Now for the hokum lovers.
You may not like the Mullin or the Wu study, and there are many other studies out there that have been done on the effects of pesticides on Honeybees, but they make it pretty clear: Beeswax has been contaminated by pesticides, and even small doses aren't good for honeybees.
That's the real strength behind the foundationless approach. It avoids contaminated beeswax.
Just one fun fact for you.
It would take over 50 years to eliminate the pesticide contaminated wax from our hives if pesticides were banned tomorrow. That's how bad it is.
"About 1891, foundation with cells 920 to the square decimetre was introduced into our country [Belgium]. Beekeepers all adopted this size of cell. The experts of that time believed that it was advantageous to produce as many bees as possible on the least possible surface of comb. Thus there was a premature narrowing of the cells, and at the end of a few years the bees were miserable specimens."
The idea of foundationless is that bees will build the cell size they need when they need it. Usually they will want something in between large and small cell and will want to build drone comb at times. With foundationless, the bees decide.
WAW Did the guy that started this thread know he was starting bee world war one........
on another note it seems that many Beeks are way more educated than I.....interesting stuff..... I must say i am hooked....but a bit overwhelmed!
Think I need to enroll in a beek university!
I think that Frazier said that '50 year' comment.
I wouldn't challenge the 'genius' bee lady. (Around April, 2008.)
It's a reflection of how difficult it is to clean up contaminants in bees wax. Maybe because of persistent cross contamination, etc. ?
Since nobody volunteer to do a simple math, well, I did it out of curiosity. I am publishing this because numbers look irreal to me, so you guys need to check if calculation is right:
Medium size frame foundation area - 43x15 cm = 645 cm square (area), two sides x2 = 1290 cm^2
I assume the thickness of coating is 0.1 mm, which is 0.01 cm
The volume of the coat - 1290x0.01 = 12.9 cubic cm
Density of wax - I approximate it to 0.9 g/cm^3 (paraffin, Wikipedia)
Coating mass for two sides of one foundation in grams - 12.9x0.9 = 11.61 g
So, BayHighlandBees was absolutely right with his 9 g per foundation.
Note - please, keep in mind - I used 0.1 mm thickness of coating - it is VERY thin - to those, who is not familiar with metric, it is a thickness of the "newspaper" paper or even thinner. Again - it is for medium frame/foundation.
PS When you, guys asking for "links", you are so naive - I could find on the Internet anything I want, pro or contra. What I am doing here as well as many others - I do share my knowledge. It is your choice to accept it or not. But this "near-science" requests for proper "link" is just so naive... I am sorry, nothing personal.
Main article: Imidacloprid effects on bees ...
...Neonicotinoid use has been strictly limited in France since the 1990s...
In 2008 Germany revoked the registration of clothianidin for use on seed corn after an incident that resulted in the death of hundreds of nearby honey bees....
In 2009 the German Federal Office of Consumer Protection and Food Safety decided to continue to suspend authorization for the use of clothianidin...
On July 23, 2010, Dutch toxicologist, Dr Henk Tennekes had a scientific paper published in the journal, Toxicology (online) titled,Druckrey-Küpfmüller equation for risk assessment. He then authored and published a book in regards to his research called "A Disaster in the Making". The book explores the impact of neonicotinoids on the immune system of bees....
It looks like, you are quite unlucky with Internet - every time you are trying to support one side, your own link suggests the opposite...
By the way, even for neonics 3 years half-life (I took your words) without sunlight (in the hive or storage) - it will take 21 year to reduce the concentration from 100% to approximately 1% from original. It is still a huge contamination! But, yes, definitely better than DDT! Also, keep in mind that many chemical compounds decomposing create even more toxic products (refer to organic chemistry course, do not ask for the link, this is a basic knowledge)!
I really do not see what is the point in this battle? Your own data indicated against you. You put yourself in the difficult situation, because you are now defending not only foundation (which is your own choice, but do not impose on others) but using pesticides, which are known to be harmful to the bees (see your own link). Are you on bee side, or what? I think we are all on the bee side at this forum, right? Sergey
I think it was Frazier who said it originally.
"...Many beekeepers only recycle their combs through a 10 year period and if wax recycling for foundation continues it will take 50+ years to get down to unreadable levels and this still assumes an almost complete lack of chemical usage commencing immediately."
BayHighlandBees.... sqkcrk can address this better, Quote, "the bees decide" but, in commercial operations, the operator manipulates to get better results, translated, more money.
If we are just playing or keeping bees for fun, sure, let them do what THEY want to do, commercially, you do what you can to make them do what YOU want them to do. From foundation, to swarm control, to box size, to colonies touching each other on pallets, to medication, on and on.
If it works for you, that is what I would do.
Thanks WLC. That's sorta what my point was too, that foundationless is not going to result in comb free from pesticide residue because bees bring contamination into the hives themselves. Something I learned from listening to Dr. Maryanne Fraziers talks and talking w/ her at the "Pollinators and Pesticides" Conference at Alfred State two years ago and her talk at the Fall Mtng of the Empire State Honey Producers Association, 2011 in Syracuse. At which she stated that bees fly a lot farther than previously thought, bringing back pesticide residue that had to come from as much as 5 miles away from the hives.
Dr. Fraziers study, resulting in quite a list of chemicals found in the Penn State beehives in the study, was done w/ package bees being installed in new equipment w/out foundation. The study showed the general pollution of our environment. Chemical pesticides are everywhere.
I don't have a link, but I bet someone could find one. I'm not talented that way.
Sergey, I bow down to your credentials (wow, two PhDs!:applause:) and appreciate your defense of mine (BS and MS in Environmental Engineering), although some have misinterpreted your post as somehow being negative against me.
What I have found very sad and discouraging about this thread is that there are several folks on here who are more interested in protecting their egos and being “right” than are interested in divining the truth. Misinterpretations of data abound and when asked for supporting evidence or faced with suggestions that there may be a flaw in their interpretations or logic, they resort to petty personal attacks…the “he who talks the loudest is right” method. This really serves no purpose in a scientific discussion, other than for that particular person to somehow make himself feel better about himself.
As a research scientist, I’m sure you have seen this before, and it has been the downfall of many researchers who have resorted to fudging data in order to be right about their theories. As you pointed out, anyone can find a link that supports their view and ignore all other evidence that does not. I appreciate your open-mindedness and applaud your taking the time to actually “do the math” instead of just making bold claims with no evidence to support it and stating that “it’s in the literature” with no actual reference or knowledge of fact. One learns much more by being open to other opinions and looking at a problem from all angles, being able to admit when they are wrong or have made a mistake, and not shouting down anyone who might disagree or resorting to petty personal attacks.
Intelligence is much more apparent when one argues and critically examines the facts instead of assuming that they know all and trying to bully others into accepting their interpretations as fact.
So what's the conclusion?
It seems to me that y'all are arguing over things that don't matter. I've been keeping bees on commercially available small cell foundation for nine years and on wax coated plastic frames for two. I've done this all without chemicals or other treatments including manipulations, drone comb freezing, frequent requeening, brood breaks, screened bottom boards, or any other. It is either the case that levels of pesticides (including those put in hives by beekeepers and transferred to me through commercially available wax) are so low that they are either not affecting my bees or that my bees have adapted to the correspondingly low levels contamination. In either case, I am satisfied with my results.
It seems to me that these problems are similar to the situation of the lead I have still in my body from childhood when I scrapped old cars that had lead used as a body filler and the mercury still in my body from every fluorescent bulb or thermometer that I've ever broken or has been broken in my presence. I'm not still putting these harmful chemicals in my body and what's there isn't causing any problems that my heavy metals addled brain can comprehend though I have made it through engineering school and nearly through grad school with no major issues.
I've been arguing for years that the reason when people go treatment-free cold turkey that their bees die is that there is still a high concentration of the chemicals they put in the hive still in the hive and that those chemicals are still causing problems. I still hold to that belief. There is nothing in this thread (and I've followed it closely) that convinces me that what I've believed all along is not still true; that there are [harmful at certain concentrations] chemicals in hives, that chemicals most common in hives are those that beekeepers put there, and that by starting over with new foundationless, foundation, or even plastic frames you can limit the concentration of those chemicals to levels able to be tolerated by bees which given the correct genetic characteristics can survive and even thrive without treatments whatsoever.
I base these points on the aforementioned factors, that what I'm doing is available for all to see and so are the results. The variables, process, and the results agree with my conclusions.