#advantagesofsmallcells

I would like to try here step by step to put together all the advantages of small cell bees.Extended flight times of small-celled beesToday, Dee Lusby has written something interesting in her American discussion group..The point was that a colleague wrote that his bees were flying at 14 ° C and even brought some pollen. Dee answered: DEE LUSBY has written: there is always some pollen with temps in 70s and even 60sF weather ............ for stuff near rocks and other physical doings radiate heat for keeping things blooming though not in large quantity and small heels can find it normally which you seem to have happened ............... while big fat LC bees can not do that, for smaller flys at lower temps and higher temps and earlier and later in daytime ........................ ..so what ever ground cover or other is blooming is nice ............ for even out here in 60s / 70s weather the bees are bringing some stuff back ... ..though not much ...... ..but it's more butting the hills up higher and not the valleys so much. Read the full article

Dee comments that the cleaning behavior (we call it the baldheaded brood) depends primarily on the number of bees for the necessary work. there is a scientific study which shows that bees on small cells live longer.There are priorities, or let's say a hierarchy. Feeding the brood is more important than cleaning it, for example. But because the lifetime of the small cell bee is considerably longer (8-12 weeks) than the one of the large cell bees, we have a lot more bees available for the same amount of work. And lets imagine all their duties for a moment , breeding, feeding, cleaning cells, quick paint everything with propolis, honey, ventilate, nectar, fetch water, pollen, guarding the entrance etc etc. This means that the small cell bees get started much earlier with removing the varroa from the infected cells. And this is entirely matching our experience. If we observe small and large cell hives by the same mothers, we see bald-headed brood in the former, and none in the latter. That comes only when it is already too late. Of course we can and must also breed for cleaning, but according our experience, the above-described is far more important and fundamental. So we can see that we have a much better starting position with small cells and it is then much easier to steer in the right direction with breeding.Michael Bush made some tests. He bought normal commercial queens of different races and converted part in small cells and the other part on large cells. All small cell hives showed hygienic behavior, of the large-celled bees none did. Why do small cell bees live longer?We learned that the bees normally live for 6 weeks in summer. Experience shows that the life of bees living in hives treated with chemicals and acids is considerably shorter.(Dr. Fernando Calatayud, biologist, Valancia, spain)During the winter months a bee can live over 6 months.Why so long?Because they do not get exhausted by a lot of work. Within the small cell bees we have a much more compact brood nest due to the smaller cell size and also a smaller distance between the honeycombs. 3 frames of Langstroth small cell bees have as many cells as 4 frames of large cell bees. Thus, the volume of the brood nest is considerably smaller and there are fewer bees to do the same required work.there is a scientific study which shows that bees on small cells live longer.We now know that today’s problems threatening bee colonies are caused by too much stress. Stess factors are the disease, chemicals in the hive, improperly placed honeycombs, to large cell sizes, bee species that are not adapted to the environment, contaminated wax, too much or too little drone brood, destroyed micro-fauna, beekeeping practices that do not dignify bees, just like queen excluders, swarm prevention, profit-oriented selective breeding, migration, feeding with artificial foods, artificial pollen, syrup etc etc.And whoever is exposed to too much stress gets sick and his immune system is weakened considerably.The bees in small cell hives do no longer have to work until absolute exhaustion, because there are far more bees for the same amount of work.They live longer.The larger the colony gets, the more relaxed is the situation.Cleaning behavior, VSH, hygienic behavior, bald headed brood is all the same. It is also possible to breed, but not stable. If this were so, we would have been much more successful after the decade-long resistance breeding.Another interesting observation that I made ​​with my hives, which began to defend themselves against the mites, was that the consistency and the amount of propolis changed. Much much more propolis and incredibly sticky. But only in this transitional period, and later it was back to normal in quantity and quality. Read the full article

from Erik Österlund -> more evidences that the cell size of bee comb has been artificially enlarged It appears now and then articles in especially the German language stating that the enlarging of cellsize historically never have occurred, but instead what’s happened is going back to normal larger cellsize. And those decreasing cellsize is doing something unnatural. How come?In the English language there are many sources from the 19th and 20th century leaving no doubt an enlarging have taken place. Wildman, Cowan, Root, Cheshire, Bee World in the 1930th, etc. The icon Enoch Zander One of the old German icons in beekeeping is Enoch Zander (1873-1957). His book “Die Zucht Der Biene” was first published in 1920. After his death new editions changed name to “Haltung und Zucht der Biene” because they were revised by Friedrich K Böttcher. It was published in its 12th edition in 1989. The book is a classic beekeeping book in Germany.The picture shows a part of page 236 from the 5th edition from 1941. Click on the picture and enlarge it so you can read it easier. (If you can read German with these old letters.) To go back to this page click on the return button in your browser in the upper left corner. One passage here says translated into English:“The whole question has recently been cleared somewhat by Hofmann (1937). He found that natural comb and the first foundation molds by Mehring had 748-750 cells/dm2 . Around 1860, Graberg from Switzerland , for strange reasons, produced molds with 835 cells , there were even some with 1120 cells/dm2 . So today’s production of large cells is indeed no enlargement, but a reversion back to the natural.” My calculations to mm translations are made with the formula X=100÷√(A÷2.315) where X=cellsize in mm and A=cells/dm2. Backcheck the formula with A=23150÷X2Earlier in the book there are some figures which contradict this statement. Cellsize figures given by a couple of Russian beekeepers, Tuenin and Bogdanov. In the 12th edition from 1989 they say that Tuenin in Tula (120 km south of Moscow) had measured cellsizes ranging between 4.99 mm and 5.26 mm. Bogdanov had in Leningrad measured 5.53 mm to 5.69 mm. (I’m not sure if these cellsizes are from comb with or without foundation. And if without if it’s from a colony whose bees are born in a colony with foundation of large cells. If for example the Leningrad figures come from a swarm from a colony on cellsize 5.4-5.7 it may well draw the given cellsizes the first time they are doing it without wax foundatin. Next generation will draw even smaller if given the chance.) The contradiction between these figures and the conclusion is even more clear if you also have the 5th edition to compare with. In this edition the Tuenin figures from Tula is given to be 4.74 mm to 5.00 mm. The revision in the 12th edition made the contradiction milder changing the figures a little (couldn’t do much harm could it?). The influence of the classic book The majority of beekeepers in Germany I think still read this book and of course trust the authority. The icon can’t be wrong, can he? I think this book is a big reason why this opinion keep coming up that it’s never been an enlarging of the cellsize.Tobias Stever is a beekeeper that has covered the cellsize on his website with an article. His conclusion is that no enlargement has been done and therefore the regression down in size today is not natural. http://www.bienenarchiv.de/veroeffentlichungen/2003_zellengroesse/zellengroesse.htm Historical measurements This conclusion of Stever is contradicted by his own list of historical measurements of cellsizes. When you read his article and other articles on cellsizes it’s hard to find insight that different sizes in the hive mostly are used differently by the bees. And that the different sizes are often found in certain places on the comb and in the hive. The cellsizes in a hive T W Cowan (1890) in a book mentions that larger cells normally are found at the edges of the wax combs and smaller at the center. Today if you study a topbar hive (TBH) which has deep combs enough, you will see that largest worker cells are generally found at the top and furthest away from the entrance. That’s mainly where honey is stored and not where brood is reared. If such a hive is not started with large cell bees you will probably find 5.1 and smaller cell sizes closer to the bottom and the entrance.A topbar comb with Dennis Murrel in Montana. Smallest cellsizes at the bottom close to the entrance. Biggest away from the entrance and at the top. Samples for measurement So with all these measurements, where are the samples taken that are measured? And how many are they? Is the whole of the hive covered when samples are taken? Have the bees built the combs without the help of wax foundation? Is it a swarm from a large cell colony or is it a colony that has lived for some generations on combs built and rebuilt by themselves?In some cases you are given the smallest and the largest cellsizes found, so there you know that more than one sample is taken, but also you rarely are presented with the number of samples taken and from where in the hive.The conclusion is that you have to read the original books and articles where the figures are presented to see if you can find out how accurate the measurements are concerning how natural the cellsizes of these bees are. Cowan One good book in this respect is ”The Honey Bee-Its Natural History, Anatomy and Physiology”, Houlston & Sons (1890), T W Cowan, pages 179-181. The book can be read online here: http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=wu.89094199411;view=1up;seq=10 Some literature Thomas Wildman in England in his “A Treatise on the Management of Bees” (1770) gives 4.6 mm to 5.1 mm cellsize. T W Cowan in England in his ”The Honey Bee-Its Natural History, Anatomy and Physiology” (1890) gives 4.72 to 5.36 mm , page 181). Cowan also gave the average to be 1/5 of an inch ≈ 5.08 mm. That’s an easy figure – 5 cells to the inch (a common way of naming this size of wax foundation was 900 cells/dm2, which once was how wax foundation also was called, by how many cells/dm2 they gave). A I Root in USA adopted 5 cells to the inch for the first commercial wax foundation milling rollers in 1876. Enlarging Usmar Baudoux from Belgium in the late 19th century propagated for enlarging bees to get longer tongues in the bees and bigger honey crops. He thought 700 cells/dm2 was a good size (5.74 mm cellsize). He published a number of articles in the magazine Bee World in 1933-34 on the subject. H Gontarski published in 1935 his work on using large cellsize. He came to the conclusion that 5.8 mm cellsize was the upper limit. Bigger cellsize and the bee colony couldn’t grow in strength. Here we are talking about cellsizes for the brood.An illustration in Bee World January 1934 by Baudoux showing the differenses of the sizes of worker bees born in different cellsizes. The biggest bee (no 1) born in 6.0 mm cell. The smallest (no 9) born in 4.7 mm.All but Frank Cheshire in England worked for larger bees, he said in his classic book (two volumes) defending 5 cells to the inch. “Bees & bee-keeping : scientific and practical”, L Upcot Gill (1886-1888), Frank R. Cheshire, part 1, p 176, part 2, pages 315-318. It can be read online through this link: http://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/005782980Some text examples from the book of Frank Cheshire. What happened then? The understanding why there was a difference in cellsizes even on the same comb seemed to be lacking. Different cellsizes are most often used for different purposes, brood in smallest, honey in the biggest.New foundation was most often given to bees in the honey supers above the brood, where sizes normally are bigger than in the broodnest. Remember 5.1 mm cellsize (5 cells to the inch) was an average for all sizes of cells in the bee colony. Now these bees earlier born in smaller cells helping to draw smaller cellsizes correctly weren’t there, they were not born any longer with the arrival of wax foundation.What size of the cells bees draw naturally depends a lot on - how big the bees themselves are, - on their genetics and - the food they get. And the food is also dependent on the cellsize.Sometimes this created problems for the bees to draw the foundation well enough, especially when the honeyflow was rich – the bees wanted honey storage cells.The best place for drawing out small cells is below the broodnest, the next best in the middle of or at the sides of and close to the broodnest.In Gleanings of Bee Culture, December 1938, the son of A I Root, E R Root, argued for two things,1. that cellsize shouldn’t be smaller than 5.2 mm and 2. that cellsize shouldn’t be bigger than 5.2 mm.The argument for not smaller was that the bees drew the 5.2 foundation better than 5.1. The argument for not bigger was the same as Frank Cheshire in England used.Cheshire strongly argued against enlargement as the bees would come out of tune with nature. But Cheshire argued to not enlarge from 5.1 mm. Some newer measurements Thomas Seeley’s measurements in Arnot forest in northeastern USA of feral bees are used sometimes as argument against small cells. His result is though 5.2 mm cellsize – in average. And you know what average means don’t you. Smaller cellsizes where the brood is and the biggest sizes where honey is stored. The inbetween sizes used for both when needed.Tom Seeley gave a number of excellent talks on the London Honey Show in October 2011, which I listened to. One described in detail his work investigating feral bees in the Arnot forest.2002 Leif Hjalmarsson in southern Sweden took care of a colony from a widow that had lost her husband 10 years earlier. He had been a beekeeper with ten colonies. No one touched them after his death. It might have been a swarm that had entered one of the hives, or a surviver, that Leif took care of. Many combs were reworked by the bees. Evidently the cellsize of the foundation once used had been 5.4 mm. Now the cellsizes ranged between 4.77 and 5.4 mm.A couple of the measurements from reworked comb from the colony Leif Hjalmarsson took care of.Myself I have measured down to 4.55 mm for sizes where my bees have had foundationless combs or similar. Quite common sizes were around 5.0 and sometimes up to 5.4 mm. I normally use 4.9 mm cellsize foundation in the broodnest. Most of my bees have no problems drawing 4.9 foundation well. After selection for varroa resistance they even draw 4.9 foundation well in the supers. A coincidence or a side effect? They winter well, give good honey crops and don’t swarm more than when I had them on large cells. Here my bees didn’t follow the 4.9 pattern of the foundation when they rebuilt some cellwalls after I had taken them down for easier grafting larvae when queen rearing. Here they had drawn them 4.55 in the area rebuilt and the queen had layed eggs in the cells.I like to think my small cell bees are more in tune with nature, more biologically optimized and therefore better armed for living a healthy life with little or no special help from me. Read the full article

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). Read the full article

from Erik Österlund -> more evidences that the cell size of bee comb has been artificially enlarged It appears now and then articles in especially the German language stating that the enlarging of cellsize historically never have occurred, but instead what’s happened is going back to normal larger cellsize. And those decreasing cellsize is doing something unnatural. How come?In the English language there are many sources from the 19th and 20th century leaving no doubt an enlarging have taken place. Wildman, Cowan, Root, Cheshire, Bee World in the 1930th, etc. The icon Enoch Zander One of the old German icons in beekeeping is Enoch Zander (1873-1957). His book “Die Zucht Der Biene” was first published in 1920. After his death new editions changed name to “Haltung und Zucht der Biene” because they were revised by Friedrich K Böttcher. It was published in its 12th edition in 1989. The book is a classic beekeeping book in Germany.The picture shows a part of page 236 from the 5th edition from 1941. Click on the picture and enlarge it so you can read it easier. (If you can read German with these old letters.) To go back to this page click on the return button in your browser in the upper left corner. One passage here says translated into English:“The whole question has recently been cleared somewhat by Hofmann (1937). He found that natural comb and the first foundation molds by Mehring had 748-750 cells/dm2 . Around 1860, Graberg from Switzerland , for strange reasons, produced molds with 835 cells , there were even some with 1120 cells/dm2 . So today’s production of large cells is indeed no enlargement, but a reversion back to the natural.” My calculations to mm translations are made with the formula X=100÷√(A÷2.315) where X=cellsize in mm and A=cells/dm2. Backcheck the formula with A=23150÷X2Earlier in the book there are some figures which contradict this statement. Cellsize figures given by a couple of Russian beekeepers, Tuenin and Bogdanov. In the 12th edition from 1989 they say that Tuenin in Tula (120 km south of Moscow) had measured cellsizes ranging between 4.99 mm and 5.26 mm. Bogdanov had in Leningrad measured 5.53 mm to 5.69 mm. (I’m not sure if these cellsizes are from comb with or without foundation. And if without if it’s from a colony whose bees are born in a colony with foundation of large cells. If for example the Leningrad figures come from a swarm from a colony on cellsize 5.4-5.7 it may well draw the given cellsizes the first time they are doing it without wax foundatin. Next generation will draw even smaller if given the chance.) The contradiction between these figures and the conclusion is even more clear if you also have the 5th edition to compare with. In this edition the Tuenin figures from Tula is given to be 4.74 mm to 5.00 mm. The revision in the 12th edition made the contradiction milder changing the figures a little (couldn’t do much harm could it?). The influence of the classic book The majority of beekeepers in Germany I think still read this book and of course trust the authority. The icon can’t be wrong, can he? I think this book is a big reason why this opinion keep coming up that it’s never been an enlarging of the cellsize.Tobias Stever is a beekeeper that has covered the cellsize on his website with an article. His conclusion is that no enlargement has been done and therefore the regression down in size today is not natural. http://www.bienenarchiv.de/veroeffentlichungen/2003_zellengroesse/zellengroesse.htm Historical measurements This conclusion of Stever is contradicted by his own list of historical measurements of cellsizes. When you read his article and other articles on cellsizes it’s hard to find insight that different sizes in the hive mostly are used differently by the bees. And that the different sizes are often found in certain places on the comb and in the hive. The cellsizes in a hive T W Cowan (1890) in a book mentions that larger cells normally are found at the edges of the wax combs and smaller at the center. Today if you study a topbar hive (TBH) which has deep combs enough, you will see that largest worker cells are generally found at the top and furthest away from the entrance. That’s mainly where honey is stored and not where brood is reared. If such a hive is not started with large cell bees you will probably find 5.1 and smaller cell sizes closer to the bottom and the entrance.A topbar comb with Dennis Murrel in Montana. Smallest cellsizes at the bottom close to the entrance. Biggest away from the entrance and at the top. Samples for measurement So with all these measurements, where are the samples taken that are measured? And how many are they? Is the whole of the hive covered when samples are taken? Have the bees built the combs without the help of wax foundation? Is it a swarm from a large cell colony or is it a colony that has lived for some generations on combs built and rebuilt by themselves?In some cases you are given the smallest and the largest cellsizes found, so there you know that more than one sample is taken, but also you rarely are presented with the number of samples taken and from where in the hive.The conclusion is that you have to read the original books and articles where the figures are presented to see if you can find out how accurate the measurements are concerning how natural the cellsizes of these bees are. Cowan One good book in this respect is ”The Honey Bee-Its Natural History, Anatomy and Physiology”, Houlston & Sons (1890), T W Cowan, pages 179-181. The book can be read online here: http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=wu.89094199411;view=1up;seq=10 Some literature Thomas Wildman in England in his “A Treatise on the Management of Bees” (1770) gives 4.6 mm to 5.1 mm cellsize. T W Cowan in England in his ”The Honey Bee-Its Natural History, Anatomy and Physiology” (1890) gives 4.72 to 5.36 mm , page 181). Cowan also gave the average to be 1/5 of an inch ≈ 5.08 mm. That’s an easy figure – 5 cells to the inch (a common way of naming this size of wax foundation was 900 cells/dm2, which once was how wax foundation also was called, by how many cells/dm2 they gave). A I Root in USA adopted 5 cells to the inch for the first commercial wax foundation milling rollers in 1876. Enlarging Usmar Baudoux from Belgium in the late 19th century propagated for enlarging bees to get longer tongues in the bees and bigger honey crops. He thought 700 cells/dm2 was a good size (5.74 mm cellsize). He published a number of articles in the magazine Bee World in 1933-34 on the subject. H Gontarski published in 1935 his work on using large cellsize. He came to the conclusion that 5.8 mm cellsize was the upper limit. Bigger cellsize and the bee colony couldn’t grow in strength. Here we are talking about cellsizes for the brood.An illustration in Bee World January 1934 by Baudoux showing the differenses of the sizes of worker bees born in different cellsizes. The biggest bee (no 1) born in 6.0 mm cell. The smallest (no 9) born in 4.7 mm.All but Frank Cheshire in England worked for larger bees, he said in his classic book (two volumes) defending 5 cells to the inch. “Bees & bee-keeping : scientific and practical”, L Upcot Gill (1886-1888), Frank R. Cheshire, part 1, p 176, part 2, pages 315-318. It can be read online through this link: http://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/005782980Some text examples from the book of Frank Cheshire. What happened then? The understanding why there was a difference in cellsizes even on the same comb seemed to be lacking. Different cellsizes are most often used for different purposes, brood in smallest, honey in the biggest.New foundation was most often given to bees in the honey supers above the brood, where sizes normally are bigger than in the broodnest. Remember 5.1 mm cellsize (5 cells to the inch) was an average for all sizes of cells in the bee colony. Now these bees earlier born in smaller cells helping to draw smaller cellsizes correctly weren’t there, they were not born any longer with the arrival of wax foundation.What size of the cells bees draw naturally depends a lot on - how big the bees themselves are, - on their genetics and - the food they get. And the food is also dependent on the cellsize.Sometimes this created problems for the bees to draw the foundation well enough, especially when the honeyflow was rich – the bees wanted honey storage cells.The best place for drawing out small cells is below the broodnest, the next best in the middle of or at the sides of and close to the broodnest.In Gleanings of Bee Culture, December 1938, the son of A I Root, E R Root, argued for two things,1. that cellsize shouldn’t be smaller than 5.2 mm and 2. that cellsize shouldn’t be bigger than 5.2 mm.The argument for not smaller was that the bees drew the 5.2 foundation better than 5.1. The argument for not bigger was the same as Frank Cheshire in England used.Cheshire strongly argued against enlargement as the bees would come out of tune with nature. But Cheshire argued to not enlarge from 5.1 mm. Some newer measurements Thomas Seeley’s measurements in Arnot forest in northeastern USA of feral bees are used sometimes as argument against small cells. His result is though 5.2 mm cellsize – in average. And you know what average means don’t you. Smaller cellsizes where the brood is and the biggest sizes where honey is stored. The inbetween sizes used for both when needed.Tom Seeley gave a number of excellent talks on the London Honey Show in October 2011, which I listened to. One described in detail his work investigating feral bees in the Arnot forest.2002 Leif Hjalmarsson in southern Sweden took care of a colony from a widow that had lost her husband 10 years earlier. He had been a beekeeper with ten colonies. No one touched them after his death. It might have been a swarm that had entered one of the hives, or a surviver, that Leif took care of. Many combs were reworked by the bees. Evidently the cellsize of the foundation once used had been 5.4 mm. Now the cellsizes ranged between 4.77 and 5.4 mm.A couple of the measurements from reworked comb from the colony Leif Hjalmarsson took care of.Myself I have measured down to 4.55 mm for sizes where my bees have had foundationless combs or similar. Quite common sizes were around 5.0 and sometimes up to 5.4 mm. I normally use 4.9 mm cellsize foundation in the broodnest. Most of my bees have no problems drawing 4.9 foundation well. After selection for varroa resistance they even draw 4.9 foundation well in the supers. A coincidence or a side effect? They winter well, give good honey crops and don’t swarm more than when I had them on large cells. Here my bees didn’t follow the 4.9 pattern of the foundation when they rebuilt some cellwalls after I had taken them down for easier grafting larvae when queen rearing. Here they had drawn them 4.55 in the area rebuilt and the queen had layed eggs in the cells.I like to think my small cell bees are more in tune with nature, more biologically optimized and therefore better armed for living a healthy life with little or no special help from me. Read the full article

a scientific study indicates that there is a correlation between the temperature of the brood nest in the bee hive and the wisdom of the bees.here the complete studyWith higher temperatures in the brood nest, more intelligent bees are born.The study, led by bee researcher Jürgen Tautz, reaches the following conclusion: In honey bees, learning behavior and communication skills depend on several factors. Here the temperature at which bee pupae develop is crucial. If insects grow at a maximum of 34.5 degrees Celsius, they forget their learned knowledge more easily and perform less effective bee dances. The "more intelligent" bees, on the other hand, develop from pupae that remain at 36 degrees Celsius, according to the zoologist Jürgen Tautz of the Biozentrum of the University of Würzburg in the new edition of "Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences "(PNAS). Now the question is, what does this have to do with the size of the cells? . Small cell bees with a size of 4.9 mm have many more brood cells on the same surface and the space between brood combs is reduced to only 33 mm. Therefore, the nest of small cell hives is much more compact and the temperature in the brood nest increases. The result is that the incubation period of small cell bees is reduced by 24 hours. . Can we conclude that small cell bees are smarter than large cell bees? . It seems to me that we are getting closer and closer to the point, why the step back to a smaller cell size, as it was 100 years ago, has a great advantage for bees. . Is it possible to say, that the artificial amplification of bee cells by the beekeeper, has led to a bee that is no longer as intelligent as it used to be and therefore can no longer survive on its own? . .brood combs in Switzerland, probably several decades old The size of the cell inside the brood nest measures 4.7 to 4.9 mm.here the full study:Behavioral performance in adult honey bees is influenced by the temperature experienced during their pupal development Jürgen Tautz, Sven Maier, Claudia Groh, Wolfgang Rössler, and Axel Brockmann http://www.pnas.org/content/100/12/7343Abstract To investigate the possible consequences of brood-temperature regulation in honey bee colonies on the quality of behavioral performance of adults, we placed honey bee pupae in incubators and allowed them to develop at temperatures held constant at 32°C, 34.5°C, and 36°C. This temperature range occurs naturally within hives. On emergence, the young adult bees were marked and introduced into foster colonies housed in normal and observation hives and allowed to live out their lives. No obvious difference in within-hive behavior was noted between the temperature-treated bees and the foster-colony bees. However, when the temperature-treated bees became foragers and were trained to visit a feeder 200 m from the hive, they exhibited clear differences in dance performance that could be correlated with the temperatures at which they had been raised: bees raised at 32°C completed only ≈20% of the dance circuits when compared with bees of the higher-temperature group. Also, the variance in the duration of the waggle phase is larger in 32°C-raised bees compared with 36°C-raised bees. All other parameters compared across all groups were not significantly different. One-trial learning and memory consolidation in the bees raised at different temperatures was investigated 1 and 10 min after conditioning the proboscis-extension reflex. Bees raised at 36°C performed as expected for bees typically classified as “good learners,” whereas bees raised at 32°C and 34.5°C performed significantly less well. We propose that the temperature at which pupae are raised will influence their behavioral performance as adults and may determine the tasks they carry out best inside and outside the hive.Collective control of brood temperature is an essential aspect of the behavior of honey bees, and air temperatures measured close to the brood combs are, although never constant, always within a range of 33–36°C (1–7). High temperatures outside the hive are compensated by bringing water into the hive and evaporating this by wing fanning (8). Low temperatures inside the hive are compensated by the production of heat through thoracic muscle activity in individual bees, which then is transferred to the brood (9–11). Extended deviations from an optimal temperature window during development are known to result in morphological deficits (2, 12–14), so, by stabilizing the brood temperature, bees are able to control the influence of this environmental variable on the development of their offspring. Temperature regimes during the development of individual pupae, however, are dynamic and more complex than is implied by a single average air temperature (15). Measurements of the temperature within individual pupal cells, for example, revealed values that ranged from 32.6°C for the coldest pupa to 35.9°C for the warmest pupa. Taken over a 3-h period, the mean temperatures for these pupae were 33.7°C for the coldest and 35.0°C for the warmest pupa, but no pupae raised in the combs experienced a completely constant temperature (M. Kleinhenz, B. Bujok, S. Fuchs, and J.T., unpublished results). During the first weeks of life, bees do not leave the hive. Instead, they perform indoor activities that do not appear to demand the same degree of behavioral plasticity needed by foragers that leave the hive, find food sources, remember their locations, return to the hive, and pass on information about the nature, quality, and location of the food sources to nest mates. The foragers achieve this by means of executing a complex dance containing a number of variables that the follower bees are able to read. An important aspect of the foraging behavior for this study is that it has been very well described and, unlike many of the behaviors performed within the nest, is quantifiable. The foraging behavior therefore provides us with an opportunity to investigate possible consequences of brood temperature on a behavior that has many aspects, ranging from orientation to learning, and so could be a highly sensitive indication of the influence of temperature on development of the nervous system. Two features of nectar foraging lend themselves to analysis. The first is the waggle dance communication process, and the second is the food source learning process. Waggle dances can be broken down into several components, the duration or repetition of which can be recorded accurately. The nonassociative (sensitization) and associative learning abilities and memory consolidation of individual bees can be tested by using the proboscis-extension reflex, in which sugar water stimulation of the antennae leads to the extension of the proboscis and that, if adequately rewarded, provides a learning paradigm. In the natural situation, the presence of nectar increases the exploratory behavior for flowers, which, coupled with an associative learning process, establishes a memory for particular flower characters. Hence, the learning process is central to successful foraging. In this study, we have explored the effect of raising pupae at different constant temperatures. We tested their performance as foragers by using the waggle dance and as learners by using the proboscis-extension reflex. We found that subjecting honey bees during their pupal development to constant temperatures representing the lowest, highest, and mean temperatures that naturally occur in the hive has a significant effect on their foraging and learning abilities.Materials and Methods Temperature Treatment of the Pupae. Honey bee queens (Apis mellifera carnica) in their hives were allowed access only to empty combs. They laid their eggs in these, thus providing us with brood combs in which all the larvae would pupate almost simultaneously. The queens were transferred to a new, empty comb every day. The combs with the eggs were left in the colony for ≈8 days until most of the brood cells had been capped. These combs then were taken out of the hive and placed in incubators (Rumed 1000-72039, Laatzen, Germany, and Bachofer 400 HY-E, Reutlingen, Germany) set to 32°C, 34.5°C, and 36°C. The temperature of the brood area was monitored continuously during the entire incubation periods by using thermoprobes on the brood combs (Almemo 2290-8 V5, Holzkirchen, Germany; precision, ±0.15°C). Deviations from the preset temperatures were minimal, ranging from 31.9°C to 32.1°C, 34.2°C to 34.8°C, and 35.6°C to 36.4°C. Immediately after emerging from the cells, ≈300 young adult bees of each temperature group were color-marked. Eighty individuals from each temperature group were transferred to a foster colony established in an observation hive in which the in-hive behavior and foraging activities of the temperature-treated bees could be observed and recorded. The remaining temperature-treated bees were transferred to a foster colony housed in a standard hive. Given the time-consuming nature of these experiments, the waggle dance experiments were restricted to bees that had been temperature-treated at 32°C and 36°C. Waggle Dance Performance. The experiments started ≈3 weeks after the temperature-treated bees had been introduced into the foster colony in the observation hive. By this time, the temperature-treated bees all had progressed to the stage of forager. There are three ways in which forager bees can be trained to regularly visit a feeder. (i) The feeder is placed in front of the hive, and, after bees start feeding, the feeder is moved gradually further and further from the hive. (ii) Individual bees are carried to the feeder already placed at some distance from the hive, and, after feeding, they fly back to the hive. (iii) Bees are recruited by foragers trained by using method 1 or 2 and then are allowed to return to the hive. In all cases, the trained foragers are marked with colored paint spots on their abdomens as they feed and so can be identified both at the feeder and in the observation hive. In the experiments reported here, we used only bees that had been recruited by foragers (method 3) because we found that none of the bees raised at 32°C could be trained to visit the feeder regularly when using the other two training methods. Even so, only four of the 32°C-raised bees were recruited to the feeder and could be used for the analysis of their dance performances. Each of the recruited bees was videotaped at 25 frames per s after it had performed five round trips to the feeder (the feeder contained 2.4 mol nonscented sugar solution and was placed 200 m from the hive). Each bee started dancing, at the latest, after the third visit to the feeder. The dances were analyzed from video recordings. The criteria used for scoring the waggle dance performance included how often the foragers danced when they returned to the hive after visiting the feeder, the number of dance circuits (waggle phase plus return run) per visit, and the duration of each waggle phase. Learning and Memory Consolidation. Bees of all three temperature groups were tested for nonassociative and associative learning performance and memory consolidation 7 days after emergence (16). The bees used for these experiments were taken from the standard-hive foster colony after 1 week, that is, before they had reached the stage at which they normally would become foragers. On the day before the experiments, bees were collected from the combs of the foster hive, chilled on ice, and harnessed in metal tubes (17). Before the learning experiment, bees were tested for their proboscis-extension response with sugar solution concentrations of 0.1%, 1%, 10%, and 30% (wt/vol) (18). Only bees that responded at a concentration of 0.1% or 1% were used for the experiments. This threshold test was used to ensure that only bees with similar states of motivation were compared for learning performance. For proboscis-extension reflex conditioning, bees were exposed to a constant air flow for 45 s. Citronella scent (1:100 in mineral oil) was then pulsed into the constant air flow for 2 s as the conditioned stimulus. Immediately after odor stimulation, bees were rewarded with a 30% sugar solution (unconditioned stimulus), which was presented to the antennae and the proboscis. In the learning experiment, each bee was given one conditioning trial, i.e., one conditioned stimulus/unconditioned stimulus pairing, and was tested for response to the conditioned stimulus after either 1 min or 10 min. Training and testing after 1 min was carried out on 55 bees raised at 32°C, 43 bees raised at 34.5°C, and 40 bees raised at 36°C. Training and testing after 10 min was carried out on 58 bees raised at 32°C, 54 bees raised at 34.5°C, and 23 bees raised at 36°C. Statistical Analysis. For each bee, we calculated the mean number of dance circuits, the mean duration of the waggle phase, and the probability of dancing on return from the feeder. Using these mean values for individuals, we then calculated the mean for each treatment. Differences between means were tested for significance (P < 0.01 significant, two-tailed) by using Student's t test. The proboscis-extension reflex results were analyzed for significance (P < 0.05) by using the χ2 test.Results Emergence Probability and In-Hive Behavior. We found no significant differences in the emergence probability among the three temperature groups (32°C, 100%; 34.5°C, 99%; 36°C, 98%). On emergence, none of the young adult bees exhibited obvious morphological defects or slow, uncoordinated movement of the type that have been described in bees raised at more extreme temperatures (2, 12–14). All of the bees raised at 32°C or 36°C introduced into the foster colony in the observation hive behaved apparently normally and started foraging after ≈2 weeks, just as their untreated control nest mates did. However, although the number of 36°C-treated bees did not decrease noticeably, fewer and fewer of those raised at 32°C were seen in the hive as time passed. Individuals treated at 32°C were seen to exit the hive on their normal orientation flights but then disappear. Their bodies were not found within the hive nor at the entrance, suggesting that they had suffered some subtle motor deficiency that prevented them from flying or feeding. Waggle Dance Performance. Three groups of bees were compared. The first group consisted of five individuals from the foster colony in the observation hive that had been raised under natural conditions. These constituted the control group. The second group consisted of five individuals of the 36°C-treated bees. The third group consisted of individuals of the 32°C-treated bees. After the bees had made five visits to the feeder, we assumed that they had sufficient experience in terms of the orientation of the feeder and to the hive to convey information through the dance to dance followers. The three criteria of the dance that were analyzed from the video recordings were the probability to perform waggle dances after a return from the feeder (Fig. 1A), the number of dance circuits (Fig. 1B), and the duration of the waggle phase (Fig. 1C). The three columns in each of the figures depict the performances of the five control bees that were raised under normal conditions (column a), the five bees raised at 36°C (column b), and the four bees that were raised at 32°C (column c), respectively. We could not discern any obvious differences in the behavior of the bees of the three groups in terms of moving in the hive, leaving the hive, or arriving and feeding at the feeders. Read the full article

a scientific study indicates that there is a correlation between the temperature of the brood nest in the bee hive and the wisdom of the bees.here the complete studyWith higher temperatures in the brood nest, more intelligent bees are born.The study, led by bee researcher Jürgen Tautz, reaches the following conclusion: In honey bees, learning behavior and communication skills depend on several factors. Here the temperature at which bee pupae develop is crucial. If insects grow at a maximum of 34.5 degrees Celsius, they forget their learned knowledge more easily and perform less effective bee dances. The "more intelligent" bees, on the other hand, develop from pupae that remain at 36 degrees Celsius, according to the zoologist Jürgen Tautz of the Biozentrum of the University of Würzburg in the new edition of "Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences "(PNAS). Now the question is, what does this have to do with the size of the cells? . Small cell bees with a size of 4.9 mm have many more brood cells on the same surface and the space between brood combs is reduced to only 33 mm. Therefore, the nest of small cell hives is much more compact and the temperature in the brood nest increases. The result is that the incubation period of small cell bees is reduced by 24 hours. . Can we conclude that small cell bees are smarter than large cell bees? . It seems to me that we are getting closer and closer to the point, why the step back to a smaller cell size, as it was 100 years ago, has a great advantage for bees. . Is it possible to say, that the artificial amplification of bee cells by the beekeeper, has led to a bee that is no longer as intelligent as it used to be and therefore can no longer survive on its own? . .brood combs in Switzerland, probably several decades old The size of the cell inside the brood nest measures 4.7 to 4.9 mm.here the full study:Behavioral performance in adult honey bees is influenced by the temperature experienced during their pupal development Jürgen Tautz, Sven Maier, Claudia Groh, Wolfgang Rössler, and Axel Brockmann http://www.pnas.org/content/100/12/7343Abstract To investigate the possible consequences of brood-temperature regulation in honey bee colonies on the quality of behavioral performance of adults, we placed honey bee pupae in incubators and allowed them to develop at temperatures held constant at 32°C, 34.5°C, and 36°C. This temperature range occurs naturally within hives. On emergence, the young adult bees were marked and introduced into foster colonies housed in normal and observation hives and allowed to live out their lives. No obvious difference in within-hive behavior was noted between the temperature-treated bees and the foster-colony bees. However, when the temperature-treated bees became foragers and were trained to visit a feeder 200 m from the hive, they exhibited clear differences in dance performance that could be correlated with the temperatures at which they had been raised: bees raised at 32°C completed only ≈20% of the dance circuits when compared with bees of the higher-temperature group. Also, the variance in the duration of the waggle phase is larger in 32°C-raised bees compared with 36°C-raised bees. All other parameters compared across all groups were not significantly different. One-trial learning and memory consolidation in the bees raised at different temperatures was investigated 1 and 10 min after conditioning the proboscis-extension reflex. Bees raised at 36°C performed as expected for bees typically classified as “good learners,” whereas bees raised at 32°C and 34.5°C performed significantly less well. We propose that the temperature at which pupae are raised will influence their behavioral performance as adults and may determine the tasks they carry out best inside and outside the hive.Collective control of brood temperature is an essential aspect of the behavior of honey bees, and air temperatures measured close to the brood combs are, although never constant, always within a range of 33–36°C (1–7). High temperatures outside the hive are compensated by bringing water into the hive and evaporating this by wing fanning (8). Low temperatures inside the hive are compensated by the production of heat through thoracic muscle activity in individual bees, which then is transferred to the brood (9–11). Extended deviations from an optimal temperature window during development are known to result in morphological deficits (2, 12–14), so, by stabilizing the brood temperature, bees are able to control the influence of this environmental variable on the development of their offspring. Temperature regimes during the development of individual pupae, however, are dynamic and more complex than is implied by a single average air temperature (15). Measurements of the temperature within individual pupal cells, for example, revealed values that ranged from 32.6°C for the coldest pupa to 35.9°C for the warmest pupa. Taken over a 3-h period, the mean temperatures for these pupae were 33.7°C for the coldest and 35.0°C for the warmest pupa, but no pupae raised in the combs experienced a completely constant temperature (M. Kleinhenz, B. Bujok, S. Fuchs, and J.T., unpublished results). During the first weeks of life, bees do not leave the hive. Instead, they perform indoor activities that do not appear to demand the same degree of behavioral plasticity needed by foragers that leave the hive, find food sources, remember their locations, return to the hive, and pass on information about the nature, quality, and location of the food sources to nest mates. The foragers achieve this by means of executing a complex dance containing a number of variables that the follower bees are able to read. An important aspect of the foraging behavior for this study is that it has been very well described and, unlike many of the behaviors performed within the nest, is quantifiable. The foraging behavior therefore provides us with an opportunity to investigate possible consequences of brood temperature on a behavior that has many aspects, ranging from orientation to learning, and so could be a highly sensitive indication of the influence of temperature on development of the nervous system. Two features of nectar foraging lend themselves to analysis. The first is the waggle dance communication process, and the second is the food source learning process. Waggle dances can be broken down into several components, the duration or repetition of which can be recorded accurately. The nonassociative (sensitization) and associative learning abilities and memory consolidation of individual bees can be tested by using the proboscis-extension reflex, in which sugar water stimulation of the antennae leads to the extension of the proboscis and that, if adequately rewarded, provides a learning paradigm. In the natural situation, the presence of nectar increases the exploratory behavior for flowers, which, coupled with an associative learning process, establishes a memory for particular flower characters. Hence, the learning process is central to successful foraging. In this study, we have explored the effect of raising pupae at different constant temperatures. We tested their performance as foragers by using the waggle dance and as learners by using the proboscis-extension reflex. We found that subjecting honey bees during their pupal development to constant temperatures representing the lowest, highest, and mean temperatures that naturally occur in the hive has a significant effect on their foraging and learning abilities.Materials and Methods Temperature Treatment of the Pupae. Honey bee queens (Apis mellifera carnica) in their hives were allowed access only to empty combs. They laid their eggs in these, thus providing us with brood combs in which all the larvae would pupate almost simultaneously. The queens were transferred to a new, empty comb every day. The combs with the eggs were left in the colony for ≈8 days until most of the brood cells had been capped. These combs then were taken out of the hive and placed in incubators (Rumed 1000-72039, Laatzen, Germany, and Bachofer 400 HY-E, Reutlingen, Germany) set to 32°C, 34.5°C, and 36°C. The temperature of the brood area was monitored continuously during the entire incubation periods by using thermoprobes on the brood combs (Almemo 2290-8 V5, Holzkirchen, Germany; precision, ±0.15°C). Deviations from the preset temperatures were minimal, ranging from 31.9°C to 32.1°C, 34.2°C to 34.8°C, and 35.6°C to 36.4°C. Immediately after emerging from the cells, ≈300 young adult bees of each temperature group were color-marked. Eighty individuals from each temperature group were transferred to a foster colony established in an observation hive in which the in-hive behavior and foraging activities of the temperature-treated bees could be observed and recorded. The remaining temperature-treated bees were transferred to a foster colony housed in a standard hive. Given the time-consuming nature of these experiments, the waggle dance experiments were restricted to bees that had been temperature-treated at 32°C and 36°C. Waggle Dance Performance. The experiments started ≈3 weeks after the temperature-treated bees had been introduced into the foster colony in the observation hive. By this time, the temperature-treated bees all had progressed to the stage of forager. There are three ways in which forager bees can be trained to regularly visit a feeder. (i) The feeder is placed in front of the hive, and, after bees start feeding, the feeder is moved gradually further and further from the hive. (ii) Individual bees are carried to the feeder already placed at some distance from the hive, and, after feeding, they fly back to the hive. (iii) Bees are recruited by foragers trained by using method 1 or 2 and then are allowed to return to the hive. In all cases, the trained foragers are marked with colored paint spots on their abdomens as they feed and so can be identified both at the feeder and in the observation hive. In the experiments reported here, we used only bees that had been recruited by foragers (method 3) because we found that none of the bees raised at 32°C could be trained to visit the feeder regularly when using the other two training methods. Even so, only four of the 32°C-raised bees were recruited to the feeder and could be used for the analysis of their dance performances. Each of the recruited bees was videotaped at 25 frames per s after it had performed five round trips to the feeder (the feeder contained 2.4 mol nonscented sugar solution and was placed 200 m from the hive). Each bee started dancing, at the latest, after the third visit to the feeder. The dances were analyzed from video recordings. The criteria used for scoring the waggle dance performance included how often the foragers danced when they returned to the hive after visiting the feeder, the number of dance circuits (waggle phase plus return run) per visit, and the duration of each waggle phase. Learning and Memory Consolidation. Bees of all three temperature groups were tested for nonassociative and associative learning performance and memory consolidation 7 days after emergence (16). The bees used for these experiments were taken from the standard-hive foster colony after 1 week, that is, before they had reached the stage at which they normally would become foragers. On the day before the experiments, bees were collected from the combs of the foster hive, chilled on ice, and harnessed in metal tubes (17). Before the learning experiment, bees were tested for their proboscis-extension response with sugar solution concentrations of 0.1%, 1%, 10%, and 30% (wt/vol) (18). Only bees that responded at a concentration of 0.1% or 1% were used for the experiments. This threshold test was used to ensure that only bees with similar states of motivation were compared for learning performance. For proboscis-extension reflex conditioning, bees were exposed to a constant air flow for 45 s. Citronella scent (1:100 in mineral oil) was then pulsed into the constant air flow for 2 s as the conditioned stimulus. Immediately after odor stimulation, bees were rewarded with a 30% sugar solution (unconditioned stimulus), which was presented to the antennae and the proboscis. In the learning experiment, each bee was given one conditioning trial, i.e., one conditioned stimulus/unconditioned stimulus pairing, and was tested for response to the conditioned stimulus after either 1 min or 10 min. Training and testing after 1 min was carried out on 55 bees raised at 32°C, 43 bees raised at 34.5°C, and 40 bees raised at 36°C. Training and testing after 10 min was carried out on 58 bees raised at 32°C, 54 bees raised at 34.5°C, and 23 bees raised at 36°C. Statistical Analysis. For each bee, we calculated the mean number of dance circuits, the mean duration of the waggle phase, and the probability of dancing on return from the feeder. Using these mean values for individuals, we then calculated the mean for each treatment. Differences between means were tested for significance (P < 0.01 significant, two-tailed) by using Student's t test. The proboscis-extension reflex results were analyzed for significance (P < 0.05) by using the χ2 test.Results Emergence Probability and In-Hive Behavior. We found no significant differences in the emergence probability among the three temperature groups (32°C, 100%; 34.5°C, 99%; 36°C, 98%). On emergence, none of the young adult bees exhibited obvious morphological defects or slow, uncoordinated movement of the type that have been described in bees raised at more extreme temperatures (2, 12–14). All of the bees raised at 32°C or 36°C introduced into the foster colony in the observation hive behaved apparently normally and started foraging after ≈2 weeks, just as their untreated control nest mates did. However, although the number of 36°C-treated bees did not decrease noticeably, fewer and fewer of those raised at 32°C were seen in the hive as time passed. Individuals treated at 32°C were seen to exit the hive on their normal orientation flights but then disappear. Their bodies were not found within the hive nor at the entrance, suggesting that they had suffered some subtle motor deficiency that prevented them from flying or feeding. Waggle Dance Performance. Three groups of bees were compared. The first group consisted of five individuals from the foster colony in the observation hive that had been raised under natural conditions. These constituted the control group. The second group consisted of five individuals of the 36°C-treated bees. The third group consisted of individuals of the 32°C-treated bees. After the bees had made five visits to the feeder, we assumed that they had sufficient experience in terms of the orientation of the feeder and to the hive to convey information through the dance to dance followers. The three criteria of the dance that were analyzed from the video recordings were the probability to perform waggle dances after a return from the feeder (Fig. 1A), the number of dance circuits (Fig. 1B), and the duration of the waggle phase (Fig. 1C). The three columns in each of the figures depict the performances of the five control bees that were raised under normal conditions (column a), the five bees raised at 36°C (column b), and the four bees that were raised at 32°C (column c), respectively. We could not discern any obvious differences in the behavior of the bees of the three groups in terms of moving in the hive, leaving the hive, or arriving and feeding at the feeders. Read the full article

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). Read the full article