#smallcellbeekeepers

Retrogression Back to Normal – Part 1 Retrogression Back to Normal – Part 1 The Way Back to Biological Beekeeping, Part 8 Picture in your mind the world as a basic map of honeybee thermal/cell size zones based on composites of hot and cold land area masses. Now picture this as lateral belts going around the world with the hottest zones and smallest sizes near the Equator and volcanic hot thermal zones, and the largest sizes near 60, latitude in belts going around the world and the tops of colder mountain ranges. Now picture in your mind the world surrounded in layers with the smallest sizes being on the bottom where compression is greatest, and the largest sizes being on top where compression is least. Now picture in your mind that every honeybee thermal/cell size zone has a natural range of small, medium, and large cell sizes to allow for bees to transition into and out of habitat areas as vegetation and rain occur throughout a yearly cycle. With smaller cell sizes a beekeeper would gain variability and with larger cell sizes a beekeeper would gain less. As you go from the Equator, both North and South, picture smaller yellow hot-weather bees getting bigger to about the 30 latitude belts around the world.Picture a transition zone here, where yellow hot-weather honeybees and dark (black or brown) cold-weather honeybees come together and overlap co-mingling. Yellow hot-weather honeybees will naturally be at their largest sizing and dark cold-weather honeybees will naturally be at their smallest. As you go from the 30 latitudes towards the poles, picture the dark cold-weather honeybees getting larger to about the 60 latitude belts, where their natural migration north transitions to an end. Now picture in your mind, in the tropics, only yellow hot-weather honeybees at sea-level and when you reach about 3500 – 4000 elevation, a transition to dark cold-weather honeybees again. Now picture in your mind, in the temperate zones, only dark cold-weather honeybees at sea-level, except where volcanic areas create hot thermal-zones allowing for yellow hot-weather bees to survive naturally. Again within these limited yellow bee zones, transition would occur towards dark honeybees, as elevation is increased.Now picture in your mind this only occurring with pure strains/races of honeybees, except in transition zones where hybridization would occur. Now picture in your mind hybrid mixes of different honeybees as always being bigger in size than the pure strains/races they originate from. Now picture in your mind simple hybrids being naturally occurring in Nature and complex hybrids only occurring in an artificial environment.NOW, LET’S ASK SOME QUESTIONS. (We will re-state the above prior to discussing bee breeding, applicable to field mechanics/management only). Question: If honeybees, when they swarm out of oversized domesticated hives, retrogress downward in size, then how stable is a hybridized mixture in this scenario, especially if bigger flys slower? Same scenario relative to Africanization? If honeybees for evolution security, acclimatize to natural sizing, then should not we as an industry be following them to solve our problems of diseases and parasitic mites? If domesticated honeybees in a given area swarm and retrogress downward, should not this be a sign that the artificial comb size in use is wrong for that particular area? If retrogression back to natural sizing, in any given area/region cannot be accomplished in one retrogression-step smaller, due to the extent that we as an industry went bigger artificially, then what is the fastest way back to natural biological beekeeping without the use of chemicals, antibiotics, and essential oils; and it taking a large amount of time, which we seem to be running out of?RETROGRESSION: The first step in retrogression is to survey colonies in each area/region that are both domestic and feral (Note – Colonies on oversized artificial brood foundations do not fully correlate with naturally occurring breeding cycles, necessitating that differences be taken into account or excluded from survey. Further, colonies in the feral, whether established or un-established, need to be separated visually by subcaste matings, to establish their true degree of being natural, feral, i.e. all small subcastes, all large subcastes, or mixed-size subcastes noting the degree.)While this is taking place, a historical survey needs to be accomplished to ascertain what traditional comb cell sizes where, prior to use of artificially enlarged foundation, by each area/region. Comb cell sizing here needs to be split into two categories: 1) That what was, prior to importation and subsequent hybridization; 2) That what was, after importation and hybridization; but before the use of artificially enlarged foundation.Where historical data is insufficient for verification of traditional sizings, physical observation of retrogression by physically removing domesticated honeybees from artificially enlarged brood combs will be required. Note: This may require several steps, to finally arrive at a standard range of smaller sizing by use of “V-cut ” top bars. Beekeepers can gauge very quickly what size brood foundation their local honeybees prefer. All they need is to makeup a few brood supers with top bars in them only, with 5 degree angle cuts for feral swarms to build comb upon, precoated with beeswax to facilitate comb building during the swarming season. Then all that has to be done, is measure the inside diameter of the cell wall to ascertain the common worker cell size for the geographic area. Beekeepers doing this should find that their feral bees (large caste/mixed-size castes) and even their own domesticated bees will prefer a smaller size brood comb than what they are probably now using. Here, first rule-of-thumb to clear up parasitic mite problems should be…do what the bees prefer!Keep in mind, the idea is to figure out how many retrogressions it will take to bring the honeybees in a given area back to traditional natural sizing. Repeat the above mentioned process, with V-cut top bars on several domesticated hives and several well established feral colonies (not less than 10 each). We found the average here in Southern Arizona to be about 4 for our domesticated hives and 2 for established feral colonies. We found it impossible to make the retrogression back to natural sizing in one jump (This was our retrogression attempt to 5.0mm sizing). Two retrogression would be required, but it became apparent that the time-frame would be a limiting factor, because we didn’t have the time to retrogress our whole beekeeping outfit for each retrogression required (figured 10 years for each retrogression for changing 1,000 hives with foundation) for our domestic hives. We decided to see if we could speed the process up to match what we observed on the feral side. Consequently, we decided beekeepers cannot do an old-fashioned comb shake-down, from today’s domesticated hives and restart on new undrawn 4.9mm foundation, to match the top-of-the-sizing-spectrum for traditional sizing before artficial hybridization by man, without modifying the technique to fit today’s needs relative to stress by parasitic mites/secondary diseases, limited time-frame within which to work, and the different requirements for field management, between domestic and feral.PROCESS FOR SPEEDING-UP RETROGRESSION: This is a definite multi-year application to accomplish. Depending upon the size of the beekeeping operation, it can take anywhere from 3 to 15 years average to accomplish. The first year is a preparation year for creating “seed-frames” for what will be pot-progressive work, the years following. Work is begun by the preparation of “removeable swarm-catching frames” to act as stimuli for producing seed-frames of drawn-out 4.9mm brood-comb foundation. It also fills a two-fold purpose of speeding-up retrogression, while supplying a renewable source of clean uncontaminated beeswax for foundation making (We will be going over making foundation by hand later). Depending upon the size of the operation to be converted back to natural comb sizing, figure making about 50 supers of swarm-catching frames for every 1000 hives, or 5 supers of swarm-catching frames per 100 average.Begin by catching feral swarms. When hiving unestablished swarms, separate by worker caste sizing, keeping small-cast workerbee swarms for production of seed-frames, by immediately placing upon 4.9mm foundation. Hive the swarm into a super of undrawn foundation setting on a queen excluder, which is setting upon a bottom board. Use a tight top cover to close. Transport to desired location. DO NOT REMOVE QUEEN EXCLUDER FROM BETWEEN BOTTOM BOARD AND SUPER UNTIL FOUNDATION IS DRAWN AND QUEEN IS LAYING ON A MINIMUM OF 2-3 FRAMES.When hiving an established feral colony, cut out feral combs and mount into swarm-catching frames. Take care to keep brood together, filling each frame as much as possible. When hiving during a good nectar flow, discard pollen and honey stores (bring an empty bucket to put in to take home). Most established swarms cut-out, will fill 2-5 frames with mounted brood when transferred into swarm-catching frames. NOTE: If 3 mounted brood frames or less, place in super on top of queen excluder, on top of bottom board, and complete filling the super with frames of undrawn 4.9mm foundation. If 4 to 5 frames of mounted brood when transferred into swarm-catching frames, place 1 (NO MORE) frame of undrawn 4.9mm foundation in the center of the cut feral comb mounted into swarm-catching frames. Then fill out the rest of the super with frames on undrawn 4.9mm foundation. Make sure super again is setting upon a queen excluder, setting upon a bottom board. Use a tight top cover to close. Transport to desired location.DO NOT REMOVE QUEEN EXCLUDER FROM BETWEEN BOTTOM BOARD AND SUPER UNTIL FOUNDATION, ON FRAMES IN CENTER OF SWARM-CATCHING FRAMES AND AT SIDES OF SWARM-CATCHING FRAMES, ARE DRAWN AND YOU HAVE HAD A CHANCE TO REPOSITION THEM TOGETHER IN THE CENTER OF THE SWARM-CATCHING FRAMES, FOR THE QUEEN TO LAY IN AS A CONSOLIDATED WORKING UNIT.Note: By removing pollen and honey while hiving the bees, you speed up comb drawing, because by creating no place for the bees to put stores, you trigger wax production in honeybees. Continue cycling of drawn 4.9mm foundation from the sides of the swarm-catching frames to the established consolidated working unit. When the swarm-catching frames are adjacent to the sides of the super, remove and replace with more 4.9mm foundation. Next melt-down the feral comb and recycle wax into foundation as a clean renewable resource. Clean and recycle swarm-catching frames with another colony. Upon completion of first super with drawn-out foundation and stores of brood, pollen, and honey, super a second box and continue, repeating supering as desired.Retrogressing domesticated colonies, established on oversized foundation, requires a different approach. First, beekeepers must separate the comb sizes within their colonies to be retrogressed. This is best done going into winter, leaving the broodnest to settle into the smallest drawn comb available to overwinter upon. Then when the honeybees are at their smallest body sizing going into Spring for the year, just before brood-rearing begins, an old-fashioned hive shake-down should be accomplished. This is done by physically shaking the bees off of the combs and restarting like a shook-swarm, into a super filled with new undrawn frames of 4.9mm foundation, sitting upon a queen excluder, sitting upon a bottom board. Honey-syrup and a pollen patty (made with honey and pollen only) may need to be supplied to induce bees to draw wax foundation. Use a tight top cover to close. DO NOT REMOVE QUEEN EXCLUDER FROM BETWEEN BOTTOM BOARD AND SUPER UNTIL FOUNDATION IS DRAWN AND QUEEN IS LAYING ON A MINIMUM OF 2-3 FRAMES.Note: For those colonies that will not draw comb out properly, stop, and remove all undrawn foundation. Continue drawing comb with hives that will draw out 4.9mm foundation properly. When excess drawn comb is available in hives that will draw out comb properly (not necessarily filled with honey or pollen, just drawn out enough to hold pattern (1/8″ to 1/4″on cell walls), remove and add to those colonies that will not draw comb properly. Again shake down bees to restart queen laying on correct pattern. Once queen is laying on correct pattern of 4.9mm comb foundation and brood is sealed, again add frames of undrawn 4.9mm foundation and finish filling out super. Beekeepers will find that once, bees reluctant to draw comb are given properly drawn frames of foundation from another colony, and go through a full brood-cycle to size down newly emerging bees, the colony will straighten out. Upon completion of first super with drawn-out foundation and stores of brood, pollen, and honey, super a second box and continue, repeating supering as desired.This is the process to be followed the first year for catching feral bees or retrogressing domesticated colonies from oversized brood foundation. The objective is to create as much correctly drawn-out 4.9mm comb foundation as possible, to act as seed-frames for the second year’s work, and to stabilize as many colonies as possible with stores of pollen and honey. Foundation not correctly drawn is to be culled and melted down, cycling back into undrawn foundation for reuse.Note: Only by careful culling of misdrawn comb foundation will beekeepers bring parasitic mites and their accompanying secondary diseases under control so no chemicals, essential oils, and antibiotics are necessary for field maintenance. REPEAT: THE OBJECTIVE IS TO CREATE CORRECTLY DRAWN-OUT COMB TO ACT AS SEED-FRAMES FOR THE SECOND YEAR’S WORK. NOTHING ELSE WILL WORK IN THE END. BEES THAT WILL NOT CORRECTLY DRAW OUT FOUNDATION OVER THE COURSE OF THE YEAR WILL SUCCUMB TO DISEASE, DIE AND/OR NOT OVERWINTER PROPERLY. DO NOT TRY TO SAVE THEM OR YOU WILL PERPETUATE YOUR MITE AND DISEASE PROBLEM. TREAT THIS AS SURVIVAL OF FITTEST ONLY, AND EXTINCTION FOR THAT WHICH WILL NOT RETROGRESS TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM BIOLOGICALLY BACK TO TRADITIONAL BEEKEEPING.– Signed: Dee A. Lusby, Amado, Arizona, USA Read the full article

Collapse and Recovery: The Gateway to Treatment Free Beekeeping (from our colleague Kirk Webster who has a lot of experience with resistant small cell bees)At the Treatment-Free Beekeeping Conference in Leominster last July, it was very clear that the people who have succeeded in keeping a productive apiary for many years without treatments have all figured out their own patterns and methods based on their own unique situations. These apiaries are spread out across the world in a variety of environments from the humid tropics in South and Central America to the blazing hot Sonora Desert of Arizona; from the high altitudes of the Southern Rockies to the humid rain forests of Western Washington. Further east they spread out from the mild temperate zones in Texas, North Carolina and France, to the short summers and bitter cold of interior Scandinavia and northern New England. The weather and honey flow patterns are very different, to say the least, across this range of locations, and this menagerie of beekeepers has an astonishing variety of strategies for producing honey, pollen, propolis, wax, bees, queens and venom from their colonies.However, there is one thing all these beekeepers have in common-- one experience they all share: like it or not, they all watched their bees go through at least two Collapse and Recovery cycles before their apiaries would stabilize enough to produce surplus hive products without treatments.For some of us, who didn't know what we were doing, and who started with bees that had very little ability to co-exist with varroa, these Collapse cycles were very dramatic--bordering on disastrous. But for some of the beekeepers in S. America, the cycles were very mild or even invisible-- because the Africanized bees already had considerable ability to co-exist with varroa, and also had an extremely rapid reproduction cycle. This provided an important clue: We now know that apiaries of European bees can go through the Collapse and Recovery cycles without too much economic damage if you can start with a "wild-type" stock that already has some resistance to varroa, and propagate new colonies faster than the initial heavy losses.The Collapse and Recovery cycle is the means by which insects keep their niche filled to the corners for the largest possible percentage of time, and the way they adapt to sudden changes in their environment. Insects seem indestructible in certain situations, but can suddenly become very vulnerable when their environment shifts in a radical way. Sometimes whole populations will be decimated, but the survivors are endowed with unbelievable potential for reproduction when conditions are favorable. This allows them to rapidly refill the space in the ecosystem, change their genotype quickly, and activate who knows what other defense mechanisms. The Collapse and Recovery cycle is the reason that grasshoppers are hard to find in some years, and everywhere in others. This is the way that varroa mites became quickly immune to the most deadly poisons we could throw at them, and it's also the way that honeybees can become able to co-exist with varroa.It remains to be seen whether the bees now being selected by testing hygienic behavior, and by counting mites and nosema spores-- while still treating the bees-- will someday be able to thrive without treatments and never go through a Collapse and Recovery event. I assume this is the goal of these programs. Perhaps John Kefuss's bees are the closest thing to this kind of success so far-- he has certainly expanded and at the same time streamlined his testing procedures better than anyone. But from his writing and conversations, it seems clear that his own version of Collapse and Recovery (the "Bond Test" and "Cave Man Genetics") have done most of the heavy lifting, and were a necessary first step before all of his testing could yield really good results. (You see how each person arrives at his or her own favorite methods.) And there are many apiaries going through a series of Collapse and Recovery events, despite being treated every year. I am fearful that the process of testing bees, while they are still being treated, will be interminable; and if it does end at some point, the bees will still have to go through the Collapse and Recovery cycle, much the same as they would have without all the testing. The bees are being tested in too few dimensions. The very definition of an Ecological Niche: an n-dimensional hyperspace-- where n is an unknown and potentially infinite number-- should suggest that treatments are a real problem and that bees should live and adapt and recover in all of their dimensions, not just some of them. A lot of time and money are now being devoted to treatments and testing that could much better be spent investigating the real costs and effects of pesticides, and helping farmers figure out how to grow crops without them. Beekeeping is now a case where practice has to progress faster than science can document that progress. The emphasis needs to be on removing all treatments as fast as possible, and using Nature's larger patterns to find a path back to health and resilience. Let's come back again to the case of my Swedish friend Erik Osterlund, who did so much to track down and document--in many countries--the work of beekeepers operating without treatments. He also did more to prepare his apiary for the arrival of varroa than anyone else I know of, or can imagine. Three years before the arrival of varroa in his area he had already completed the multi-year task of stocking his colonies with bees having survivor parents on both the male and female side-- and converted all of his combs to 4.9 size. Yet, when the first contact with varroa mites occurred, his bees fell apart, much the same way the all unprotected European bees in N. America did upon their first encounter. To me this is just further strong evidence that natural systems operate in more dimensions than we can easily see and measure. It took time for a new host-parasite relationship to develop, and we really did need to kill the mites at the beginning in order to have any bees left at all. The one good thing about our current situation is that we are well past this stage now in N. America, and also well past the point where the focus should shift towards removing all treatments and learning from our new friends.Once honeybees and varroa can co-exist in an economically viable situation, then this mite disappears as a pest and takes on the role of friend, ally and mentor-- doing most of our selection work at little or no expense, and pointing clearly to the places where our practices are misguided or poorly adapted. Because of its status as an out-of-balance parasite and its enormous destructive power, the varroa mite is the most important creature to focus on this way: as a potential ally. But the story is the same with all the other visible and invisible creatures we regard as "pests". If we can learn to treat them as friends and allies, and learn from them; then we have a chance to create a better agriculture and a world based on creativity and biological energy. If not we have no choice but to follow the same consumptive and self-destructive path we are on now--and share the same outcome with all past civilizations and cultures who chose to live by such tactics. In many of the same ways that my tiny state exerts a disproportionate amount of influence in the Senate, beekeepers--because of their key role in both the food chain and natural ecosystems--may have a disproportionate role to play in choosing which path to follow. Read the full article

Survival of a Commercial Beekeeper in Norway Bee Culture – May, 2005Hans-Otto JohnsenHans-Otto Johnsen on the right side. from left to right - Erik Österlund, a friend, Ed Lusby, Hans-Otto Johnsen on bee rocksurvival of a comercial beekeeper in Norway Test result: small cell bees bring more honey - Varroa population is significantly lower in the small cell hives. - I’m not just a beekeeper that wants to make money on honey. Life is more than money, it’s a good quality life. Such a life requires good quality food. - My focus is on biotechnical methods, selective breeding for mite resistant bees and a management system that helps the bees to survive and produce. - I wintered 650 colonies in the autumn of 2004. - One essential part in my beekeeping is to help the bees to live as natural as possible. - Cell size test 2002-2004 - comparison small cell hives and conventional large cell hives In 2002 I established a test apiary for testing small cell size. The goal The goal of the test was to measure the development of the Varroa population during the test and to measure the honey production. Results in 2004 - The mite population was throughout the season in 2004 significantly lower in the small cell group. - The small cell group of colonies averaged about one box stronger at peak strength in the middle of Summer. The average honey crop in the big cell group was 36 kg . In the small cell group it was 24% bigger with 44,5 kg. - An interesting observation was that the honey crop from the small cell colonies were more even, besides the top colony and a few at the bottom. - Finally, there is no observation that small cell size have any negative effect on the performance of the bee colony. survival of a comercial beekeeper in Norway Scandinavia is dominated by hobby beekeepers and hobby beekeeping. There are though those that make their living on bees also here. Most of these survive with the help of making money also in other areas than beekeeping. But there are still some that live only with the help of their bees.I’m not just a beekeeper that wants to make money on honey. Life is more than money, it’s a good quality life. Such a life requires good quality food. Natural food from the bee hive is outstanding in many respects and has the potential of adding many good properties in a health giving food supply. Scandinavia is lucky as we live in a very little polluted area of the world and thus we have good possibilities of producing residue free food. This is though challenged for example by the Varroa mite.The beekeeper takes the consequences As a producer and beekeeper you are dependent on your own decisions, even if there exist many regulations and much advise of different kind. Scientists try to be correct in a way that meets a scientific standard (which is well understandable). Therefore they often have difficulties in giving answers that they can’t stand for with 100% certainty. This may create uncertainty among the practicing beekeepers. Which of course also anecdotal experiences of fellow beekeepers may do. For a commercial beekeeper all this may put him in a not so easy position. With all information he can get, scientific reports, anecdotal stories and his own observations, it is the beekeeper himself that will make the decision how to design his beekeeping management. It is he, not his advisers, that will have to take the consequences. These will finally show themselves in his bank account!How we fight the mite In Norway where I live you are not allowed to use what is called pesticides against pests. To fight the Varroa mite we are ordained biotechnical methods and organic acids. The purpose is to keep the bee colonies and bee products free from residues and not to produce a multi resistant mite. Not only pesticides though, but also acids have their drawbacks. The biggest is withholding the long term solution of mite resistant bees.Additionally you do things to the bees that influence their health when you pour foreign substances and high concentrations of otherwise innocent stuff into the bee colony. All these act as poisons. We seem not to know much about how these substances influence the bee colony other than kill a lot of mites, but not all.My focus is on biotechnical methods, selective breeding for mite resistant bees and a management system that helps the bees to survive and produce.I saw the first Varroa mite in my operation in 1997. I tried different methods available, but soon came to use only what is contained in my description further down.My operation I wintered 650 colonies in the autumn of 2004. Due to my experiences the last years I expect 5-7% winterloss, about 40 colonies. Then in spring, for a number of different reasons, around 100 colonies will have a too slow development. Most of these are old production colonies. Varroa, nosema, chalk brood, failing queens and “just slow” are some of the reasons These 100 weak ones will end up as 30 colonies after uniting them in different ways. Those united units will give a crop. This makes an additional loss of 60 colonies. Of course these united colonies will have a new queen eventually. But this early in season we don’t have new laying queens in Norway. These united, somewhat affected colonies of different ailments are moved to an apiary of their own so that they will not influence the other colonies.In June at the earliest, when I have new laying queens, I make my main number of new colonies. Most of them could be described as artificial swarms. The goal is to have about 200-250 new colonies going into winter. If I succeed in making 250 colonies that all survive and no additional colonies of the old ones fail, I will increase the number of colonies by 150. But this will not be the case as some additional ones will fail of the old for different reasons, and some of the new ones will fail. Hopefully I will increase somewhat.Artificial swarms and splits The artificial swarms are made without brood frames and only with new foundation and a new laying queen. They are placed in a new apiary of their own with no old colonies. Now they just have to grow until autumn and be wintered. They will make good production colonies next season.Some of the new colonies will be made later in the season due to a lack of newly mated queens. As you may understand I have to adjust to a very short and intense season and have to be somewhat flexible due to circumstances. Some new colonies will get a ripe queen cell, not a laying queen.New colonies which I make later in season will have a number of brood frames, more the later they are done. It’s all about availability of queens how many of each type of new colonies are made. We don’t have easy to get big batches of new laying queens in Norway. Especially not of the breed I work with.Breeding Those production colonies that survive well for a couple of seasons, give good crops and are satisfactory in different respects will be those among which I choose my breeders.My aim is to let my new queens mate under satisfactory controlled circumstances. I sometimes use an isolated island. Many times I use an apiary, fairly isolated, in an area dominated by my good bees. To this apiary I move selected drone colonies, which could have sister queens, or they could have queens of different mother origin.The breedThe breed I use is called Elgon and has its origin in Sweden with Erik Österlund, the editor of the Swedish Beekeeping journal “Bitidningen”. This breed is a mix between mainly the Buckfast bee and the east African mountain bee Apis mellifera monticola. It’s bred with the purpose of surviving of its own in spite of the presence of the Varroa mite¹.But sometimes I buy an apiary due to its good site, including a number of colonies. There are also always colonies that make supersedure queens, sometimes when they have been moved to the heather in late summer. Many times they are then standing close to apiaries with other types of bees. And I haven’t succeeded in shifting to only Elgon stock to begin with either. So I will have a certain amount of different stock in many of my apiaries. About 80% is though of mainly Elgon heritage.Management system necessary My anecdotal observations tell me Elgon stock is more resistant. Small cell size gives more resistant bee. Test results and my own experiences tell me that. But resistance vary, all colonies are not Elgon and all beekeepers in the neighbourhood do not have Elgons or small cell size. This creates a higher mite pressure, especially maybe when the bees are moved for the Heather flow in late summer. This makes a management system necessary that can take care of differing mite pressures.Natural compromises One essential part in my beekeeping is to help the bees to live as natural as possible. Totally natural is impossible for modern beekeepers. You can’t for example keep bees in stocks and have just a few in every apiary. One essential part in a natural context is the wax. In nature bees move around, leave old wax and make new. Bees swarm, mother colonies die. Wax is left to others. That’s why I work with artificial swarms moved to new locations and let the bees draw a lot of new combs.A compromise that helps is wax foundation. Natural cell sizes vary², sometimes little, sometimes more. The smallest ones are in the brood area and the biggest in honey storage area.3 Therefore I today mainly use 4.9 mm cell size in brood area. But I still have colonies with 5.1 mm cell size in brood area. As I use queen excluders above the brood boxes I use my enlarged cell sized combs of 5.5 mm cell size in my honey supers.Cell size is not the only aspect constituting the amazing structure that the bee comb is. The fairly good regularity of the six sided cell and how the cell bottoms are formed are others. To mimic nature as much as possible the cell bottom can’t be flat. It consists of three rhombs at certain, quite deep angels. And naturally built cells are many times much more regular than the imprints in the wax foundation we buy. I think of wax foundation often being stretched when milled. In what aspects this influence the bee colony we don’t know. Can we assume that this lack of knowledge give us reason to believe that the influence is of little importance?Quality wax foundation I have been a lot occupied trying to produce good quality wax foundation. Because of the big quality variations of the wax foundations on the market in Europe I went to USA to buy machines and create a production line of myself. The problems in Europe are the stretching of wax foundation during milling and centering of the embossing rollers so that the bottoms of the cells on opposite sides of the foundation are misplaced. In addition the cell bottom rhombs are meeting each other at a too small angel creating a too flat bottom. Of commercial available equipment the one that come closest to what I want was from the Hawley Honey Company in Iola, Kansas.My biotechnical methods The biotechnical methods I use to fight the Varroa mite are the following. 1. I make artificial swarms, which are put in apiaries of their own to avoid reinfestation. 2. In summer if I come across colonies that seem to have mite problems, I take a lot of bees from those to make artificial swarms (and some from weaker colonies, thus leaving the good producing colonies to give me a big crop). Thus the mite population growth is broken in those colonies as the brood will be small due to fewer bees, and any later influence from them is hindered. Later in season the queen is shifted. You may argue that the new colonies will have too many mites this way. But the new colonies will have small mite population growth too due to being small in size. They in addition get queens from mothers selected for mite resistance. My experience is that this works well enough. 3. I use a breed with resistance traits, which I further select. 4. All colonies are supplied with screened bottom boards. 5. I use natural (and not enlarged) cell size, at least in brood area. 6. Those odd colonies that seem to develop an alarming level of mites at the same time as colony strength is decreasing more than average, are terminated. The reason for this is to avoid eventual negative influence on the others.Cell size test 2002-2004 In 2002 I established a test apiary for testing small cell size. There were two groups of bee colonies in the test apiary. The two groups were placed as far away as possible in the apiary, but still close enough so that they together could be called an apiary.The goal The goal of the test was to measure the development of the Varroa population during the test and to measure the honey production.The start One group in the apiary had enlarged cell size (which have been “normal” for many years) in the brood area (5.5 mm – 55 mm measured over the parallel sides of ten cells). The other group was established on bees born in 5.1 mm cells. The following year (2003) cell size was worked down to 4.9 mm in the small cell size group.All queens in the test apiary were sisters bred from the same colony. And they were all mated at the same isolated mating station with sister queens producing the drones. The breed was Buckfast.I started with 20 colonies in each group, with the two groups 200 meters apart to avoid robbing and drifting between the groups. To further avoid unwanted influence harvest was done late in the day, escape boards were used and entrances were reduced.Late in autumn 2002 when there was no brood, the test colonies were treated with oxalic acid. The aim of this treatment was to even out the mite population and start with a low amount of mites.4.9-foundation drawn The small cell colonies at first did not draw the 4.9-foundation well. Uneven cell sizes appeared though quite some patches were of good appearance. The least good drawn combs were replaced as soon as possible with new 4.9 foundation and the bees drew them better and better.When the small cell group was given new foundation, the big cell group also was given new foundation (then of course of 5.5 mm cell size). Because of the given circumstances just a few measurements were made in 2003. An alcohol wash in October when no brood was at hand showed a lower amount of mites among the small cell colonies.Results in 2004 The mite population was throughout the season in 2004 significantly lower in the small cell group. The natural downfall in average in the small cell group peaked with 2 mites per day and then decreased steadily. In the big cell group it peaked at 7 mites a day, decreased and then increased again.An alcohol wash was made in autumn when no brood was present in the colonies. In the small cell group mites per 100 bees (%) was 14 (the range was 3-26%), and in the big cell group 29% (the range was 3-64%). The 3% colony in the small cell group gave an average crop, while the one with 3% in the big cell group gave a very small crop telling us it was a weak colony, which it was. The three 26% colonies in the small cell group and the 64% colony in the big cell group all gave good crops indicating strong colonies with good opportunities for the mite to reproduce.The small cell group of colonies averaged about one box stronger at peak strength in the middle of Summer. The average honey crop in the big cell group was 36 kg (79.2 lbs.), range 8-57 kg (17.6 – 125.4 lbs.). In the small cell group it was 24% bigger with 44,5 kg, range 23-62 kg. An interesting observation was that the honey crop from the small cell colonies were more even, besides the top colony and a few at the bottom. The rest were very similar, while in the big cell group the sizes of the crop were more spread out. The top crops were similar in the two groups.Both groups were affected by chalkbrood. Chalkbrood is difficult to measure, but my anecdotal eyes told me the big cell group was evidently more affected. This may have contributed to the smaller crop in this group. Would the mite population had been bigger without the chalkbrood?In September 2004 the queens were shifted in all remaining colonies, which was 16 in the small cell group and 16 in the big cell group. During the requeening, supersedure queens were found in 7 colonies in the small cell group and in 8 colonies in the big cell group.New breed for the rest of the test The new queens introduced were of another breed, Carniolan. None of the colonies was treated with any substance for the mite. The test continues. The Carniolan breed in Norway is a stock selected in a breeding project by the Norwegian Beekeepers Association and has been going on for several years. The stock has a good reputation and I want to test it against the breed I mainly work with, the Elgon. Therefore I have set up an apiary with Elgons not to far away from the now Carniolan test apiary.Cell size test with the Norwegian Beekeepers Association Professor Stig Omholt in Norway invited scientists and beekeepers associations in the Nordic countries in 2001 to discuss the possibilities of testing small cell size. The Norwegian Beekeepers Association launched a cell size test in 2002. I am one of the test beekeepers. The results up till now look promising. Therefore more test beekeepers will be engaged during 2005 and 2006.Thank you! At last I want to thank Prof. Stig Omholt in Oslo Norway, Dee and Ed Lusby in Tucson Arizona, Dr. Eric Erickson in Tucson Arizona, the staff at Dadant in Hamilton Ohio, Raymond Cooper in Iola Kansas, Myron Kropf in Middletown Missouri and Editor Erik Osterlund in Hallsberg Sweden for illuminating discussions, without which I’m sure I wouldn’t have survived this long as a commercial beekeeper.2006 short update My experiences this year has confirmed what is written in this article. Winter losses was again low. And I see less of mites in my operation. I have managed shift to Elgon stock in almost all my colonies. The bees have done well even though the season has not been very good.some years later:Notes 1. Osterlund Erik, (2001), The Elgon Bee and Varroa Mites, American Bee Journal, March, vol 141, March, p 174-177. http://beesource.com/pov/osterlund/index.htm 2. Cowan, T.W., Read the full article

Dee Lusby talks in this video about very important things of treatment-free beekeeping and the incredible hostility with which she had to deal.This should be watched by everyone who is concerned with the bees. There you see where the real problems are, which are usually not talked about. Read the full article

Collapse and Recovery: The Gateway to Treatment Free Beekeeping (from our colleague Kirk Webster who has a lot of experience with resistant small cell bees)At the Treatment-Free Beekeeping Conference in Leominster last July, it was very clear that the people who have succeeded in keeping a productive apiary for many years without treatments have all figured out their own patterns and methods based on their own unique situations. These apiaries are spread out across the world in a variety of environments from the humid tropics in South and Central America to the blazing hot Sonora Desert of Arizona; from the high altitudes of the Southern Rockies to the humid rain forests of Western Washington. Further east they spread out from the mild temperate zones in Texas, North Carolina and France, to the short summers and bitter cold of interior Scandinavia and northern New England. The weather and honey flow patterns are very different, to say the least, across this range of locations, and this menagerie of beekeepers has an astonishing variety of strategies for producing honey, pollen, propolis, wax, bees, queens and venom from their colonies.However, there is one thing all these beekeepers have in common-- one experience they all share: like it or not, they all watched their bees go through at least two Collapse and Recovery cycles before their apiaries would stabilize enough to produce surplus hive products without treatments.For some of us, who didn't know what we were doing, and who started with bees that had very little ability to co-exist with varroa, these Collapse cycles were very dramatic--bordering on disastrous. But for some of the beekeepers in S. America, the cycles were very mild or even invisible-- because the Africanized bees already had considerable ability to co-exist with varroa, and also had an extremely rapid reproduction cycle. This provided an important clue: We now know that apiaries of European bees can go through the Collapse and Recovery cycles without too much economic damage if you can start with a "wild-type" stock that already has some resistance to varroa, and propagate new colonies faster than the initial heavy losses.The Collapse and Recovery cycle is the means by which insects keep their niche filled to the corners for the largest possible percentage of time, and the way they adapt to sudden changes in their environment. Insects seem indestructible in certain situations, but can suddenly become very vulnerable when their environment shifts in a radical way. Sometimes whole populations will be decimated, but the survivors are endowed with unbelievable potential for reproduction when conditions are favorable. This allows them to rapidly refill the space in the ecosystem, change their genotype quickly, and activate who knows what other defense mechanisms. The Collapse and Recovery cycle is the reason that grasshoppers are hard to find in some years, and everywhere in others. This is the way that varroa mites became quickly immune to the most deadly poisons we could throw at them, and it's also the way that honeybees can become able to co-exist with varroa.It remains to be seen whether the bees now being selected by testing hygienic behavior, and by counting mites and nosema spores-- while still treating the bees-- will someday be able to thrive without treatments and never go through a Collapse and Recovery event. I assume this is the goal of these programs. Perhaps John Kefuss's bees are the closest thing to this kind of success so far-- he has certainly expanded and at the same time streamlined his testing procedures better than anyone. But from his writing and conversations, it seems clear that his own version of Collapse and Recovery (the "Bond Test" and "Cave Man Genetics") have done most of the heavy lifting, and were a necessary first step before all of his testing could yield really good results. (You see how each person arrives at his or her own favorite methods.) And there are many apiaries going through a series of Collapse and Recovery events, despite being treated every year. I am fearful that the process of testing bees, while they are still being treated, will be interminable; and if it does end at some point, the bees will still have to go through the Collapse and Recovery cycle, much the same as they would have without all the testing. The bees are being tested in too few dimensions. The very definition of an Ecological Niche: an n-dimensional hyperspace-- where n is an unknown and potentially infinite number-- should suggest that treatments are a real problem and that bees should live and adapt and recover in all of their dimensions, not just some of them. A lot of time and money are now being devoted to treatments and testing that could much better be spent investigating the real costs and effects of pesticides, and helping farmers figure out how to grow crops without them. Beekeeping is now a case where practice has to progress faster than science can document that progress. The emphasis needs to be on removing all treatments as fast as possible, and using Nature's larger patterns to find a path back to health and resilience. Let's come back again to the case of my Swedish friend Erik Osterlund, who did so much to track down and document--in many countries--the work of beekeepers operating without treatments. He also did more to prepare his apiary for the arrival of varroa than anyone else I know of, or can imagine. Three years before the arrival of varroa in his area he had already completed the multi-year task of stocking his colonies with bees having survivor parents on both the male and female side-- and converted all of his combs to 4.9 size. Yet, when the first contact with varroa mites occurred, his bees fell apart, much the same way the all unprotected European bees in N. America did upon their first encounter. To me this is just further strong evidence that natural systems operate in more dimensions than we can easily see and measure. It took time for a new host-parasite relationship to develop, and we really did need to kill the mites at the beginning in order to have any bees left at all. The one good thing about our current situation is that we are well past this stage now in N. America, and also well past the point where the focus should shift towards removing all treatments and learning from our new friends.Once honeybees and varroa can co-exist in an economically viable situation, then this mite disappears as a pest and takes on the role of friend, ally and mentor-- doing most of our selection work at little or no expense, and pointing clearly to the places where our practices are misguided or poorly adapted. Because of its status as an out-of-balance parasite and its enormous destructive power, the varroa mite is the most important creature to focus on this way: as a potential ally. But the story is the same with all the other visible and invisible creatures we regard as "pests". If we can learn to treat them as friends and allies, and learn from them; then we have a chance to create a better agriculture and a world based on creativity and biological energy. If not we have no choice but to follow the same consumptive and self-destructive path we are on now--and share the same outcome with all past civilizations and cultures who chose to live by such tactics. In many of the same ways that my tiny state exerts a disproportionate amount of influence in the Senate, beekeepers--because of their key role in both the food chain and natural ecosystems--may have a disproportionate role to play in choosing which path to follow. Read the full article

Ed&Dee Lusby, the pioneers of treatment free beekeeping The basics of our work - Ed&Dee Lusby, arizona"Okay, by now many probably know that we think that smaller bees are better, but WHY and HOW?Well, since a series of questions were asked, I guess I better start trying to give our rational for believing why we do.First of all, let me state, to win a war you do not do it by piece milltactics for you will lose. You win by using everything at your disposal, ina conscientiously applied program of surrounding and engulfment from allsides. We are indeed in a war with our industry and whether we win or loseas an industry going forward, will take many of us working together andhelping each other out. This includes sharing information and not holdingback as i.e. trade secrets, for what is it to succeed, if you are the onlyones left and all your friends are gone.We believe that environmental surroundings and being in harmony by way of cell size is 1/3 of the problem, because prior to artificial enlargement of combs, there was no problem, and that by the way, has esculated ever since with parasitic mite problems and secondary diseases, and yes, breeding problems.We believe that diet is about 1/3 of the problem, with artificial diet causing inadequate nutrition. Poor nutrition is a serious stress factor of any organism, that can lead to disease and parasite attacks, as well as yes, breeding problems.We believe that breeding is also 1/3 of the problem, that is not in tune with natural surroundings. Breeding wrongly goes hand in hand with inducing dietary stress and environmental stress.You cannot do one of the above alone, without compromising the other two also, therefore all changes have to be done in an overall combined program, that includes combating the problem from all angles. Is this not what Nature is doing to us now? Fighting us from all angles? I think so!Many have asked/written over the years:................ 'By reducing the cell size makes the bees less susceptible to the ravages of Varroa, other pathogens and disease? WHY?This implies some major change to the bees chemical makeup as Varroa's trigger is chemical or pheromone based, and sizing does this? Correct?' With most of todays artificially enlarged foundations on the market, closer to natural drone cell size, than natural workerbee size, there has been created a pseudo-effect, in that parasitic mites now persieve workerbees as an other food source. This is not so in Nature. In Nature, reproduction of mites on A. cerana is limited mainly by the usually very small number of drone cells produced by them; and also by very few female mites developing on worker larvae. They do so only at the periphery of the brood-nest where larvae are coolest and so have a period of development long enough for some mites on them to reach maturity.It is known that A. cerana and apis mellifera cannot breed back and forth and make viable offspring. But, they are still so close in everything else, that we can study and learn and mimic, to regain control of our honeybees.Concerning the pseudo-effect of our workerbees being perceived as drones,i.e. just another food source. The capacity of a drone cell for food is double that of a workercell, even though the drone cell is only in ratio 20%larger. The capacity of a drone cell also carries with it more juvenile growth hormone III, which when the varroa feeds on the blood of the dronel arvae, induces egg laying in the mite.In A. cerana there is insufficient juvenile growth hormone III available to induce egg laying of mites inworker brood cells. Now the size of A. cerana has a natural range by latitude, as does apis mellifera, and coincidentialy they are primarily the same. By placing our apis mellifera colonies then back onto comb cell sizing pre-1900 size, back into the upper range of natural at 4.9, we can approximate the sizing of A. cerana in Korea, Japan and the upper west coast of SEA for natural control relative to A. cerana.At the same time then, we reduce the food inticement, and also the triggering for mite reproduction. Other things happen when we reduce the size of the worker brood cell back into natural biological parameters. You also change the density of the cells on the brood frame, and compacting density raises the temperature, which also helps to place the development more to the periphery of the broodnest for mites.This we have seen happening in our colonies now and so have others visiting and seeing also.Also, we recommend culling of dronecombs to no more than 10% of anyoneframe within the broodnest, to trigger broodnest cleaning by our apismellifera workerbees. This continuously culling(a field management change)has trigger our workerbees to chewout varroa from our colonies broodnests for both worker and drone brood. It has also resulted in stimulative raising of drones throughout the active season when our bees are raising brood, which we believe helps for better mating of our queens.By also compacting the broodnest we gain more workerbees for each turn ofbrood for more division of labor, which means more workers for expanded jobs, such as above chewing out of brood. Since the size of the bee is regulated by the size of the cell and the size of the cell regulates the size of the thorax of the workerbee, we also gain control of trachael mites by reducing the opening of the first thoracic spiracle where the mites gain inner entry into the lungs of our bees. By reducing the reproduction of varroa (both types verified by the USDATucson Lab as being in our area) and trachael mites, both known in our area in our bees, we then cause a reduction in secondary diseases, by reduction of open wounds caused by mites chewing upon the exoskelton of our bees and penetrating to drink blood, then vectoring in viral, bacteria, and fungali nfections.By compacting the density of our broodnest, we gain higher temperature that triggers faster broodnest turnover, that then acts in conjunction with the normal post-capping stage of worker larvae being shortened by up to 24 hours during nectar flows, during the active season, and thus lessing varroa reproduction within our colonies even further.By reducing the size of the cell to back within the natural range spectrum we fit more naturally the natural flora of plants not hybridized by man, which is the majority in Nature and thus increase the diet, making it more balanced for overall colony health. This can be seen in a greater range of pollen colors brought into and deposited within our colonies. It also makes for more range in the collection of nectar also for increased health benefits.By reducing the size of the cell back to within the natural range our bees can breed back and forth with feral bees and gain greater variability for expanded characteristics for selection, and where one has great selection, you can breed more for what one wants.By putting all this together into a package then, we gain control for better diet for our bees, better disease control for our bees, by not having their bodies chewed upon, either externally or internally to vector in associated problems of viral, fungal or bacterial in nature, we gain reduced reproduction of parasites by natural restriction of their diet upon our bees, and the result is we don't have to use various chemical treatments. I probably have missed someting here, I hope not in thinking about it. I hope it helps answer your question as to why we do it. Read the full article

Retrogression Back to Normal – Part 1 Retrogression Back to Normal – Part 1 The Way Back to Biological Beekeeping, Part 8 Picture in your mind the world as a basic map of honeybee thermal/cell size zones based on composites of hot and cold land area masses. Now picture this as lateral belts going around the world with the hottest zones and smallest sizes near the Equator and volcanic hot thermal zones, and the largest sizes near 60, latitude in belts going around the world and the tops of colder mountain ranges. Now picture in your mind the world surrounded in layers with the smallest sizes being on the bottom where compression is greatest, and the largest sizes being on top where compression is least. Now picture in your mind that every honeybee thermal/cell size zone has a natural range of small, medium, and large cell sizes to allow for bees to transition into and out of habitat areas as vegetation and rain occur throughout a yearly cycle. With smaller cell sizes a beekeeper would gain variability and with larger cell sizes a beekeeper would gain less. As you go from the Equator, both North and South, picture smaller yellow hot-weather bees getting bigger to about the 30 latitude belts around the world.Picture a transition zone here, where yellow hot-weather honeybees and dark (black or brown) cold-weather honeybees come together and overlap co-mingling. Yellow hot-weather honeybees will naturally be at their largest sizing and dark cold-weather honeybees will naturally be at their smallest. As you go from the 30 latitudes towards the poles, picture the dark cold-weather honeybees getting larger to about the 60 latitude belts, where their natural migration north transitions to an end. Now picture in your mind, in the tropics, only yellow hot-weather honeybees at sea-level and when you reach about 3500 – 4000 elevation, a transition to dark cold-weather honeybees again. Now picture in your mind, in the temperate zones, only dark cold-weather honeybees at sea-level, except where volcanic areas create hot thermal-zones allowing for yellow hot-weather bees to survive naturally. Again within these limited yellow bee zones, transition would occur towards dark honeybees, as elevation is increased.Now picture in your mind this only occurring with pure strains/races of honeybees, except in transition zones where hybridization would occur. Now picture in your mind hybrid mixes of different honeybees as always being bigger in size than the pure strains/races they originate from. Now picture in your mind simple hybrids being naturally occurring in Nature and complex hybrids only occurring in an artificial environment.NOW, LET’S ASK SOME QUESTIONS. (We will re-state the above prior to discussing bee breeding, applicable to field mechanics/management only). Question: If honeybees, when they swarm out of oversized domesticated hives, retrogress downward in size, then how stable is a hybridized mixture in this scenario, especially if bigger flys slower? Same scenario relative to Africanization? If honeybees for evolution security, acclimatize to natural sizing, then should not we as an industry be following them to solve our problems of diseases and parasitic mites? If domesticated honeybees in a given area swarm and retrogress downward, should not this be a sign that the artificial comb size in use is wrong for that particular area? If retrogression back to natural sizing, in any given area/region cannot be accomplished in one retrogression-step smaller, due to the extent that we as an industry went bigger artificially, then what is the fastest way back to natural biological beekeeping without the use of chemicals, antibiotics, and essential oils; and it taking a large amount of time, which we seem to be running out of?RETROGRESSION: The first step in retrogression is to survey colonies in each area/region that are both domestic and feral (Note – Colonies on oversized artificial brood foundations do not fully correlate with naturally occurring breeding cycles, necessitating that differences be taken into account or excluded from survey. Further, colonies in the feral, whether established or un-established, need to be separated visually by subcaste matings, to establish their true degree of being natural, feral, i.e. all small subcastes, all large subcastes, or mixed-size subcastes noting the degree.)While this is taking place, a historical survey needs to be accomplished to ascertain what traditional comb cell sizes where, prior to use of artificially enlarged foundation, by each area/region. Comb cell sizing here needs to be split into two categories: 1) That what was, prior to importation and subsequent hybridization; 2) That what was, after importation and hybridization; but before the use of artificially enlarged foundation.Where historical data is insufficient for verification of traditional sizings, physical observation of retrogression by physically removing domesticated honeybees from artificially enlarged brood combs will be required. Note: This may require several steps, to finally arrive at a standard range of smaller sizing by use of “V-cut ” top bars. Beekeepers can gauge very quickly what size brood foundation their local honeybees prefer. All they need is to makeup a few brood supers with top bars in them only, with 5 degree angle cuts for feral swarms to build comb upon, precoated with beeswax to facilitate comb building during the swarming season. Then all that has to be done, is measure the inside diameter of the cell wall to ascertain the common worker cell size for the geographic area. Beekeepers doing this should find that their feral bees (large caste/mixed-size castes) and even their own domesticated bees will prefer a smaller size brood comb than what they are probably now using. Here, first rule-of-thumb to clear up parasitic mite problems should be…do what the bees prefer!Keep in mind, the idea is to figure out how many retrogressions it will take to bring the honeybees in a given area back to traditional natural sizing. Repeat the above mentioned process, with V-cut top bars on several domesticated hives and several well established feral colonies (not less than 10 each). We found the average here in Southern Arizona to be about 4 for our domesticated hives and 2 for established feral colonies. We found it impossible to make the retrogression back to natural sizing in one jump (This was our retrogression attempt to 5.0mm sizing). Two retrogression would be required, but it became apparent that the time-frame would be a limiting factor, because we didn’t have the time to retrogress our whole beekeeping outfit for each retrogression required (figured 10 years for each retrogression for changing 1,000 hives with foundation) for our domestic hives. We decided to see if we could speed the process up to match what we observed on the feral side. Consequently, we decided beekeepers cannot do an old-fashioned comb shake-down, from today’s domesticated hives and restart on new undrawn 4.9mm foundation, to match the top-of-the-sizing-spectrum for traditional sizing before artficial hybridization by man, without modifying the technique to fit today’s needs relative to stress by parasitic mites/secondary diseases, limited time-frame within which to work, and the different requirements for field management, between domestic and feral.PROCESS FOR SPEEDING-UP RETROGRESSION: This is a definite multi-year application to accomplish. Depending upon the size of the beekeeping operation, it can take anywhere from 3 to 15 years average to accomplish. The first year is a preparation year for creating “seed-frames” for what will be pot-progressive work, the years following. Work is begun by the preparation of “removeable swarm-catching frames” to act as stimuli for producing seed-frames of drawn-out 4.9mm brood-comb foundation. It also fills a two-fold purpose of speeding-up retrogression, while supplying a renewable source of clean uncontaminated beeswax for foundation making (We will be going over making foundation by hand later). Depending upon the size of the operation to be converted back to natural comb sizing, figure making about 50 supers of swarm-catching frames for every 1000 hives, or 5 supers of swarm-catching frames per 100 average.Begin by catching feral swarms. When hiving unestablished swarms, separate by worker caste sizing, keeping small-cast workerbee swarms for production of seed-frames, by immediately placing upon 4.9mm foundation. Hive the swarm into a super of undrawn foundation setting on a queen excluder, which is setting upon a bottom board. Use a tight top cover to close. Transport to desired location. DO NOT REMOVE QUEEN EXCLUDER FROM BETWEEN BOTTOM BOARD AND SUPER UNTIL FOUNDATION IS DRAWN AND QUEEN IS LAYING ON A MINIMUM OF 2-3 FRAMES.When hiving an established feral colony, cut out feral combs and mount into swarm-catching frames. Take care to keep brood together, filling each frame as much as possible. When hiving during a good nectar flow, discard pollen and honey stores (bring an empty bucket to put in to take home). Most established swarms cut-out, will fill 2-5 frames with mounted brood when transferred into swarm-catching frames. NOTE: If 3 mounted brood frames or less, place in super on top of queen excluder, on top of bottom board, and complete filling the super with frames of undrawn 4.9mm foundation. If 4 to 5 frames of mounted brood when transferred into swarm-catching frames, place 1 (NO MORE) frame of undrawn 4.9mm foundation in the center of the cut feral comb mounted into swarm-catching frames. Then fill out the rest of the super with frames on undrawn 4.9mm foundation. Make sure super again is setting upon a queen excluder, setting upon a bottom board. Use a tight top cover to close. Transport to desired location.DO NOT REMOVE QUEEN EXCLUDER FROM BETWEEN BOTTOM BOARD AND SUPER UNTIL FOUNDATION, ON FRAMES IN CENTER OF SWARM-CATCHING FRAMES AND AT SIDES OF SWARM-CATCHING FRAMES, ARE DRAWN AND YOU HAVE HAD A CHANCE TO REPOSITION THEM TOGETHER IN THE CENTER OF THE SWARM-CATCHING FRAMES, FOR THE QUEEN TO LAY IN AS A CONSOLIDATED WORKING UNIT.Note: By removing pollen and honey while hiving the bees, you speed up comb drawing, because by creating no place for the bees to put stores, you trigger wax production in honeybees. Continue cycling of drawn 4.9mm foundation from the sides of the swarm-catching frames to the established consolidated working unit. When the swarm-catching frames are adjacent to the sides of the super, remove and replace with more 4.9mm foundation. Next melt-down the feral comb and recycle wax into foundation as a clean renewable resource. Clean and recycle swarm-catching frames with another colony. Upon completion of first super with drawn-out foundation and stores of brood, pollen, and honey, super a second box and continue, repeating supering as desired.Retrogressing domesticated colonies, established on oversized foundation, requires a different approach. First, beekeepers must separate the comb sizes within their colonies to be retrogressed. This is best done going into winter, leaving the broodnest to settle into the smallest drawn comb available to overwinter upon. Then when the honeybees are at their smallest body sizing going into Spring for the year, just before brood-rearing begins, an old-fashioned hive shake-down should be accomplished. This is done by physically shaking the bees off of the combs and restarting like a shook-swarm, into a super filled with new undrawn frames of 4.9mm foundation, sitting upon a queen excluder, sitting upon a bottom board. Honey-syrup and a pollen patty (made with honey and pollen only) may need to be supplied to induce bees to draw wax foundation. Use a tight top cover to close. DO NOT REMOVE QUEEN EXCLUDER FROM BETWEEN BOTTOM BOARD AND SUPER UNTIL FOUNDATION IS DRAWN AND QUEEN IS LAYING ON A MINIMUM OF 2-3 FRAMES.Note: For those colonies that will not draw comb out properly, stop, and remove all undrawn foundation. Continue drawing comb with hives that will draw out 4.9mm foundation properly. When excess drawn comb is available in hives that will draw out comb properly (not necessarily filled with honey or pollen, just drawn out enough to hold pattern (1/8″ to 1/4″on cell walls), remove and add to those colonies that will not draw comb properly. Again shake down bees to restart queen laying on correct pattern. Once queen is laying on correct pattern of 4.9mm comb foundation and brood is sealed, again add frames of undrawn 4.9mm foundation and finish filling out super. Beekeepers will find that once, bees reluctant to draw comb are given properly drawn frames of foundation from another colony, and go through a full brood-cycle to size down newly emerging bees, the colony will straighten out. Upon completion of first super with drawn-out foundation and stores of brood, pollen, and honey, super a second box and continue, repeating supering as desired.This is the process to be followed the first year for catching feral bees or retrogressing domesticated colonies from oversized brood foundation. The objective is to create as much correctly drawn-out 4.9mm comb foundation as possible, to act as seed-frames for the second year’s work, and to stabilize as many colonies as possible with stores of pollen and honey. Foundation not correctly drawn is to be culled and melted down, cycling back into undrawn foundation for reuse.Note: Only by careful culling of misdrawn comb foundation will beekeepers bring parasitic mites and their accompanying secondary diseases under control so no chemicals, essential oils, and antibiotics are necessary for field maintenance. REPEAT: THE OBJECTIVE IS TO CREATE CORRECTLY DRAWN-OUT COMB TO ACT AS SEED-FRAMES FOR THE SECOND YEAR’S WORK. NOTHING ELSE WILL WORK IN THE END. BEES THAT WILL NOT CORRECTLY DRAW OUT FOUNDATION OVER THE COURSE OF THE YEAR WILL SUCCUMB TO DISEASE, DIE AND/OR NOT OVERWINTER PROPERLY. DO NOT TRY TO SAVE THEM OR YOU WILL PERPETUATE YOUR MITE AND DISEASE PROBLEM. TREAT THIS AS SURVIVAL OF FITTEST ONLY, AND EXTINCTION FOR THAT WHICH WILL NOT RETROGRESS TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM BIOLOGICALLY BACK TO TRADITIONAL BEEKEEPING.– Signed: Dee A. Lusby, Amado, Arizona, USA Read the full article

Lusbys Receive W.A.S. Memorial Award Lusbys Receive W.A.S. Memorial Award ABJ – December, 1997The Western Apicultural Society is proud to announce the selection of Ed and Dee Lusby, Tucson, AZ, as recipients of the A. I. Root Roy Thurber Memorial Award for 1997. The award, which has been presented intermittently since 1986, specifically recognizes ‘Inventiveness in Beekeeping’.Ed and Dee are full time commercial beekeepers who rely on native desert plants rather than cultivated crops for their honey and pollen production. Ed is a fourth generation beekeeper. His great grandmother, Ada Duncan, of Newsite, Alabama began keeping bees in the mid 1800′s. After marriage to his great grand-father, Joseph, they continued to keep bees on the frontier plains near Amarillo, Texas and later on the Sandstone Creek north of Elk City, Oklahoma Territory. To assure a family livelihood following a severe decline in the cattle business around 1888, the family turned more to beekeeping. In 1927, his grandfather Bill moved to Tucson where the family business has thrived ever since. Dee grew up in Montrose in Westchester County, New York, but spent many summers on her uncles upstate farm. Her uncle kept a few colonies of bees as a hobby and it was here that Dee was first exposed to the world of bees. After a stint in the United States Air Force, she married Ed in 1984 and began beekeeping in earnest.Dee and Ed work side by side in all phases of their operation. In addition to the conventional activities of beekeepers such as maintenance of equipment, colony management and the harvesting of honey and pollen, they mill their own woodenware and wax foundation, select and maintain a stock of slightly smaller bees highly adapted to their area, produce their own queens, and market a portion of the bee products they harvest. Their non-chemical ‘back to basics’ approach to beekeeping leads them to spend much of their spare time in libraries where they search for obscure bits of information which, when assembled in logical order, yield insights into old problems such as bee kills due to the use of pesticides, and new problems like parasitic mites. Such has been their pursuit of an understanding of the importance of comb cell diameter, an issue emanating out of their bee breeding activities and search for non-chemical methods of resolving disease and mite problems.The Lusbys found that comb cell diameter differs among the various sources of foundation manufactured in the United States and around the world. Following publication of this discovery in 1990, they undertook an all out effort to resolve the question of optimal natural cell diameter and its potential impact on colony vigor. Having identified, to their own satisfaction, optimal cell diameter for their geographic area (Southern Arizona), they have nearly completed converting their entire operation to a natural system incorporating their concept of smaller cells. They have widely reported to beekeepers that their use of optimal natural cell diameter has significantly reduced disease and mite infestation in their colonies while simultaneously increasing brood viability and colony productivity. Convinced, a number of beekeepers have embraced the Lusby’s management strategies. Ed and Dee have now turned their attention to developing a world map that will identify, for beekeepers, optimal natural cell diameter by latitude. Publication of this map will be forth-coming.The Lusbys have worked tirelessly over many years to mitigate the impact of agricultural pesticides on honey bee colonies, even though their own apiaries are seldom if ever impacted by these chemicals. They have established an informal bee/pesticide information network which beekeepers, particularly those in southern Arizona, often access. They have taken the time to learn the rules and regulations governing the use of pesticides, to assure that state and federal authorities are adequately informed regarding the hazards of pesticides to honey bees, and to encourage these authorities to ascertain when pesticides are improperly applied and take appropriate corrective action.Dee and Ed hold or have held elective offices in the Southern Arizona Beekeepers Association and the Arizona Beekeepers Association. They have contributed to or written several publications. They share a passion for improving the business of beekeeping, not only for themselves, but for the welfare of fellow beekeepers around the world. To this end they have selflessly contributed their time, including the hundreds of hours they have spent in libraries and on the phone gathering facts, as well as their own financial resources. They are known to generously share their time, ideas, and knowledge with fellow beekeepers around the world. Beekeepers in Third World countries are particularly interested in their ‘do-it-your-self’ approach to producing one’s own hives, frames and foundation. Least well known is the quiet generosity that Ed and Dee have shown in assisting beekeepers less fortunate than themselves, some of whom they have been known to help financially on occasion.Ed and Dee are to be applauded for their selfless dedication to improving the art and science of beekeeping for beekeepers everywhere. Their contributions reflect the true spirit of the A. I. Root Roy Thurber Memorial Award. Read the full article