as envisioned by Prof Baudoux) are now only sold and standardized large at that, i.e. 5.7cm for 10 worker cells being about the largest). How do we measure cell size?The default is to measure 10 cells from wall center to wall center and then divide by 10. Dee Lusby: I would say our present era of problems began around 1891 in Belgium with the introduction of artificial comb foundation with 920 cells to the square decimeter which would equate to about midway between 4.6 cm and 4.7cm for 10 worker cells. The beekeepers there all adopted this size of cell. The experts of that time believed that it was advantageous to produce as many bees as possible on the least possible surface of comb. Thus there was said to be a premature narrowing of the cells throughout Belgium, and at the end of a few years the bees were miserable specimens. (We could say that this was then the opposite of today’s problem of bigger is better.)It was then that to combat so harmful a tendency that an idea was born with a proposed magnificent final (which we are still playing out today). A Prof U. Baudoux of Belgium published an article in Progress Apicole in June, 1893, advocating the use of larger comb cells, as a result of experiments duly described. It seems Prof Baudoux wanted to rear bees of extraordinary vigor, able to forage over a more extended flight-radius and to visit a multitude of flowers the nectar of which was, then (and probably still is), out-of-reach of their tongues.He experimented with cells up to the limit of 750 cells per square decimeter, the sizes of cells which he obtained by stretching wax comb foundation. Then encouraged by his experiences, he wished to do still better—”TO GO TO THE BOUNDS OF POSSIBILITY”. (Here is where our current modern-day problems begin with parasitic mites and their secondary diseases.)Prof Baudoux experimented with various sizes of foundation per the square decimeter, namely: 750, 740, 730, 710 and down to 675. He also experimented with various ways of measuring cells and devised his own measurement system for it.Unfortunately, there was no corresponding correlation chart made for his devised measurement system, vs. the traditional way of measuring comb foundation that had been in use for over 2,000 years back to before the time of Christ, so beekeepers could go back and forth between the two measurement systems.a fatal mistake old rhomb metod to measure: new metod from Baudoux ona fatal mistake The old method of measuring results in much fewer cells per dm² as the new one introduced by Baudoux. Before Baudoux foundations with about 5 cells per inch were used, which corresponds to about 800 - 830 cells per dm ² according to the old measurement at 5.0 to 4.9 mm. But there was no conversion system and foundation manufacturers , after Baudoux, in the 20s till the 40s, took over the rate of 800 cells/dm ², but applied the new method of measuring. Thus it came to a cell sizes of about 5.4 mm. And apparently no one is aware of this serious error, because the size is maintained to the present day. conversion table of the different measuring metods:Dee Lusby:Prof Baudoux was so successful with his writing and his experiments, and so convincing , that manufacturing houses all started selling foundation with enlarged cells and claiming good results for the use of the same. Most of this work was done around the late 1920s through the 1930s and 1940s. (The result has been that this process of bigger is better with its resultant selling has never stopped, and continues up to modern day to the detriment now, that only enlarged oversized foundations (well beyond the bounds of possibility for bigger honeybees as envisioned by Prof Baudoux) are now only sold and standardized large at that, i.e. 5.7cm for 10 worker cells being about the largest).Could this continuing trend towards bigger is better be an underlying causative effect creating todays problems of parasitic mites and their accompanying secondary diseases? Probably. But on what evidence would one place such a thought?Unfortunately for us all, it was not the large cell in itself for which Prof Baudaoux was working, but rather instead for the selection of a better bee. IT IS IMPORTANT FOR TODAY’S BEEKEEPERS TO REMEMBER THE TIME FRAME HERE, AND ITS PLACE IN HISTORY, AND ALSO THE FACT THAT THE MEASUREMENT SYSTEM DEVISED BY PROF BAUDOUX WAS NOT CORRELATED WITH TRADITIONAL MEASUREMENT METHODS. WHY? BECAUSE, AN UNDERLYING CAUSATIVE EFFECT FOR TODAY’S PARASITIC MITE PROBLEMS AND THEIR ACCOMPANYING SECONDARY DISEASES WAS BORN HERE!Equally unfortunate for us all is the fact that Prof Baudoux was a follower of what is called Lamarckian Theory, and believed that it was possible to improve the honeybee permanently, by giving her the chance to grow larger in each succeeding generation. However, to a follower of Darwinian or Mendelian theory, this is indeed a very uncertain doctrine; and the bees themselves appear to confirm this criticism (even today any beekeeper can compare the feral to those bees confined domestically), since even back in the early 1900s it was common knowledge that they tend to retrogress in the size of the worker comb cells they build when let alone, back to what is NATURAL as put forth by the laws of Nature and not by man’s artificially created and politicized rules.Dee Lusby:We have found through reading, that mills have been made in many sizes over the years, all the way up to 3-1/2 cells to the inch. THIS IS WHERE OUR INDUSTRY HAS GOTTEN INTO SO MUCH TROUBLE. CELL SIZES, THEIR SIZE, AND HOW TO MEASURE THEM. Most beekeepers universally agree that five cells to the inch is worker size and four cells to the inch is drone size in the feral population. But, the domestic sizes our bees today have ended up on, are quite different and have wrought havoc, as artificial combs have gotten bigger. The stress upon our honeybees caused by being out-of-balance with natural flora has opened Pandora’s box to foulbrood diseases, chalk, and viral infections. By being too big, our domesticated honeybees have taken on parasitic mite infestations as our now pseudo-drones,aka: worker bees, are perceived as a new food source by both Varroa and Tracheal mites. With all this damage being done, we find no teaching anywhere on the history of use of artificial comb foundation sizes in the USA, so our beekeepers can make rational decisions concerning proper usage.The various comb cell sizes (706, 711, standard, drone, etc) were originally designed with meaning, which is now forgotten in today’s modern world. No one person or company is to blame in the USA or elsewhere in our world for artificially increasing honeybees so big as to cause disease and parasitic mite problems that now encompass over 135 nations at catastrophic level, placing them in a situation out-of-tune with the reality of Nature. Nothing was hidden and everything was written and published out in the open.The only thing that has happened is that artificial supposition and an artificial domesticated system of beekeeping has so far prevailed over that found naturally occurring in Nature and has been taught.It began with a simple idea everyone wanted to participate in, i.e. scientists, manufacturing houses. Now through the passing of each successive generation (figure 20 years to each new generation), the growing disparity of size between feral and domestic hives dictates this bigger-is-better trend must be corrected and its underlying causative effects must be brought to light and taught, if beekeeping as we know it is to continue.In Belgium, Prof Baudoux measured workers in the range of 5mm to 5.17mm and 5.35mm per cell. (Ordinary drone cells he placed at 5.5mm next to 5mm for worker cells.) Even he found 5.5mm drone cells next to 5mm worker cells to be double in volume of cell contents for food confirming Mullenhoff’s results. When we then consider having today, foundation on the market as large as 5.7mm, it’s not hard to see how it would not be disastrous for beekeepers to use, because of parasitic mite attraction with a pseudo-effect on worker bees perceived as a food source just like that of drones.Yet, look how much foundation on today’s market is 5.44mm in size (close to the 5.5mm drone size measured by Baudoux).Wouldn’t this too, also be dangerous for attraction for parasitic mites, causing a pseudo-effect, with mites mistaking worker bees for drones?JUST HOW BIG THEN, IS TOO BIG?I would say too big is when a colony of bees starts to become distressed, which leads to stress, which leads to disease, which lets a beekeeper know through visual perception that something is wrong within the hive. Read the full article

It wasn’t that easy for Dee, nor has it been for us as mentioned. Nowadays it is much easier to solve.If large cell bees are given 4.9 mm foundations they won’t be able to build on them. The outcome would be something like this:The principle is that a bee hatching from a small cell is very likely to be capable of building the same cell size.Therefore we went a step by step. At first from 5.4 mm to 5.1mm, with almost no complications, and then from 4.9 mm to 5.1 mm, that was a complete mess in the beginning. Just one of a hundred made it on the first attempt.One must also observe the following.In Nature the bees usually build in various dimensions. Large for honey and small in the breeding nest. This is a legitimately criticized part of our work, as we are forcing the bees to accept only one measurement. But it is necessary at first to get the disease under control. Under a cell size of 4.9 mm we have no more issues. 100 years on large cells is too long and the bees have to re-learn how to build small and to defend themselves against the disease by themselves. In order to achieve it we need to reduce the cell size to 4.9 mm and later they can build freely, but I have mentioned this earlier.Another problem is that the bees have difficulties to build small cells during strong honey flow.In the beginning I had about 100 colonies building very well on 4.9mm cells. As the spring came all of a sudden all of them were unable to build this measure. I was, of course, in an uproar! I had little experience and contacted Dee in Arizona immediately. She only asked: “What flower is in bloom?”“Almond blossom” , I replied. She said “ wait for a week and then have look”. And she was right, after the almond bloomed it was all back to normal. Phfffffffff… It is good to make sure the period of comb construction is not overlapping excessive blossoming seasons.Furthermore the bees build the small cells better in the foundations situated close to the brood nest. When the bees are growing well, we place foundations directly next to the brood where they are drawn and egged in within a day.If I was to give anyone willing to start with small cells 5 fully drawn 4.9 mm combs, it will be enough to shake down his bees and the queen on these and he’d already have achieved everything. The Queen has a flexible abdomen and can lay its eggs in the small cells.After 6 weeks only bees born in small cells remain. Then mostly the bees themselves change the queen that will already be born smaller. It’s that simple.But we have no fully drawn combs.A colleague from the US had the Idea to build combs of plastic. Ughhh… plastic!Plastic is something we do not want in the hive. But it can save years of struggle and do it in a few months. The plastic combs are then taken out again and can soon be used for the next conversion. If I’d have had those 10 years ago it’d sure have saved me two years of hard work, the loss of strong colonies and money due to the failure of many hives.We then took these plastic combs; they’re called HSC and are fabricated by the owner in China, and introduced them to our colleagues here. Another adventure I can tell you. I myself made a test with three colonies and have recorded the results. Manual 21.7.07 we have to prepare the HSC. First we need to rub the plastic combs with wax so as the bees accept them better then spray them with some honey and lemon grass oil.Lemon grass oil is the same substance as what is often sold as an expensive swarm bate. It smells like what the bees spray when they lift the butt to indicate where the others need to go. A queen excluder to retain the queen has to be attached to the exit/entrance of the hive, so as the queen cannot get out. It must remain there up until the first brood hatches from the HSC! Now we hang five HSC combs into a nuc and lock a queen with 5 bees in a small cage of which the bees will be able to free her by eating away the candy. We hang the cage between the combs and shake the necessary amount of bees in it.. We feed them with honey until they become strong 27.07.07 yet we can see eggs positioned in the HSC, sometimes it takes a bit longer. Here we see the other nuc, which we have given one of the small cell queens. We can see that it is much smaller. The bees are still large cell bees. 29.7.07 A heat wave, 42.7 ° C. Some of the hives melted, they had to be sprayed with water every hour - but these nucs survived without any problems4.8.07 three colonies have ceased to breed because of the exceptional heat and one is without a queen. I had to remove the excluder and probably one got lost. We had to replace it with a newly bred queen.17.08.07 they already have reasonably good breeding, but you can see that it is not so easy for them to accept the HSC. Now there are bees that have hatched in small cells and they are visibly smaller. There was very strong wind in the past days and the bees could hardly fly, they therefore had no pollen and stopped the brood a little. Now I feed honey and pollen.25.9.07 the brood has now stabilized. Colony N ° 1 one comb has brood, N ° 2 has two brood combs. And what a surprise!, colony N ° 3 already shows the baldheaded brood and is kicking out the Varroa mites 26.12.07 Our queens of the black bee stop to breed in December and start again at Christmas. That's a big advantage in the combat with the Varroa. The colony No. 1 starts with new brood after also he has thrown out the mites. Today I could see no Varroa in all three colonies. 1.2.08 Now they are getting started with the almond blossom and the weather is also favorable. This is the colony No. 3, which threw the mites out in September, as can be seen in the last photo. The brood is now even and I can’t find a mite.03/10/08 we have now changed the colony N ° 3 on a super. In El Paso we have converted some colonies of our colleagues Wolfgang in August last year. They have changed the best one to a super last week and today we had to ad a second box. This is the brood in the HSC. and here we see how well they build the small cells and this is brood in the small cells drawn by the bees here we have placed the combs directly next to the brood nest, where they are built better. The honey and pollen are outside. (Note - the marked frame hooked wrong due to the Y) Here we see a colony of another colleague which was also made in August from large cell bees. Now they are small and strong we have changed it to a super Read the full article

This is about bees in Arnot Forest, New York State, USA. There has developed an isolated and resistant wild bee community : https://www.apidologie.org/articles/apido/abs/2007/01/m6063/m6063.htmlThe authoritative researcher is Tom Seeley, who has been studying these survivor hives for many years.Now, Tom Seeley always evasively responded to the repeated questions by Dee Lusby, which cell sizes these wild bees really build. Again and again he responded very negative to Dee Lusby's comments on the artificially enlarged cell size of our bees.Now a very interesting study appeared, in which Tom Seeley was significantly involved. Sasha Mikheyev, Assistant Professor of Ecology and Evolution at the Okinawa Institute of Science and Technology (OIST) in Japan, is the primary author.This scientific research from 2015 is about:Some honeybee colonies adapt in wake of deadly mites A new genetics study of wild honeybees offers clues to how a population has adapted to a mite that has devastated bee colonies worldwide. The findings may aid beekeepers and bee breeders to prevent future honeybee declines. To read here: http://news.cornell.edu/stories/2015/08/some-honeybee-colonies-adapt-wake-deadly-mitesand then Tom Seeley suddenly says that the bees are smaller in Arnot forest: Tom Seeley said: The surviving bees evolved to be smaller, suggesting these bees might require less time to develop. Since the mites infest nursery cells in hives, the shorter development time may allow young bees to develop into adulthood before the mites can finish their development. Mite-resistant honeybees in Africa are also small and have short development times, Seeley said. ,the full article: A new genetics study of wild honeybees offers clues to how a population has adapted to a mite that has devastated bee colonies worldwide. The findings may aid beekeepers and bee breeders to prevent future honeybee declines.The researchers genetically analyzed museum samples collected from wild honeybee colonies in 1977 and 2010; the bees came from Cornell University’s Arnot Forest. In comparing genomes from the two time periods, the results – published Aug. 6 in Nature Communications – show clear evidence that the wild honeybee colonies experienced a genetic bottleneck - a loss of genetic diversity - when the Varroa destructor mites killed most of the honeybee colonies. But some colonies survived, allowing the population to rebound.“The study is a unique and powerful contribution to understanding how honeybees have been impacted by the introduction of Varroa destructor, and how, if left alone, they can evolve resistance to this deadly parasite,” said Thomas Seeley, the Horace White Professor in Biology at Cornell and the paper’s senior author. Sasha Mikheyev ’00, an assistant professor of ecology and evolution at Okinawa Institute of Science and Technology (OIST) in Japan, is the paper’s first author.“The paper is also a clear demonstration of the importance of museum collections, in this case the Cornell University Insect Collection, and the importance of wild places, such as Cornell’s Arnot Forest,” Seeley added.In the 1970s, Seeley surveyed the population of wild colonies of honeybees (Apis mellifera) in Arnot Forest, and found 2.5 colonies per square mile. By the early 1990s, V. destructor mites had spread across the U.S. to New York state and were devastating bee colonies. The mites infest nursery cells in honeybee nests and feed on developing bees while also transferring virulent viruses.A 2002 survey of Arnot Forest by Seeley revealed the same abundance of bee colonies as in the late 1970s, suggesting that either new colonies from beekeepers' hives had repopulated the area, or that the existing population had undergone strong natural selection and came out with good resistance.By 2010, advances in DNA technology, used previously to stitch together fragmented DNA from Neanderthal samples, gave Mikheyev, Seeley and colleagues the tools for whole-genome sequencing and comparing museum and modern specimens.The results revealed a huge loss in diversity of mitochondrial genes, which are passed from one generation to the next only through the female lineage. This shows that the wild population of honeybees experienced a genetic bottleneck. Such bottlenecks arise when few individuals reproduce, reducing the gene pool. “Maybe only four or five queens survived and repopulated the forest,” Seeley said.At the same time, the surviving bees show high genetic diversity in their nuclear genes, passed on by dying colonies that still managed to produce male bees. The nuclear DNA showed widespread genetic changes, a signature of adaptation. “Even when a colony is not doing well, it can still produce a batch of males, so nuclear genes were not lost,” Seeley said.The data also show a lack of genes coming from outside populations, such as beekeepers' bees.The surviving bees evolved to be smaller, suggesting these bees might require less time to develop. Since the mites infest nursery cells in hives, the shorter development time may allow young bees to develop into adulthood before the mites can finish their development. Mite-resistant honeybees in Africa are also small and have short development times, Seeley said.Next, the researchers will study which genes and traits confer resistance to Varroa mites. The findings may help beekeepers to avoid pesticides for controlling mites and to trust the process of natural selection, and bee breeders to develop bees with the traits that have enabled bees to survive in the wild.The study was funded by the OIST and the North American Pollinator Protection Campaign. Here is the full study: https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms8991also as a pdf for download. The vast majority of mitochondrial genetic diversity in the old population (blue) has been lost in the modern population (red). The most common haplotype present in many modern bees and one of the old bees is identical to the mitochondrial haplotype 53 of A. mellifera ligustica (Italian). The modern population seems to have descended from a relatively small number of queens.wild bee hive in Arnot Forest:A comment:a beekeeper colleague has sent me a very interesting comment about Tom Seeley: Hello,Two weeks ago I was in Weimar, germany, at a bee Symposium, where also Seeley has given some lectures on the resistant bees in Arnot Forest.I asked him if he knew the bees of Dee Lusby and if the resistance of the bees in Arnot forest was also achieved through small cells.He replied that he knew the method of Dee but did not have contact with her, but he tested small cells and could not determine resistance in these hives.He also said that the resistance of Lusbys bees was only due to here africanized bees and had totally different genetics.In that respect your article surprised me, since some days ago you just stated the opposite. It was also incomprehensible to me that the researchers did not team up with beekeepers to further promote bee health and its conservation.Greeting W. This is very interesting what Tom Seeley has said in Weimar. He allegedly tested small cells and then found no resistance among his hives. BUT he clearly states that the bees are smaller in the Arnot forest:Tom Seeley said: The surviving bees grew smaller, suggesting that these bees need less time to develop. As the mites infest bee brood cells, the young bee can develop through the shorter breeding season before the mites can complete their own development. Mite-resistant honey bees in Africa are also small and have short development times, Seeley said. .And this is also highlighted in the research report:Changes in body size and shape Having found evidence of selection on developmental genes, we predicted that we would find morphological changes over time. Indeed, there has been an overall reduction in body size (head width: n = 64, t43.3 = -8.0, P = 4.0 × 10-10; intertegular span: n = 64, t62.8 = -8.6, P = 3.35 × 10-12; .......... African honey bees, which show resistance to V. destructor, are smaller than European honey bees honey bees of african descent. .And smaller bees require the construction of smaller cells in the brood nest, much like the african bees, which build cell sizes around 4.7mm.So why Tom Seeley is not able to imitate the situation of the small bees in the Arnot Forest? They are smaller and resistant, but he can not do it!Now Erik Österlund recently gave a lecture in Graz, Austria, and Tom Seeley was also among the speakers. Erik is a vehement advocate of small cells. He told me that he repeatedly asked T. Seeley about cell size of the bees in the Arnot Forest. He squirmed and did not want to make a definite statement, Erik said. This researcher Tom Seeley is a bit suspicious to me, because I red how he reported that he deliberately killed a resistant hive in Arnot forest in order to examine it. He handled a cyan compound and by his clumsiness he almost poisoned himself, he reports. Why on earth do you have to kill a survivor bee hive to be able to examine it ???And now comes the supreme impudence of Tom Seeley. He answered in Weimar to the question of our colleague:He also said that the resistance of Lusbys bees was only due to here africanized bees and had totally different genetics. .Ed & Dee Lusby got their bees analysed in 1986 by Prof. dr. N. Koeniger from the institute of bee investigations in Frankfurt, Germany. This has been published on Dee's website for many years, but again and again the same hostility towards Dee Lusby appeares. https://beesource.com/point-of-view/dee-lusby/lusbys-bee-biometrics/ Here Professor Koeniger wrote:We did the biometrics now and it resulted in clear differences of your black bees compared to the usual U.S. mixture. Your bees are quantitatively significant more towards Apis mellifera carnica und Apis mellifera caucasica. The Italian influence is very limited. .the original letter:Prof. Dr. N. Koeniger INSTITUT FUR BIENENKUNDE (Polytechnische Gesellschaft) Fachbereich Biologie der J. W. Goethe-Universitat Frankfurt am Main6370 Oberursel 1 Im Rothkopf 5 W.-GermanyMay 12, 1986Dear Mr. and Mrs. Lusby,Thanks for the letter of March 19th and the samples of bees. We did the biometrics now and it resulted in clear differences of your black bees compared to the usual U.S. mixture. Your bees are quantitatively significant more towards Apis mellifera carnica und Apis mellifera caucasica. The Italian influence is very limited.We thank you again for your hospitality. Hope to meet you some day again. Attached you will find the values of your samples (cubital index).SincerelyN. KoenigerAs Professor Koeniger says, the bees of Ed & Dee Lusby are clearly related to Carnica and Caucasica bees and show a clear difference to usual american bees.This has been public since 1986 and why does Tom Seeley dare to assert that Lusby's bees are africanized and that their resistance results in this fact?Does he do it purposely to discredit her? Read the full article

It wasn’t that easy for Dee, nor has it been for us as mentioned. Nowadays it is much easier to solve.If large cell bees are given 4.9 mm foundations they won’t be able to build on them. The outcome would be something like this:The principle is that a bee hatching from a small cell is very likely to be capable of building the same cell size.Therefore we went a step by step. At first from 5.4 mm to 5.1mm, with almost no complications, and then from 4.9 mm to 5.1 mm, that was a complete mess in the beginning. Just one of a hundred made it on the first attempt.One must also observe the following.In Nature the bees usually build in various dimensions. Large for honey and small in the breeding nest. This is a legitimately criticized part of our work, as we are forcing the bees to accept only one measurement. But it is necessary at first to get the disease under control. Under a cell size of 4.9 mm we have no more issues. 100 years on large cells is too long and the bees have to re-learn how to build small and to defend themselves against the disease by themselves. In order to achieve it we need to reduce the cell size to 4.9 mm and later they can build freely, but I have mentioned this earlier.Another problem is that the bees have difficulties to build small cells during strong honey flow.In the beginning I had about 100 colonies building very well on 4.9mm cells. As the spring came all of a sudden all of them were unable to build this measure. I was, of course, in an uproar! I had little experience and contacted Dee in Arizona immediately. She only asked: “What flower is in bloom?”“Almond blossom” , I replied. She said “ wait for a week and then have look”. And she was right, after the almond bloomed it was all back to normal. Phfffffffff… It is good to make sure the period of comb construction is not overlapping excessive blossoming seasons.Furthermore the bees build the small cells better in the foundations situated close to the brood nest. When the bees are growing well, we place foundations directly next to the brood where they are drawn and egged in within a day.If I was to give anyone willing to start with small cells 5 fully drawn 4.9 mm combs, it will be enough to shake down his bees and the queen on these and he’d already have achieved everything. The Queen has a flexible abdomen and can lay its eggs in the small cells.After 6 weeks only bees born in small cells remain. Then mostly the bees themselves change the queen that will already be born smaller. It’s that simple.But we have no fully drawn combs.A colleague from the US had the Idea to build combs of plastic. Ughhh… plastic!Plastic is something we do not want in the hive. But it can save years of struggle and do it in a few months. The plastic combs are then taken out again and can soon be used for the next conversion. If I’d have had those 10 years ago it’d sure have saved me two years of hard work, the loss of strong colonies and money due to the failure of many hives.We then took these plastic combs; they’re called HSC and are fabricated by the owner in China, and introduced them to our colleagues here. Another adventure I can tell you. I myself made a test with three colonies and have recorded the results. Manual 21.7.07 we have to prepare the HSC. First we need to rub the plastic combs with wax so as the bees accept them better then spray them with some honey and lemon grass oil.Lemon grass oil is the same substance as what is often sold as an expensive swarm bate. It smells like what the bees spray when they lift the butt to indicate where the others need to go. A queen excluder to retain the queen has to be attached to the exit/entrance of the hive, so as the queen cannot get out. It must remain there up until the first brood hatches from the HSC! Now we hang five HSC combs into a nuc and lock a queen with 5 bees in a small cage of which the bees will be able to free her by eating away the candy. We hang the cage between the combs and shake the necessary amount of bees in it.. We feed them with honey until they become strong 27.07.07 yet we can see eggs positioned in the HSC, sometimes it takes a bit longer. Here we see the other nuc, which we have given one of the small cell queens. We can see that it is much smaller. The bees are still large cell bees. 29.7.07 A heat wave, 42.7 ° C. Some of the hives melted, they had to be sprayed with water every hour - but these nucs survived without any problems4.8.07 three colonies have ceased to breed because of the exceptional heat and one is without a queen. I had to remove the excluder and probably one got lost. We had to replace it with a newly bred queen.17.08.07 they already have reasonably good breeding, but you can see that it is not so easy for them to accept the HSC. Now there are bees that have hatched in small cells and they are visibly smaller. There was very strong wind in the past days and the bees could hardly fly, they therefore had no pollen and stopped the brood a little. Now I feed honey and pollen.25.9.07 the brood has now stabilized. Colony N ° 1 one comb has brood, N ° 2 has two brood combs. And what a surprise!, colony N ° 3 already shows the baldheaded brood and is kicking out the Varroa mites 26.12.07 Our queens of the black bee stop to breed in December and start again at Christmas. That's a big advantage in the combat with the Varroa. The colony No. 1 starts with new brood after also he has thrown out the mites. Today I could see no Varroa in all three colonies. 1.2.08 Now they are getting started with the almond blossom and the weather is also favorable. This is the colony No. 3, which threw the mites out in September, as can be seen in the last photo. The brood is now even and I can’t find a mite.03/10/08 we have now changed the colony N ° 3 on a super. In El Paso we have converted some colonies of our colleagues Wolfgang in August last year. They have changed the best one to a super last week and today we had to ad a second box. This is the brood in the HSC. and here we see how well they build the small cells and this is brood in the small cells drawn by the bees here we have placed the combs directly next to the brood nest, where they are built better. The honey and pollen are outside. (Note - the marked frame hooked wrong due to the Y) Here we see a colony of another colleague which was also made in August from large cell bees. Now they are small and strong we have changed it to a super Read the full article