#reductionofcellsize

Markus copied this from old beekeeper books owned by Dee Lusby.These are the evidences that the bee cells were much smaller in the past and were artificially enlarged. And be careful when comparing the antigue cell sizes and from 1893 onwards. It was previously measured by the rhumbus method, and later by the square decimeter method introduced by Baudoux.american_bee_journal_1878 enlarged imageamerican_bee_journal_1878 enlarged imageamerican_bee_journal_sept_1897 enlarged imageamerican_bee_journal_sept_1897 enlarged imagebee_world_oct_1932 enlarged imagebee_world_march_1937. enlarged imagebee_world_april_1937 enlarged imageGreece enlarged image enlarged image enlarged imageRussia August 1927 enlarged imageCompilation of the different cell sizes:more info Read the full article

The cell size is only one, but an important part of the Ed & Dee Lusby system. But if we just downsize the cells and continue with the bees as before, we can not benefit at all and the bees must continue to be treated as usual. The Ed & Dee Lusby system is very complex and works only in this form.Here you can see what Ed & Dee say about what this system is made up of. Here is a recipe for how to proceed. Here you can look at our new concept And here you can see in the study of Erik Österlund the experiences of beekeepers who know most about resistance breeding. So please keep your hands off small cells if you do not use this whole system. And for beginners in beekeeping, it is also not recommended to start immediately with this system. 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

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

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

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

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