Beesource Beekeeping Forums banner

Can someone please explain the Foundationless hype to me?

87K 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
#260 ·
"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?"

The number that we don't know is the availability of the contaminants in the wax to the bees. We need a study on the bioavailability of these contaminants to the bees. If the contaminants are highly sorbed to the wax, the bees can likely only access a small portion of them. The LD50 range for oral intake would only be comparable if you know that ratio.

Anyone seen partitioning coefficients for contaminants between wax and air, or wax and honey, wax and pollen, etc??
 
#263 ·
Am I 'Rocking-the-Boat' again Sol?

If you had read through the scientific literature, you would have already had the information in hand.

In short, it's already in the scientific literature, and it's been there for years.

Both the Wu and Mullin paper are good places to start.
 
#266 ·
According to the Johnson paper, the level of cuomophos (Checkmite) in the bees is about 40 times lower than that of the wax.

DDT, more than ten times higher in honey than wax.

Fluvalinate (Apistan), 35 times higher in wax than in bees.

Permethrin (Gardstar), 52 times higher in the bee than wax.

Dichlorobenzene (Paramoth) 535 times higher in wax than honey.

I think we could develop some crude partitioning coefficients from these kinds of numbers.
 
#267 ·
First off, I apologize for my comment "when do you guys find time to have fun with beekeeping." or remarks similar. Un called for and un warranted. I go off my meds sometimes:)
At the risk of just stirring the pot, at what point are the larvae not exposed to the wax during pupation? They spin a silken barrier. How, or does that even enter into this over all equation?
 
#268 ·
"I think we could develop some crude partitioning coefficients from these kinds of numbers. "

Thanks for the link to that article, by the way.

I haven't gotten totally through it, but I think that the bees were exposed directly to the miticides, etc, so they wouldn't have specifically gotten their concentrations directly from the wax, so I don't think we could actually derive partitioning coefficients from that, at least not the ones I was referring to, which would allow us to determine how much of the chemical a bee would have access to only from wax foundation or wax coated foundation.
 
#272 ·
I haven't gotten totally through it, but I think that the bees were exposed directly to the miticides, etc, so they wouldn't have specifically gotten their concentrations directly from the wax, so I don't think we could actually derive partitioning coefficients from that, at least not the ones I was referring to, which would allow us to determine how much of the chemical a bee would have access to only from wax foundation or wax coated foundation.
Good point, that would assume something more like a treated hive which for the most part, foundationless hives would not be, mine either. A worst case scenario if you will.
 
#274 ·
I would bet,,,,,,,,,you would not get the education/experience/ and real time info you are getting here:) aaahhhh But it would be nice to be back in college. If I had hair, it would be long, I can play the guitar better now. (those guys got the chicks) Huummm would I have to do drugs,,,,Naaahh just have a 4g phone:)
 
#288 ·
Bees won't make money??? was that a joke? I thought the demand was wayyyyy pass the supply?????

I know that my country is only producing 8% of the demand here!

sorry to go a bit of topic! but would hate to think I just jumped into somthing that's not going to turn a profit, though i am enjoying it none the less.
 
#281 ·
How about a demo of your grad school smarts?

Pick a pesticide, and estimate (based on the Johnson study) how much would partition into royal jelly from contaminated wax (using the Wu or Mullin study as a source for pesticide data).

Then, give an analysis of the effects on brood, etc., based on that.
 
#297 ·
I agree that metirc is best for doing the math (especially the way I do math). But 0.1mm is about 0.004" (which is a number I understand)...quite thick.

This is a bit OT, but....It has been suggested to me (and based on my experience in manufacturing I tend to believe it) that there is one area in which metric falls short of the english system...and that is in machining/manufacturing. Because of the physical properties and the processes of manufacture (turning, milling), it turns out that 0.001" is a very useful increment. With decently made machine tools, 0.001" tolerance is easily achievable...with excellent tools, 0.0005" is not a problem. Most machined fittings work happily with 0.001" tolerance (some applications require honing or grinding which are capable of tighter tolerances).

Not so much with metric. 0.1mm is about .004" (when I used to make handmade piccolos for a living, we used #71 and #73 drills for different operations...these are 0.026" and 0.23" in diameter...with some experience I could tell just by looking which one it was). ...but 0.01mm is 0.0004" ...a hard increment to machine accurately without the best of tooling. .1mm is too big to be a useful base measurement, and .01mm is too small. Yes, this is OT, but I can't let an opportunity go by without sticking it to the metric system :)

deknow
 
#302 ·
Good thinking BHB.

There was a wax proccessing outfit that claimed non chemical decontamination of beeswax a few years ago.

I haven't been able to determine if they're still around however.

Does anyone know if such an operation still exists?

Barry,

The 'grad school smarts' remark isn't snide.

I was looking for the 'roll eyes' smiley but couldn't find it. :rolleyes:
 
#304 ·
There was a wax proccessing outfit that claimed non chemical decontamination of beeswax a few years ago.

Does anyone know if such an operation still exists?
I don't know if they are, but imagine the cost/benefit analysis. What would it cost and who would be able to afford the expensive wax after the decontamination? Being the variety of chemicals showing up in wax, wouldn't one have troubles removing all of them w/out degrading the wax into some other thing other than wax? Whatever that would be.
 
#305 ·
"There's enough information in each of the studies to do an estimate for the fractions in wax and honey (no royal jelly, but it will do)."

No way to determine any type of transfer coefficient from wax to any other substance or to bees from these studies. If you think there is, then prove it. Otherwise, hokum!
 
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