Ed and Dee are full-time commercial beekeepers in Tucson, AZ. Ed is a fourth generation beekeeper. Dee and Ed work side by side in all phases of their operation. In addition to the conventional activities of beekeeping, they mill their own woodenware and wax foundation, select and maintain a stock of slightly smaller bees highly adapted to their area, and produce their own queens.

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.

– American Bee Journal

The Way Back to Biological Beekeeping

1. The Way Back to Biological Beekeeping: Part 1
2. Beekeeping Today in Southern Arizona: Part 2
3. The Way Back to Biological Beekeeping …The Saga Continues: Part 3
4. Honeybee Comb: Brief History, Size and Ramifications: Part 1
5. Honeybee Comb: Size and Ramifications: Part 2
6. Honeybee Comb: Size and Ramifications: Part 3
7. Honeybee Comb: Size and Ramifications: Part 4
8. Retrogression Back to Normal: Part 1
9. Retrogression Back to Normal: Part 2
10. Recycling Beeswax: Background – Decontamination…Is it necessary?: Part 1
11. Recycling Beeswax:  Decontamination – What Will it Involve to Clean-Up My Combs?: Part 2
12. Recycling Beeswax: Recommended Decontamination Procedures: Part 3
13. Recycling Beeswax: Epilogue: Part 4
14. Making Foundation by Hand
15. Year #3 in the Field
16. Bee Breeding in the Field: Part 1
    American Mite History Background
17. Bee Breeding in the Field: Part 2
    USA Paralysis – Vicious Bee Breeding Historical Background.
18. Bee Breeding in the Field: Part 3
    Back to Basics
19. Bee Breeding in the Field: Part 4
    Basic Colony Thermodynamics.
20. Bee Breeding in the Field: Part 5
    Projecting Breeding Cycles.
21. Suggested Biological Manipulative Field Management for Control of Honeybee Mites.
    Part 1 Concept & Causes
22. Suggested Biological Manipulative Field Management for Control of Honeybee Mites.
    Part 2 Prevention – A Possibility!

• More on Ed and Dee and their operation
• Lusbys Receive W.A.S. Memorial Award
• W.A.S. Conference
• Lusby’s Bee Biometrics
• Historical Data on the Influence of Cell Size
  • Number of Cells to the Square Inch – Bee Culture – December, 1887
  • Raising and Introduction of Queens – Bees and Bee-keeping, Cheshire, 1888
  • Comb Foundation – ABC and XYZ of Beekeeping, A.I. Root – Pages 62-72 (1891)
  • Honey-Comb – ABC and XYZ of Beekeeping, A.I. Root – 1891 – Pages 172-178
  • A Correction from Thos. Wm. Cowan – Bee Culture – Cowan, 1898
  • A Study of Natural Honey-Comb – Bee Culture – 1910
  • The Structure of Comb, Part 1 – The Bee World – July, 1921
  • The Structure of Comb, Part 2 – The Bee World – August, 1921
  • The Structure of Comb, Part 3 – The Bee World – September, 1921
  • The Building of Honey Comb – April, 1929 – Pages 52 – 55
  • A Biometrical Study of the Influence of Size of Brood Cell upon the Size and Variability of the Honeybee (Apis mellifera L.) – by Roy A. Grout, 1931
  • The Influence of Cell Size – The Bee World – April, 1933
  • The Influence of Cell Size – The Bee World – January, 1934
  • Recent Work on the Influence of Cell Size – The Bee World – July, 1935
  • Frequent Variation in Cell Size – The Bee World – November, 1935
  • Baudoux’s Work Misunderstood – The Bee World – December, 1935
  • Influence of Size of Brood Cell upon the Size of the Worker Bee – American Beekeeping Journal – April, 1936
  • Are We Ready for a New Bee? – American Beekeeping Journal – April, 1936
  • The Size of Brood-Comb Cells – The Bee World – September, 1938
  • Geometry of the Ideal Bee’s Cell – The Bee World – June, 1944
  • To Obtain the Number of Cells per Sq. Dm. – The Bee World – June, 1948
  • The Efficiency of the Use of Enlarged Cells – XX Jubilee Apimondia Congress, August, 1965
  • Preference of Varroa Jacobsoni Oudemans for Different Cell Types and Some Factors Affecting Reproduction – Apiacta #2 Feb., 1984
  • Distribution of Varroa Jacobsoni in Brood Combs of Honey Bee Colonies, and Resultant Effects on Colony Development – Apiacta #2, Feb., 1984
  • The Effect of the Size of Honey Bee Cells on the Rate of Infestation by Varroa Jacobsoni – Apiacta #2, Feb., 1984
  • Study of the Preference of the Mite Varroa Jacobsoni for Apis Mellifera Drones – XXX International Apicultural Congress, Apimondia, October, 1985
  • The Influence of Cell Size on Infestation Rates by the Mite Varroa Jacobsoni – XXX International Apicultural Congress, Apimondia, October, 1985
  • On the Size of Cells – Bee Culture, February, 1990
  • On the Size of Cells – Dee Lusby Preface
  • On the Size of Cells – Bee Culture, March, 1990
  • Thelytoky in a Strain of U.S. Honey Bees (Apis mellifera L.) – Bee Science, May, 1991
  • Effects of Comb Cell Diameter on Parasitic Mite Infestations in Honey Bee Colonies
  • Natural Size Foundation is the Best – American Bee Journal, November, 1996
  • En Cellsam Historia (259K PDF file in Swedish) – Bitidningen, July/August, 2000
  • Square Decimeter Measurement Conversion Chart Conversions – Relative values for cell size using various popular units of measure. – by Dr. Shipman, USDA
    
  • Conversions
  • Open-Mating Breeding Chart – Download PDF file
  • Climate Map – Download PDF file
• More on Small Cell Foundation for Mite Control
  • SMALL CELL SIZE FOUNDATION FOR MITE CONTROL
  • SMALL CELL FOUNDATION FOR MITE CONTROL
  • MORE ON SMALL CELL FOUNDATION FOR MITE CONTROL
  • ARIZONA BEEKEEPER BELIEVES SMALLER SIZE CELL DIAMETER IS THE ANSWER TO MITE PROBLEMS
  • IS SMALLER BETTER?
  • MANAGING COLONY GENETICS BY GRAFTING AND SELECTING FOR QUEENS WITH SHORTER DEVELOPMENT TIMES
  • SUGGESTED BIOLOGICAL MANIPULATIVE TREATMENT FOR CONTROL OF HONEYBEE MITES
  • FIELD BREEDING BASICS FOR HONEYBEES USING COLONY THERMODYNAMICS WITHIN THE TRANSITION ZONES
  • Lusby’s Bee Biometrics
  • “HOUSEL POSITIONING”
• Chemical and Varroa Influence on Honeybees
  • THE EFFECT OF SYNTHETIC PYRETHROID INSECTICIDES ON HONEY BEES IN INDIANA: LABORATORY STUDIES AND A SURVEY OF BEEKEEPERS AND PESTICIDE APPLICATORS
  • COUMAPHOS, FLUVALINATE
  • PROTECTION OF HONEY COMBS FROM WAX MOTH DAMAGE
  • THE TRUTH ABOUT VARROA IN BRAZIL
  • THE CHEMICAL TREADMILL
  • THE SMALL HIVE BEETLE, AETHINA TUMIDA.