Is small cell a natural result of old brood comb?

[latebee]

After reading more than a few articles,books etc. on brood comb,one thing that is usually mentioned is the fact that the larval cocoons are stuck to interior of the cell.Apparently these can not be removed by the housekeepers. The authors say that these remnants of cocoon are what makes old comb so attractive to the wax moth.Anyone have an idea of how much this actually reduces overall size of the brood cell? Is it negligible or in terms of brood cell size-is it significant?

[Ymbe]

This is an interesting question. It implies that if older comb does significantly reduce cell size then feral colony sites that have been established for decades should allow greater Varroa avoidance (I use this term as oppose to resistance) doesn't it?

I've never quite understood the arguments for natural cell size in managed colonies as a way of producing colony Varroa avoidance. If this was the case then why the virtual extinction of feral colonies here in the UK?

Do our small cell/natural cell friends induce their bees to generate even smaller cells? and should I be flying against advice to keep my brood combs in good condition? :)

Small cell keepers any thoughts?

[Michael Bush]

>one thing that is usually mentioned is the fact that the larval cocoons are stuck to interior of the cell.Apparently these can not be removed by the housekeepers.

They CAN be removed by the workers and once the cells get down to natural size they WILL be chewed out by the housekeepers.  But they won't chew them out until they get down between 4.8mm and 4.4mm.  With 5.4mm foundation that's a LOT of layers of cocoons.  Lots of places for brood diseases to hide.  Lots of places for things to accumulate.

>The authors say that these remnants of cocoon are what makes old comb so attractive to the wax moth.

In my experience wax moths will eat on a block of clean wax if it's all they can find.  They might prefer cocoons, but lack of cocoons doesn't stop them.

>Anyone have an idea of how much this actually reduces overall size of the brood cell?

Try a search on the research of Roy A Grout.  He did a lot of research on cell size as well as cocoon accumulation and chewing out.  If I remember right it would take a couple of years to get down about .1mm from accumulated cocoons.  Since 5.4mm is .5mm more than 4.9, that would take about 10 years or so to get fully regressed.

> Is it negligible or in terms of brood cell size-is it significant?

It's measurable.

>This is an interesting question. It implies that if older comb does significantly reduce cell size then feral colony sites that have been established for decades should allow greater Varroa avoidance (I use this term as oppose to resistance) doesn't it?

Feral bees that are swarms from swarms usually are already pretty much natural sized to start with, so it wouldn’t make that much difference since they will chew them out when they get down to the acceptable size.  Back when I started beekeeping most of the feral bees I saw were normal sized and normal colored bees.  Obviously recent escapees.  Now the recent escapees usually die the first year or two.  Now I see smaller black bees surviving instead.  I doubt this is from accumulated cocoons.  I've measured comb from feral cut outs and it runs in the natural range when I see small bees (4.4mm to 5.1mm or so for worker brood).  Since I'm measuring across the cells including the cell walls, this would measure larger if they started with larger cells and just filled them with cocoons.

>I've never quite understood the arguments for natural cell size in managed colonies as a way of producing colony Varroa avoidance.

It's pretty simple.  Ignoring all the small interrelated factors like them being more hygienic etc. one day shorting capping time and one day shorter post capping time is a significant change.

http://www.bushfarms.com/beesnaturalcell.htm

> If this was the case then why the virtual extinction of feral colonies here in the UK?

Because most always were recent escapees who build about 5.1mm cells.  Not established (regressed) bees that build 4.9mm or smaller.

http://www.bushfarms.com/beesnaturalcell.htm#feralbees

>Do our small cell/natural cell friends induce their bees to generate even smaller cells?

I haven't found that necessary since they will build down to 4.4mm all on their own with most about 4.8 to 4.9mm.

> and should I be flying against advice to keep my brood combs in good condition?

If you started at natural size the bees would do that for you.  :)

[latebee]

Thank You MB,I have had this question rattling around in my head for quite some time. Nothing I have read so far addressed it,and my experience did not bring me any closer to an answer either.I really believe that the only stupid question is the one that isn't asked!

[Ymbe]

>I've never quite understood the arguments for natural cell size in managed colonies as a way of producing colony Varroa avoidance.

It's pretty simple.  Ignoring all the small interrelated factors like them being more hygienic etc. one day shorting capping time and one day shorter post capping time is a significant change.

http://www.bushfarms.com/beesnaturalcell.htm

> If this was the case then why the virtual extinction of feral colonies here in the UK?

Thanks Michael, I understand the shorter brood cycle reasons; apologies for poor sentences :roll: it's why there are no/few feral colonies I don't get when they should be producing natural small cell comb - they should be outcompeting swarms from managed colonies because of the Varroa threat. You're saying here that it's because feral colonies have all come from managed stock (either recently or historically) and therefore are all on the larger cell size; effectively there is no true feral population 'cos if there were they'd be on small cell size and doing well.

I learnt recently (in a Beemaster voice chat - HIGHLY recommended BTW) that the UK where I am has a much greater density of beekeepers than parts of the US - Texas specifically. If this means that there is also a lower colony density (not unreasonable) then the wild population of bees you have has a much better chance of recovery because of less large cell dilution from managed colonies than in the UK and if there is a high population of small cell in one area (your 50 soon to be more colonies for example!) then locally there should be a recovery of the wild population - are you seeing this? If you are it is HUGE news.

It means that to get a wild population back in the UK most keepers need to switch to small cell. The argument against this is that small bees = less honey. Is this true or a rural myth?

Can you just clarify something else for me:  By regression you mean phenotypic as oppose to genetic? That is, all managed bees are capable of being regressed onto small cell because it's the bee size in creating the cell that matters. I could do it with my bees if I wished for instance? Do you also breed for small cell? Can you breed for small cell?

[Brian D. Bray]

>>The argument against this is that small bees = less honey. Is this true or a rural myth?

An urban myth based on mankinds belief that bigger is better.  In designing foundation the size of the comb as purposely enlarged from about 4.8 mm to 5.3 in the belief that bigger bees would carry more nectar and thus the same number of trips would yield more honey.  When you consider that an individual worker bees contributes (at the max) about 1/2 tsp of honey in all it foraging trips the idea is actually ludicrious.

>>Can you just clarify something else for me: By regression you mean phenotypic as oppose to genetic? That is, all managed bees are capable of being regressed onto small cell because it's the bee size in creating the cell that matters. I could do it with my bees if I wished for instance? Do you also breed for small cell? Can you breed for small cell?

Small cell regression is actually just the matter of allowing the bees to revert to the original 4.8 (+/_) cell size.  Nothing more; nothing less.

[Michael Bush]

>it's why there are no/few feral colonies I don't get when they should be producing natural small cell comb - they should be outcompeting swarms from managed colonies because of the Varroa threat.

Here, I'd say they are.  The recent swarms are the ones that used to make up the majority of the bees in the wild and they died, leaving the actual regressed, established ferals.  The ones I find now are black and small.  The ones I was finding from 1974 until the 1990s were large and either yellow or brown leather looking Italian types.

>You're saying here that it's because feral colonies have all come from managed stock (either recently or historically) and therefore are all on the larger cell size;

Yes.

> effectively there is no true feral population 'cos if there were they'd be on small cell size and doing well.

And that's what I'm finding now.

>I learnt recently (in a Beemaster voice chat - HIGHLY recommended BTW) that the UK where I am has a much greater density of beekeepers than parts of the US - Texas specifically. If this means that there is also a lower colony density (not unreasonable) then the wild population of bees you have has a much better chance of recovery because of less large cell dilution from managed colonies than in the UK and if there is a high population of small cell in one area (your 50 soon to be more colonies for example!) then locally there should be a recovery of the wild population - are you seeing this? If you are it is HUGE news.

I am seeing this.  Many others are also seeing this.

>It means that to get a wild population back in the UK most keepers need to switch to small cell. The argument against this is that small bees = less honey. Is this true or a rural myth?

Myth.

>Can you just clarify something else for me: By regression you mean phenotypic as oppose to genetic?

Exactly.  The bees are only large becase they were raised on artificially enlarged comb from artificially large foundation.

>That is, all managed bees are capable of being regressed onto small cell because it's the bee size in creating the cell that matters.

Exactly.

> I could do it with my bees if I wished for instance?

Absolutly.

> Do you also breed for small cell?

I do not.  I have not had any trouble getting bees to drawn smaller cells. But since breeding has been done for a hundred years towards the larger sizes it would make sense, I suppose.

> Can you breed for small cell?

Since comb building seems to be genetic, in the sense that some strains will build more burr or follow foundation better etc. it would make sense that some might be more prone to draw smaller or larger cells.  I would assume breeding from bees that are more willing to draw small cell foundation would result in offspring that are willing to draw small cell foundation.

[empilolo]

it's why there are no/few feral colonies

No. Habitat. The UK is far more densely populated than the US. There is still far more "wilderness" to be found in the US than in the UK. The UK is more or less exclusively "Kulturlandschaft", that is managed, both fields and forests. In consequence, "defective" trees, those having cavities, are removed.

If UK beeks are interested in a feral bee population, they should take a hint from the bird lover's fraternity and build/distribute man made hive/cavities in suitable locations. The bee equivalent to bird nest-boxes.

effectively there is no true feral population

One should clearly distinguish between original bees (not existent any more in the UK, same as the Aurochs) and feral bees, that is domesticated gone back to the wilderness.

It means that to get a wild population back in the UK most keepers need to switch to small cell. The argument against this is that small bees = less honey. Is this true or a rural myth?

Myth. Domestic bees absconding and turning feral will - over time - adjust to pre-domestic behavior paterns. Building comb is done by instinct; they will revert to what is in their genes.

[Ymbe]

>No. Habitat. The UK is far more densely populated than the US. There is still far more "wilderness" to be found in the US than in the UK. The UK is more or less exclusively "Kulturlandschaft", that is managed, both fields and forests. In consequence, "defective" trees, those having cavities, are removed.

This is not the case. Up until Varroa feral colonies were quite common in the UK. Yes, it is largely a managed landscape, but it is not carefully maintained parkland! It could be argued that higher densities of buildings would afford more opportunities for bees - good natural cavities are extremely scarce even in old forest and competition for them is intense, roof and wall cavities in urban areas are more common and not subject to the same competitors

>effectively there is no true feral population

>One should clearly distinguish between original bees (not existent any more in the UK, same as the Aurochs) and feral bees, that is domesticated gone back to the wilderness.

True enough, a better example than the Auroch and closer to the case with bees would be the Scottish Wild Cat, which rather than becoming extinct through hunting and habitat destruction (although this has occurred) has instead become diluted through feral domestic cat inter breeding.

>It means that to get a wild population back in the UK most keepers need to switch to small cell. The argument against this is that small bees = less honey. Is this true or a rural myth?

>Myth. Domestic bees absconding and turning feral will - over time - adjust to pre-domestic behavior paterns. Building comb is done by instinct; they will revert to what is in their genes.

I agree they will adapt to their environment over time, but this doesn't mean that they will be great honey producers - this is a competitive trait, but it has to be balanced with others in the wild state.