You know, you raise some very good points. In fact, you make me regret some changes I made in early season pollen supplements. I remember Dr. Furgala at the U of M many years ago raising the point about soy flour problems, but I hadn’t thought of it in years. It so happens, that I extended last year’s feed and this year’s feed with some soy flour I had laying around. Hmmm...I had fair losses this year, too, but at least half of them were starvation and higher moisture levels due to screwed up moisture board/inner-cover arrangement (my bad).
So...you think the cell size is worth the time and expense for varroa control?
That's a tough question. For small time hobbyists willing to trade production for smaller sized bees, or those who wish to otherwise experiment, then yes, even though I don't completely yet believe doing so will completely forgo the eventual need to treat for tracheal and varroa mites.
Call me pessimistic, but willing to try it, at this stage.
I'm not completely sold on the small cell idea, even coupled with careful stock selection and breeding (always a good choice, regardless, if one can manage to do THAT) but the small cell size, too, might help...
If it really does cut the "prime-time" by a day, for when the varroa enter the cells to breed beneath larvae before they are capped, then that could cut a mite load in half, right there.
If I was a big time, commercial bee guy, I seriously doubt that I'd do much more than experiment with regressing a small percentage of what stock I had. Even that would result in a reduction in ability to exchange frames between hives, thus limiting management options, sort-of segregating one's equipment. It would also increase management and monitoring work, to verify or falsify results. Just what a guy needs, more headaches, huh?
From what I read, the big operators are not moving towards small cell, for the most part, though there is a notable, small to mid-sized commercial exception, who happen to be the same folks who sort-of started the movement to small cell.
To regress what bees one does have;
It does seem like one would have to shake down an entire colony at a time, too, at a time when there were good flows either "on" or soon to be expected to occur.
If one attempted to mix sizes, then mixed sizes and who knows what sort of confusion could occur, not only with the bees?
Other than just planning on starting any new packages or captured swarms on the 5.1, on the way down to 4.9, what should a guy do?
Maybe one could attempt giving them frames of smaller cell foundation, by way of checkerboarding new foundation between drawn frames, in a typical effort to reduce swarming tendencies, particularly if one then planned on removing those frames to Nucs, and re-queening wherever it is determined to be necessary?
Then, hive those who have been regressed, into normal, larger quarters when they show they're ready, holding them over in that condition until the next season, before regressing those yet again in the spring, or after they start booming again, either by shaking them down, or letting them expand again into frames of yet smaller foundation...which would result in some complications, leaving a guy with three cell sizes to juggle and keep track of, on top of all the rest, undoubtedly also resulting in having some colonies too weak, in the long run, forcing one to make combines at some point, while still keeping cell foundation sizes segregated.
Whoaa...what a pain, huh? Twice over, to get all the way down to 4.9 mm, too.
OR perhaps:
Going back into the broodnests after checkerboarding, removing those frames that one placed there, of the smaller cell size [once those held capped & open brood, preferably with the queen also present & active on these smaller cell size frames] in a take-away split, taking the hive on normal, larger celled foundation "away" in the hopes the foragers would take up residence in the smaller cell hive put in the same exact place the "original" larger celled hive was. This would work smoother if one could determine that the queen was with the hive of smaller cell...
Re-queening issues arise here again, regardless, but I won't suggest strategies on how to do that, here. I'll leave that to the experts. There is certainly more than one way to do it.
One would need keep the equipment, particularly all frames, well marked, and careful logs of what one did to what colony, regardless of how this mixing of cell sizes on the way down to "small" actually went.
It's no wonder the Lusby's just shook 'em all down (forcing multiple, entire colonies at a time to "start over", on smaller cell foundation) hive by hive. And they had to do it twice, to get to 4.9 mm. Ouch. It's also no wonder the big operators are hesitant to follow THAT program.
They have multiple, yearly pollination contracts they want and need to meet.
Keeping what one has, and attempting to stay on top of the mites, is the option most seem to be going with, and I can't blame them at all.
In five years, maybe I'll have better answers. I do hope so...