Beesource Beekeeping Forums banner

Can someone please explain the Foundationless hype to me?

86K views 344 replies 42 participants last post by  cerezha 
#1 · (Edited)
Hello,

I like to post thought provoking posts so I ask those pro and against, what is the surge in interest for foundationless that I have seen online in the last few years all about? From my own perspective I used either wired wax or plastic coated with wax foundation.

These are if I understand it correctly the benefits of foundationless and why I dont see the justification.

1. Less contaminants in the hive--yes it is true that even wax from the cleanest foundation maker will have some contaminants in it I remember a study where Jennifer Berry had alot of trouble sourcing pure clean wax for a foundation experiment. However, these contaminants are minute and even if you have the bees draw out their own wax, bee meds and and other contaminates usually find their way into any hive from the outside world from robbing and fruit spraying etc.

2. It is more natural---Listen I hate to tell everyone but beekeeping is by definition not natural. Sticking insects in a painted box when and where we want is not natural at all from the get--go. That combined with the parasites like mites that we introduced to the environment make the whole environment the bees have lived in for millions of years not natural.


3. Less work than putting in all that foundation. Perhaps if the bees draw out all the frames correctly, but more often than not alot of initial adjustments are needed which you do not need to do with foundation. Plus for newbees learning for the first time learning to open the hive and observe the bees can be overwhelming enough let alone messing with the combs. And in terms of work for the bees it will take around 8 pounds of wasted honey for one pound of wax (yes I know this number is subject to debate) just to get them to draw out the whole frame and so I would like to give them any boost I can. Plus with new beekeepers you need to idenifty if the bees are drawing alot of drone comb which bees accustomed to worker cell foundation seem to love to do--whole frames of it at first until they feel they have enough for the hive.

4. I want natural comb cell size--yes this is good but the first comb your package bees draw out will probably be large cell anyway as the bees are not regressed--so now you need to cut out that comb after a few rounds of brood and make them build it all out again-setting them back further--at least with small cell foundation the bees will get a head start on doing all of their work again!

That is what I thought of so far let me know what you all think for and against!
 
See less See more
#217 ·
No Sol, not hokum.

If you looked at the types of data listed in the tables, you'll notice that it was in a probability table format.

They plotted the distributions first and then generated those tables.

As a student of environmental engineering, you're going to see alot of those kinds of tables.

Yes Sol, they can tell you what fraction of your hives are predicted to have whatever loss in forager days you want to examine, as well as other stuff.
 
#219 ·
Yes Mark.

But here's another one: why aren't commercials using fondationless?

Because commercial beekeepers can still find ways to make more money using standard practices.

Now if someone could find a viable way to decontaminate beeswax, then the debate would be over (and maybe small cell would have better chance).

This debate really only applies to a philosophy of beekeeping.

You can't put pesticides into your hive and say that you're treatment free although that is your original intent.

Foundationless avoids some major pitfalls, but is seen by many to be a throwback to another era.
 
#223 ·
Now if someone could find a viable way to decontaminate beeswax, then the debate would be over (and maybe small cell would have better chance).

This debate really only applies to a philosophy of beekeeping.

Foundationless avoids some major pitfalls, but is seen by many to be a throwback to another era.
I think the real issue with Small Cell goes back a century, when Prof. Ursmar Baudoux recalled:

"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.
 
#220 ·
This newbie is confused by this thread. Foundation-less frames are just another somewhat random shot in the mite reduction war. So why all the heat?

I do see many videos of bee removal and that wax is as tough as cardboard, so strength is passable.

I like the idea of foundation-less comb because I can cut the comb out easily or just mash and strain.

On LD50, I trust most chemist, but, their work must meet critical review.

Just saying...:D
 
#222 ·
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.
 
#226 ·
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!
 
#237 · (Edited)
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.

cchoganjr
\
 
#238 ·
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.
 
#239 ·
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.
 
#240 ·
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.
 
#241 ·
I'm happy to assume that sergey's math is correct...but he is still basing everything on an assumption of a complete.layer of wax of a given thickness.....for a.product that I don't believe.he has ever seen.
I know.from.experience that comb is.made.up.of.much less.wax.than it seems.like it should be (try melting a.full foundationless.comb and see how little wax.is.in the puddle at the end, but even knowing this, I don't find it believable tha if there is 40g of wax in the cell walls (measured by sol) , that there is 11g (more than 25% of the total weight of the drawn out cell walls) coated on the frame.
people, this.is.a.very thin spray....a spattering. There is not 11g of wax in the coating, and it really doesn't matterhow many phds you hav e or how muchur math you do....if you base your work on made up numbers, the results.are.made up.
Deknow
 
#244 ·
there is 40g of wax in the cell walls (measured by sol)
I should clarify, I did actually measure this yesterday right before I posted it. I measured a brand new empty frame and one that had been recently extracted after being filled with honey. The wax is brand new and white, no cocoons. I have two others being babysat in a hive, maybe this evening, I will weigh those as well to get an average. Hopefully there isn't any honey in them. :pinch:
 
#242 ·
My conclusion is that much more study has to be done in order to make any real conclusions.

I think it is premature to make conclusions about whether these chemicals are affecting the bees or whether heavy metal bioaccumulation in your body will have any long term affect. When you develop some horrible disease later in life, which I truly hope that you don't, it may be directly attibutable to heavy metals. CCD has risen in direct correlation to usage of a variety of chemicals in agriculture. To assume that directly putting wax with these chemicals into hives is not affecting bees based on your particular situation is a bit of a reach. It's akin to the 100-year old smoker saying, "Smoking doesn't hurt anyone. I've been smoking for 80-years and look at me." The effects of many of these chemicals is "sub-lethal" and not easily detected by the standard observer.

Has anyone seen any studies regarding transfer coefficients of these chemicals from wax into honey? That would be interesting!

By all means, do what works for you, but there ought to be some consideration by a community for long-term effects to the community (the earth and all that inhabit it) in general of continuing usage of these toxic chemicals.

My conclusion, as usual, is that we don't know as much as we assume that we do.
 
#245 ·
Deknow, by adamantly stating that "[t]here is not 11 g of wax in the coating" without the actual data, you are doing the same thing you are railing at Sergey about. You are stating your opinion as fact.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with some of your arguments and I agree that these calculations are not accurate without the actual data, but in lieu of actual data, assumptions must be made and I think sergey's line of developing his assumption is on target and is probably within reason. The only way to actually know is to get real data from the manufacturer. Arguing back and forth about something that can't be proved one way or the other is a bit futile until the real data is acquired.
 
#250 ·
Interesting! Thanks for making the measurement.

My thinking is that the bees would be more efficient with wax than human/mechanical application could be, so I'm not sure that there could be any direct correlation of the mass of drawn comb to the mass of sprayed on wax coating. I think that Sergey's estimate of 0.1 mm is a decent guess.
 
#253 ·
What I'm saying is that if the spray on a PF-120 is what y'all are arguing over, you're missing the whole sheet of foundation I've been using this whole time. Surely if this were a problem it would have cropped up by now. I have probably four or five hundred sheets of it in use as we speak.

If the sky is falling, why isn't it even raining here?
 
#254 ·
I'm not arguing about one or the other. I just think that introducing anything more than nothing (whether it is pure wax foundation or coated plastic) that contains possibly toxic chemicals in it into a hive that doesn't necessarily need it is probably not the best thing to do for the bees. It may be better for the humans who are managing the bees, but it is a choice, not a necessity.
 
#259 ·
Dean:

I scraped off the 'wax sputter' from a strip along the edges of a plastic foundation sheet (1 side only). It came in at about 0.02 grams. I'd estimate that it's a 20th the area of 1 side of plastic foundation sheet.

So say about 0.4 grams of wax per side or between .5 and 1 gram per sheet of plastic foundation.

So, at 12.4ug mixed pesticide per gram of wax...

You can take it from there.

My point in using ranges is that the research itself has shown that the LD50s for specific pesticides form ranges due to synergistic effects with other contaminants (or even pathogens).

By the way, I have seen LD50s reported in the 1 ng/bee range and below, although the listed LD50 is orders of magnitude higher. That's the issue, the LD50s form a range at different orders of magnitude depending on who is doing the testing.

So, let's say 5 to 10 ug mixed pesticide per sheet of waxed plastic foundation. We can always estimate how many bees live on a frame, right?

Sol:

Now you're thinking outside the box. How does one decontaminate wax?
 
#261 ·
...synergistic effects with other contaminants (or even pathogens)... I have seen LD50s reported in the 1 ng/bee range and below, although the listed LD50 is orders of magnitude higher.
Show actual effects or sit down and be quiet please. Demonstrate how much of any given contaminant or combination of contaminants and pathogens will kill my bees or sit down and be quiet please.

That's the issue, the LD50s form a range at different orders of magnitude depending on who is doing the testing.
For the uninitiated, 'order of magnitude' means 'multiple of ten.' For instance, 100 is two orders of magnitude higher than 1. I'm coming to the conclusion based on this math that WLC is anywhere from 10 to 100% wrong at any given time, and the number may be closer to 1000% or even 10,000%.

Hokum meter still in the red.

For a possible correlation between levels in wax and levels in bees and honey etc. this might shed some light.
http://entomology.unl.edu/faculty/ellispubs/Pesticides.pdf
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top