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
#69 ·
The 8 lbs of honey for a pound of wax is derived more or less from the difference in energy content and the metabolic energy used do reduce the carbohydrate to lipid. Simple thermodynamics and metabolic energy transfer.

This is why you want to keep as much drawn comb as possible, it really does take quite a bit of nectar that would otherwise be honey to make comb.

Drawing foundation into comb is not the way bees evolved, they normally build comb by festooning in empty spaces, so foundatinless comb is easier and more natural for them to draw out. Better is a matter of opinion, but foundationless is what's normal. Drawing foundation is more like doing repairs.

Peter
 
#70 · (Edited)
Well
This wax/honey equation is a strong argument... I am not knowledgeable enough to discuss thermodynamic of the conversion... Besides the science, couple of things come to mind:
- first, it is not honey but nectar, which fuels worker bees during the flow.
- bees who deliver nectar and who made a wax - are different.
- I do not know what eat wax-making bees, nectar?
- the assumption that all delivered nectar will be converted into the honey - I do not think it is a case. It is like if all food one consumes will be immediately converted (and stored) into the fat... It is possible that for example only 50% of nectar converts into the honey by bees. So, another 20-30-50% may be used to create the wax. If so, these two processes may go in parallel. Since, making wax is natural process to the bees, I would not be surprised if my assumption is close to the reality. In another words, wax-bees may consume the energy, which is not dedicated to be converted into the honey... thus, creating the wax does not affect amount of honey stored...

As for bees well-being - I already explained in my previous posts that bees are stressed out when forced to work on the foundation. Opposite is also true. You know that stress affected immune system. Weak immune system means - weak beehive ... eventually decease and death. It is from the physiology textbook, I am sorry, nothing personal.

In all these arguments pro and contra, I could see only one, which is not really clear to me since I am in SoCal - if nectar flow period is so short that bees may not have time to make a comb. This is I really do not know. But,this argument is in the area of business and profit... I guess, one should not have industrial honey production in the area where nectar flow is so short that bees have no time to build the comb... It is my understanding that there are "waves" of nectar flow - bees could build comb between the waves... Sergey
 
#71 ·
cerezha;As for bees well-being - I already explained in my previous posts that bees are stressed out when forced to work on the foundation. Opposite is also true. You know that stress affected immune system.[/QUOTE said:
The two tall hives behind me in this picture had both drawn out several deep and JUMBO supers of foundation put on to slow them down so that they would not get too tall. If drawing out foundation stresses bees out I have very stressed out bees. THAT must be why so many die during the winter - stess. Or maybe all those contaminants in the foundation.

 
#72 · (Edited)
I believe the issue is creating a new paradigm of operation which does not involve the past large scale or migratory operations and practices. Unfortunately, new paradigms lie outside the mainstream to most involved. This whole thing reminds me of the argument by Western ranchers that the elk eat all the grass that their cows should have and should be re-imbursed by the government for the loss of graze. How do you quantify that? Wax/Nectar? Isn't that how we got into trouble?

PS; Those are some tall hives! very nice!
 
#73 ·
Foundationless is great -- if you like drone comb, and breeding lots of drones. Foundation gives you a maximum of worker cells in the brood nest, and so a stronger work force. In the honey supers I have used strips many times, resulting in natural comb -- virtually all drone or storage sized cells -- and then either reused the comb for honey storage year after year (extracting) or selected nice "virgin" capped combs for cutting for comb honey. It works okay with medium or shallow supers. Just don't let the queen go up there.
 
#76 ·
Foundationless is great -- if you like drone comb, and breeding lots of drones....
I must be doing something wrong because I almost never see a super-abundance of drone cells in foundationless comb mixed with small cell foundation.

In the honey supers I have used strips many times, resulting in natural comb -- virtually all drone or storage sized cells....
Which works out well for me because in the honey supers, that's where I want the larger cells. Seems the bees know what to do.

Some disparage foundationless because of all the work involved at the beginning, checking it and keeping the hives level and the frames spaced correctly... All things I would be doing anyway in my large-cell foundation-based yards. Foundationless is great in that I do not have to spend all that money on something the bees have shown me I do not absolutely need. Another year or two of sm. cell experience and I'll likely be be converting all my hives to sm. cell/foundationless.
 
#74 ·
OdFrank
Spectacular but looks dangerous... My hive is 6 boxes tall and it needs extra box(ex) - I could not add more because I just afraid it will flip over from the steep terrace... So, I just remove frames with honey every 2-3 weeks to keep it under control. The whole hive is fondationless and treatment-free. It is at least 3 years old colony(same boxes). Again - if your bees are doing well and you have 95+% surviving rate - than, why bother and change anything? The whole story began when people discovered that nearly 50% of bees in US die every year. If it is not a problem for you,than - it is really great and I am so happy for you! Sergey

PS I really do not think that over-production of honey is a good criteria for determining if bees are happy. In recent history, slaves produced a lot of goods for Americans, but it does not mean they were happy and healthy...
Sergey
 
#79 ·
A lot of the "hype" could be from Bush's site. It is among the topic results of any search about beekeeping and his stuff is much better written and current than most of the other information on bees. Its a very inviting and easy to use site, especially for a newbee and as part of his site he makes a very logical and compelling argument for foundationless which is hard to ignore.
 
#80 ·
I have not read most of the posts on this thread, because as with most I have my own opinion, and here it is. First, I don't think you can spin and extract frames of foundationless without damaging some. I'm convinced that some use foundationless to keep from buying foundation. I've never tried foundationless, never will. I've used wax foundation, duragilt, and differient brands of plastic foundation. The duragilt is not even worth putting in a hive. It will not be drawn out well in most cases, and I've noticed that the queen will be hesitant to lay on frames that are drawn out. I hate the wax because they will always chew the bottom of the foundation so that they can travel back and forth from one side to the other, making it very difficult to locate a queen. My bees, differient genetics, will always draw out the extra wax coated plastic before they do the wax or anything else. While some treehuggers and elcheapos want to go foundationless, I will use what works, by far the best for me. Plastic with extra wax brushed on from a cheap crock pot, with a cheap 4" chip brush from Dollar General or Harbor Freight. I know the whole argument that we are going against the nature of the bees, but if that is what you want to do why not hollow out some trees so they can build in them. I want to be able to examine a frame for queens, queen cells, pollen, honey/nectar, eggs, larvae, and type of cell. Again plastic is far superior in my opinion. Especially in the supers for extracting. To each his own. Good Luck!!
 
#81 ·
I have been trying foundationless.. I have found one problem but it could be due to my inexperience with honey extraction methods. I finally got honey, and some of the frames are foundationless. I took a hot knife and uncapped them. one kind of bent because the comb is a bit wavy. Well I put it in my extractor and all the comb just spun out. it even broke the fishing wire. so all my honey had little pieces of wax in it and I sadly had to pasteurize it to get the wax to the top. but it still taste good. I will continue to use foundationless.. Why because it is cheap :) I did have an over abundance of drones. But I will deal with that. any suggestions on harvesting honey on natural comb? minus the idea of putting comb in the jars?
 
#82 ·
I get the feeling you extracted radially? I have had more luck extracting tangentially because of the cage supporting the comb. You need to start slow with the extracting, take half from one side and then the entire other side and then finish the first side. Sounds like it would take a long time, but it really doesn't. I count to 60 on the first side, flip, count to 100, flip and then count to 60 again. DONE You didn't have to "pasteurize" the honey to get the wax on top, if you had just left it for a couple days the wax and stuff would have floated to the top and you could have filled jars from the bottom.
 
#84 ·
Quoting WLC

>>>I don't doubt that foundationless is drawn quickly and has has many other benefits.

I agree with Rod (rweakley), I think foundationless is easily drawn out in half the time.

Picture is of a 5 day old new swarm removal, it's incredible what bees can accomplish when we stay out of their way:


>>>I am interested in seeing how bees on drawn natural cell (foundationless) will build on PF 120s. I'm also interested in seeing how bees on drawn PF 120s will build on foundationless frames.

I do both, 2nd year beek with 50 or so hives on foundationless, they draw out PF 120's just fine as far as cell size, may be because the local ferals I get from removals and beetree swarms are already very small bees. I only bought 300 frames of PF 120's this spring thinking I would give each hive 1 box of PF 120's so I would have straighter combs for Pyramiding up my foundationless frames when adding boxes.

Going the other way from PF 120 to foundationless is no problem also, My only regret is that I wish PF-120's came in 1 1/4" widths, which works WAY better for SC bees, if I buy any more I will be shaving them down.

>>>I hope to see a reduction in cell size when PF 120 'bees' draw on foundationless.

Once small bees they don't unregress unless you give them larger foundation.

>>>I expect to see the bees 'balk' when they go from foundationless to PF 120s.

They do, you just have to put the PF 120's where they want to work, or not give them any foundationless at the same time.

>>>I also expect that the bees will confound any of my expectations. :)

They do mine.

>>>As for the festooning observation, I'm interested in seeing if having a comb guide on both the top and bottom of the frame speeds things up.

I don't think it will, but you will get comb that is attached to the bottom bar better, and I think it will help you if you like to Nadir.

>>>What I really want to do is observe how the bees festoon on the top and bottom vs the top only comb guide frames.

Bees don't festoon up for shinola, you need to quit breathing that New York air ;):


Don
 
#86 · (Edited)
Lumpy uneven comb is likely to blow out, wires or not, because the forces are uneven.

You can just strain the honey through cheesecloth or fine nylon mesh bags (or stainless steel screems) to get the wax out, it's not necessary to heat it unless you are in a big hurry to filter it.

My Grandpa always heated his, but he had #3 washtubs full and didn't have time for it to run slowly!

Peter
 
#89 ·
Unless you live on the moon, you are going to get pesticide build up in your comb. I cannot think of anywhere that someone isn't spraying something --- even the Forest Service sprays herbicides and insectides on National Forests. If you have anyone living within six miles, be assured that some time or another you will get your bees exposed to something, and whatever it is will very likley accumulate in the wax.

We live in a soup of pesticides, no way to avoid them. They come in with the rain, in dust blown in, and in the ground water.

This is why there is really no "organic" honey, it's not possible to prevent the bees from picking up pesticides somewhere or other, particularly if you are within 6 miles of any sort of agriculture.

If you live in a large, fully organic community, you will have significantly less accumulation, but will still get some.

Peter
 
#90 ·
Pesticides are ubquitous. You'll find traces of them at every point above the soil surface of the earth and many places below the surface. And it's not just pesticides. There are all manner of chemicals released all over the planet which drift all over the planet.

The turnover of comb in natural hives is part of the health of the hive.
 
#91 ·
The point I was making is not that pesticides will not accumulate in the comb, it was that comb started on foundation, all else being equal, will always have significantly more contaminants present, especially miticides used by the previous owners of the wax.

As an environmental scientist/engineer, I would have to say that it is a stretch to say that every point above the soil surface will have traces of pesticides. I think every point within a certain range of populated areas would be a more accurate depiction.

The Forest Service may use pesticides and herbicides around designated campsites that they maintain, but they aren't spraying these chemical willy nilly "on National Forests." They certainly don't have the time or money for that, at least not in NM. Is there actually any NF in Indiana?
 
#114 · (Edited)
The point I was making is not that pesticides will not accumulate in the comb, it was that comb started on foundation, all else being equal, will always have significantly more contaminants present, especially miticides used by the previous owners of the wax.
I use both foundationless and plastic foundations. That said, its such a tiny amount of wax that gets put on plastic foundation. I would think even if the wax used to coat the foundation was massively contaminated with miticides it would have minimal effect since its such a small amount and that its buried in the back of the comb. Is that wax even 1% of the total wax on the frame when its built out? At worst you've deluted the toxins to 1% the strength coming from the orignal source of the wax (which probably hosted healthy bees). If its reduced to 1% the strength, I would think that wouldn't be that far off the ambient level of pesticides in all the air / soil.
 
#98 · (Edited)
I apologize for being not polite, but it is just a paranoia (nothing personal) to think this way. To think this way is counterproductive - than we all shall just kill themselves since everything is polluted and we will die... Russians say that life is most dangerous thing because it causes the death (if you are not living, you could not die).

Mother nature actually has incredible powers to restore itself. Most of the organic chemical compounds (see definition of organic chemistry on Google) are sensitive to UV and oxygen; it will degrade quick when on the surface. Underground compounds will stay much longer, but from bees prospective they are unimportant. Plants also have an ability to purify the environment. The problem with contamination of the wax - it is inside the hive and wax protects chemicals from degradation via oxidation and UV. Thus, those chemicals will stay active (bad) longer and will be accumulated... Solomon, it is not "treatment-free" forum with special rules. Solomon could do whichever Solomon wanted in Solomon's forum (I follow the rule not using "you"), but here, I think it is rude to comment on somebody's credentials the way it was done - I would rather listen the person with proper scientific background speaking sense. I am sorry, but your comments are nonsense to me (well, I am a scientist). I apologize for inconvenience, nothing personal, just healthy comments. Sergey
 
#96 ·
The aforementioned being the case, why not let the bees adapt to the pesticide ridden environment they live in? It's what we do. Why go through the trouble to rotate comb to protect the bees when we aren't protecting ourselves any better? Seems to me the bees need to APIS Up!!!
 
#97 · (Edited)
The pesticides that accumulated in wax foundation were put there by beekeepers as part of their routine treatments. I doubt that you would be able to detect any of those specific chemicals in the 'background' since they aren't that widely used.

I suppose that bringing up that the plastic foundation of small cell PF 100s and 120s ,that has been touted by many treatment free proponents as being effective in producing resistant bees, doesn't add any clarity to the issue.

It's plastic, it's foundation, and it's effective.

However, it isn't foundationless or natural cell.

If you don't treat, chemical accumulation in PF 100s/120s won't be an issue either.

Does anyone treat and use foundationless?

Here's the reference on what was found in brood comb:

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0014720
 
#99 · (Edited)
And what exactly are the limits of our current analytical technologies. How pure would you like to test down to 1 part per billion. GEEZ Give me a HP Gas chromotography machine, standard material of active we are testing for, a good internal standard, and I will test samples checking down to 50 or so parts per million. (I have worked in an analytical lab at a company that manufactured bug killers so been there done that a few thousands of times). In fact with malathion I can detect the active in a flush sample down to like 100 ppm with just my nose. I doubt that the environment it self is so contaminated that the bees are bringing SO MUCH back to the hive that it's contaminating the wax to a great extent. If there was that much everywhere the bees would just die. As was stated by someone else the problem with wax these days is what the beekeeper puts there not what the bees are bringing back. Now who is going to buy me my GC so I can get to testing???? :banana:
 
#100 · (Edited)
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