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
#2 ·
We're new beekeepers and this topic is very interesting to me.

1. Yes, less contaminants to start with and yes, the bees will eventually bring some into the hive. From there, it seems that the less we have, the better. Right?

2. I've had that same philosophical argument in my head... Bee"keeping" is not natural, but we are attempting to provide the most "natural" environment possible. AFAIK, no bees look for trees that have wired foundation in them.

3. For us, it's actually the same amount of work as we've been putting in 1" strips of cut comb foundation as a starter guide. I spent almost 2 years taking classes, visiting other hives and reading about bees before bringing in our own hives. I'm quite comfortable trimming comb and manipulating things as needed. I've found way more drone cells on the wired foundation than on the foundation-less frames. Having not measured cell width sizes in my hives, I'm not sure what the minute differences are.

4. My understanding was that without being forced into a particular cell size, the bees can be more hygienic by creating cell sizes that don't allow pests to occupy with the larvae. Yes, that may set them back a little but our primary goal is more, healthy bees. So, the delay can be compensated for with a little feeding and not expecting a large honey harvest.

On a side note, I love the look of the 'natural' comb when I open our hives. Hopefully this thread stirs the pot a bit and we get some interesting info.
 
#3 ·
Thanks for the reply funny farm--
On answer 3 did you not see sections of all drone comb on the foundationless frames?--I know bees will chew and fit in the drones as needed on the foundation frames, but I my foundationless experience (I have tried it) I got alot more big all drone comb areas.

to answer 4 you need to get a piece of comb and measure the cell size--I would bet it is not much smaller than foundation because the bees were not regressed and are larger themselves. If so your goal is not being reached as the cells are still big and big means more room more mites in the cells (if small cell actually helps but that is a separate topic for discussion other than this thread)
 
#4 ·
For foundation

1. I don't think the plastic contaiminates the honey any more that the pesticides that are being used withing a mile of the hive.

2. For this I just agree with OP, nothing we are doing is natural. Is stealing thier storage natural?

3. It takes me an extra 10 sec(?) to add a plastic foundation in the center as I'm nailing it all up. If you are that worried about time...

4. The size of the bees aren't the same as they were 500 years ago, so natural size? People have measured the size that the bees draw out normally and that is what the size is based on, so this is the normal size, we are just trying to make sure they don't add extra stuff, like drone cells, in the middle of everything else.

For foundationless - People do like cut comb though and I do go foundationless for that. It is kind of fun to chew on wax for a while.
 
#5 ·
3... Not that I have found. On the foundation frames, there will be spots of 4 or 5 drone cells but no large sections. On the foundation-less they are spotty. Due to the type of bees, possibly? We started with Buckfast bees but re-queened with BeeWeaver queens.

4... Tomorrow, I will cut out a small section during inspection and measure. I'm not expecting it to be much smaller but I would think that with the size of bees and the size of pests, that .1mm or even .05mm could make a difference.

Is there another thread on small-cell already? That's interesting to me too, but then again it steps away from "natural".

In response to MrHappy, you're right, I highly doubt the plastic foundation adds any contaminants at all. Today's plastic technology is pretty good especially since people are more aware of chemicals leeching out of them. And heck yeah to chewing some comb. I was 'forced' to sample some the other day when trimming a bit of comb. :)
 
#6 ·
The two main ideas behind foundationless beekeeping are that all commerical wax, since it's coming out of existing hives, often treated with large amounts of miticides, is fairly badly contaminated with not only miticides by also various external things like chorothalonil (and other fungicides) at levels that may be detrimental to bees, and that the "standard" cell size was chosen to make larger than normal bees with the idea (unproven, I might add) that larger bees forage more.

The contamination issue could be significant, more so if you use standard miticides in you hives, or use thin surplus foundation for comb honey. The cell size issue is different, there is some evidence that smaller cells (hence shorter development time) means far fewer varroa mites. The jury is out on that, and you can get small cell foundation and "regress" you bees the easy way, too.

Drawbacks are that bees don't always read beekeeping books and fail to make nice, flat comb in the empty frames (swarms are the worst since they are in a huge hurry, but other bees will also sometimes simply refuse to build comb in the frames) and there is no guide for cell size and the bees will often make drone brood cells.

Of course, the hive need drones, and I am of the opinion that you can control the drone brood by giving them an empty frame outside where you want the brood nest to be for them to fill with drone comb. In my hive last here where I experimented, they made about 30% of the foundationless frames drones, with the remainder being normal brood cell size. You might have to move them around a bit to get a brood nest without drone cells, but they only built large amounts of it in the outer frames.

Peter
 
#8 ·
The modern beehive and most that goes with it was invented over 150 years ago. Hundreds of authors have written hundreds of books and hundreds of inventors have had 150 years to improve upon it. So there is little new for the current beekeepers promoting themselves as authorities with which to fill their websites, books and lecture series. So they come up with things contrary to everyday teachings to make themselves sound like novel innovators. Even though there are billions of queen excluders in service they condemn them. Even though bees build different cell sizes in all hives and in different climate zones they promote one cell size as salvation. Some promote not using a modern hive but a hive dating back to antiquity. Others seem to be able to keep bees with no interference with medications. Small cell, natural cell, and foundationless are just some of this decades catch words and hype. Whether there is any truth to their advantages is for all of us to find out as we sort out who to believe and who not to believe.
 
#9 ·
Hives manage their drone comb quite systematically. Perhaps people are seeing more drone comb right now because it is drone breeding season and all the new people trying foundationless for their first time due to reading about supposed benefits all winter are just seeing this for the first time. Wait till you have that foundationless comb in there for a couple of years and see what the numbers are and decide. Most hives balance to about 17% drone comb. But then again after a few years you have contaminated wax again due to pesticides being brought into the hive so go figure. It is a dog chasing its tail.
 
#10 ·
Let's see, advantages of foundationless over foundation that haven't been mentioned...

I wouldn't call foundationless a more productive method. However, it was the primary method in Langs until foundation was introduced.

Foundationless allows for crush and strain honey production. Which could be a good thing if you don't want to buy a regular extractor. Why spend the money on an extractor if all that you want is enough honey for yourself?

I haven't heard anyone bring up the microflora and microclimate issue. There's likely a real difference between the microflora found on the foundationless vs comb with foundation. Although, quite frankly, I can't recall any studies showing this to be the case.

Having more variation in the comb likely changes the 'weather' on the frames as well. Once again, I can't recall any studies on that either.

The main reason for using foundationless, as reported by others, is that it allows for hive survival in treatment free hives (similar to claims made for small cell), without the need for small cell foundation.

That's a pretty good reason for using natural comb if you are a treatment free beekeeper.
 
#12 · (Edited)
WLC
For crush and strain or cut comb you are correct foundationless works a treat.
But.....
What do you mean by the 'weather' on the frames???

As for the survival of treatment free hives, the problem I have is that several posters are comparing foundationless to small cell foundation which is not really accurate-- In either case the comb will need to be removed several times to achieve the said goal of bee regression to have them small enough to make small cell comb.
IF you are not removing the comb and regressing the bees you are not achieving anything as the bees are the same size (or only slightly smaller) I would say that at least if you are planning on doing this correctly which is a bit involved at least the foundation gives the bees a head start.

As a general note (and one of the reasons I started the discussion)
Alot of newbees do not realize these extra steps involved and just jump into foundationless and do not understand the why behind what they are doing--I am a big believer in if you cannot explain somethings design or purpose well enough to explain it to someone else logically perhaps you need more reading or understanding on the subject in question.
 
#14 ·
...in a mindless fashion and do not understand the why behind what they are doing--I am a big believer in if you cannot explain somethings design or purpose well enough to explain it to someone else logically perhaps you need more reading or understanding on the subject in question.
...do you think most newbees (or even longtime beekeepers) that use foundation understand it's purpose well enough to explain it? ...and get it right? ...if not...should they not use foundation?

deknow
 
#16 ·
Beekeeping was foundationless until the 1920s when foundation became widely available. People had been experimenting with it for decades, but until inexpensive roller presses became common, most people used empty frames.

Being a scientist, I'm somewhat perplexed that there is so little science applied at the practical beekeeping level -- there seems to be a significant dearth of theoretical investigation into the daily activities in hive management, and as a result, there is quite a bit of hands-on experience passed on by any number of people (and books) that may or may not apply in any given situation.

For instance, the discussion about queen excluders -- to my knowledge, that particular subject has been flogged half to death for the last century at least -- I would assume as soon as someone invented a reliable one. I'm equally certain that there is no significant theoretical research on whether they increase, decrease, or have no effect on production.

One should be careful to separate opinion from verifiable scientific theory, it helps quite a bit to keep the noise down. Bee hives are highly individual, just like people, and also respond differently in different conditions, so what works well for any given beekeeper in a particular situation may or may not work for someone else somewhere else.

Old fashioned beekeeping got knocked sideways with the recent arrival of both tracheal mites and varroa mites, and the increasing pesticide loadings aren't helping a bit. My grandfather kept bees for something like 40 years and never had anything result in a die-off of any kind. He did lose a couple hives over the years to AFB, but nothing remotely like deadouts due to varroa that we have all seen.

Most people, I think, would welcome a management system that would greatly reduce or eliminate the use of heavy duty pesticides inside the hive, hence the interest in different management techniques, small cell bees, and foundationless beekeeping. It's not bashing tradition, it's looking for a way of managing problems that doesn't rely on chemicals that are highly poisonous to people and fairly toxic to the bees, too. A better way is to breed bees that handle the mites in particular better, but we have a very very small genetic pool to work with. The European honey bee was brought over here in fairly small numbers only a couple centuries ago, and all the bees we have (including the africanized bees) are descended from a very small number of genetic lines -- in the case of the africanized bees, literally six queens. Europe has it better than we do, as they still have a fairly large native population, but even there the loss of habitat has shrunk the gene pool considerably.

I have found that wired and cross wired foundation, while considerably more fiddlesome than foundationless frames, give very reliable comb production. Not perfect, but at least I don't have to worry about slumped foundation that ends up in bowed combs that are a hassle to move around, they won't blow out in the extractor as easily, and partially drawn frames are not so fragile they are hard to inspect. I do use a few foundationless frames because it's nice to have drone comb where I want it and not in the honey supers or between boxes. We shall see how that goes -- the bees are quite capable of making their own comb and foundation is an expense that for me is no problem, I don't have that many hives and don't anticipate making money from them, but for others it can be a problem.

There are many systems of beekeeping, and most of them are fairly to very successful. Use what works for you and don't abuse people who do something different that works well for them, we can all learn from what other's experience. There are, as most of us know very well, no hard and fast rules in beekeeping.

Peter
 
#33 ·
Being a scientist, I'm somewhat perplexed that there is so little science applied at the practical beekeeping level -- there seems to be a significant dearth of theoretical investigation into the daily activities in hive management, and as a result, there is quite a bit of hands-on experience passed on by any number of people (and books) that may or may not apply in any given situation.

Peter
As a new beekeeper trying to learn as much as possible, I want to echo Peter's statement. I was quite shocked at how little published scientific literature there is on beekeeping, and especially on AHBs. Much of what there is, is 10-20 years old (or more).

For one thing, why is an industry, which is worth some real money, not more closely investigated? Lemme tell you, the cattle industry is a seething hotbed of scientific research compared to apiculture.

I was also surprised that beekeepers in the US are limited to a very few subspecies of bees (German, Italian, Russian, Carniolan, Caucasian), most of which were imported over 60 years ago. You would think that with AHBs, someone would be studying hybrid genetics of some of the many other races of bees. Living in the hot southwest, I have to think that a subspecies such as Apis mellifera sahariensis, which is a gentle bee from Morocco used to an arid climate and able to travel up to 5 miles in search of nectar, would be ideal.
 
#17 · (Edited)
Thank you Peter thats the kind of answer I wanted for this thread--I like to hear people's direct experience or at least reasoning behind an idea--I have no problem with foundationless (despite being the devils advocate in this thread!) I just want some reasons people go with it other than just because someone else told them to either some personal experience or study or any facts of interest. This is especially for the new beekeepers, who can be very impressionable and get alot from this forum but need background information.

Deknow-- I dont expect anyone to be a scholar or an Entomologist here (though there probably are some) what I mean is at least with foundation you are going with the norm, and easy to use and teach system which is very helpful for new beekeepers who have enough on their plate rather than be alternative for no particular reason.
As for the foundation purposes as I understand it (since you asked)
foundation serves as a support for bees to build their comb on which can be quite helpful as new comb is rather soft and very pliable to the point of sagging or falling off the frame especially on a hot day. It also aids in reducing the overall amount of beewax needed to produce comb and thus saves on wax which saves alot of honey consumption. It also promotes the creation of more worker bees in the hive as the foundation is all worker sized cell--yes the bees will chew and make drone comb on frames or in the spaces at the edge of the frame but ususally the amount of drones overall is less than without comb (this is the one that is certainly subject to debate but it is one of the reasons foundation was made originally)
 
#18 · (Edited)
Ok
This is really delicious topic! I have to disclaim that I am amateur bee-enthusiast who prefer to study the subject before doing anything. Being a scientist by profession, I studied a LOT of books, search the Internet.... regarding the bees and beekeepers. And what I discover? There are few discoveries: (1) all information is very controversial - it looks like every beekeeper has his/her strong opinion on everything; (2) Many beekeepers of 21 century actually is using approaches, hardware and "technology" of 17 century, amusing! (3) Major beekeeping technologies were developed BEFORE Varroa Mites and other diseases become an issue, nevertheless, many beekeepers still use outdated approach(es) and so on...

Foundation is just a small part of the problem. The bigger problem is why bees in US are dying? It distilled down to couple of "improvements" in beekeeping, which made beekeeping "an industry": re-use of comb and centrifugal honey extraction (mechanization - requires standardized approach); implementation of the "bee space" (crowded space in current beehive design - easy disease spread within the hive)); concentration of beehives in small areas (easy disease spread, Varroa etc); seasonal massive movements of bees for pollination (stress, spread diseases, "single-use" beehives) etc. And of coarse, massive use of pesticides is a huge problem (I do not blame on beekeepers). Foundation problem is related to re-use of comb and centrifugal extraction. For centrifuge, comb needs to be strong, thus - foundation. Additional benefit was that comb may be re-used in beehive, so bees will produce more honey not spending time/energy on building the new comb. Also, human being was thinking that it is possible to dictate to bees by implementing fixed size patterns in the foundation.

Well, 100 years later, we discovered that bees actually are doing much better if we do not dictate them what to do... there are MASSIVE amount of information indicating that bees in healthy environment ALWAYS prefer foundationless frames if there is a choice. Also, apparently, they build a new comb much quicker on foundationless frames than on the frames with foundation... Also - apparently, bees DO like to build the comb without foundation - numerous studies indicated that bees are relaxed when build the comb (no foundation). Opposite is also true - bees are stressed out when forced to build a comb on the foundation...

1. Less contaminants in the hive-- the problem is that when comb (wax) is recycled and returned into the hive many times, pesticides and other chemicals have accumulated in the wax and at some point becomes toxic. On foundationless - there is no accumulation because wax used only once and then happily burned in form of Christmas candles!

2. It is more natural-- it is more natural in the sense that bees have a flexibility to built what they needed. You do not put a stick inside the tree to make it grow straight, right? I actually think that beehive even in modern shape is quite natural - it is basically just a "vessel" for bees. What is unnatural is an environment around the beehive -machinery, pollution, monoculture, concrete etc ... Building a comb - what is more natural? If it is not natural, than, what is natural in our life?

3. TB is the way to go, than, yes, it is much less work to build the "frame", i.e. TB. I do not see any advantage of using classical frame in foundationless approach. It is sort of half-solution... Langs design needs to be re-stylish to accommodate TBs for more natural beekeeping.

4. I want natural comb cell size-- see my emotional statement above - bees do like to build the comb and they will do it right! My bees without any foundation are filling up 3rd super now and they are 6 boxes tall - this is the pay for letting them to do what they like to do! Drones - they ARE essential part of colony even if you don't think so. In my limited experience, I had no issue with drone cells - few cells here and few cells there, not big deal. My bee-instructor suggested to eat cupped drones, since it is good protein... so, some "stuff" goes into my honey, this is why I claim my honey is 102% natural!

The major issue here is that industry needs simple and profitable solutions. But bees are wild animals, they are not domesticated. Imposing on them strict rules, keeping them crowded, feeding them pesticides and food-substitutes, treating them with nasty chemicals - all made them unhappy, stressed and as a result - vulnerable to the diseases and eventually - die ...

Note: I had no intention to criticize anybody or be disrespectful. I just sincerely concern about the fate of bees in this unfriendly (to bees) environment we created for them.
 
#19 ·
"What do you mean by the 'weather' on the frames???"

xcugat:

There's likely a significant difference between heat and moisture characterisitcs in a foundationless hive vs a hive with foundation. I don't know what they are however.

"...there are MASSIVE amount of information indicating that bees in healthy environment ALWAYS prefer foundationless frames if there is a choice."

cerezha:

Maybe you could give an example or two of any studies that show the above. I'm not aware of any.
 
#44 · (Edited)
cerezha:
Maybe you could give an example or two of any studies that show the above. I'm not aware of any.
WLC - you just search Internet- there are few posts on this forum (see this thread also) and many more on forums related to natural beekeeping. As I stated in my original message - there is huge discrepancy between beekepers in practically any aspect of the beekeeping. So, one with some efforts could find support to any idea,foundation, no foundation... I just distilled what I did find in literature. BUT the best way to learn is just to try. If somebody really want to learn, than just try both approaches,foundation and no foundation: dedicate for "experiment" a strong hive, which already made a full super of honey. Remove two frames from the box, let say in position 3 and 7 for 10-frames box. Install one brand new frame with foundation of your choice and another - with no foundation but with starting strip. Install the box just on top of the nest and watch. Take a pictures of each frame every 7-10 days. When done, please, report to us and show the pictures. This is totally unbiased way to learn and very educational. Good luck!

My general impression after 10 month of bee-observing (do not feel, I am a beekeeper) is that the whole approach needs to be re-evaluated in the light of current reality: pesticides, 100+years old dogmas, congestion, concrete, industrialization, pollination, migration, "bee space", new diseases etc. It needs to be accepted that current beekeeping industrial system - fails! Nearly 50% of bee-colonies lost every year in US - it IS a failure of the current approach. If system did not work, it needs to be changed in accordance to the new reality. If someone repeating the same thing and it fails every other time - is this right way to do business? Like, if every other space shuttle will fail? I think, such forum(s) is a good place to discuss a new ideas and learn new approaches from the people who may be "discovered" something better for your bees.
Sergey
 
#55 ·
This to me is a huge benefit, no need to spend money on foundation which equates to more money to buy more hives/frames!!
Another advantage to foundationless is being able to cut out whole capped queen cells (for splits) without much worry, as opposed to doing that on plastic.

You can also do the fatbeemans method of cutting a strip of comb off with eggs and put it into a cell starter, I dont think you can do that with plastic, without grafting. Another good thing is if they do make a frame or two of drone comb, you can move those up into the honey supers and have LARGE cells of honey!!

This is my first year of foundationless and I am impressed at how fast the bees draw out the comb compared to plastic. Its also fun watching them start the comb and amazing how they can make something so nice and architechual!!

But he main thing for me...............saving money!!
 
#21 ·
Beeswax is a chemical sponge, as Jerry Hayes calls it. It soaks up chemicals and contaminants that the bees bring in or beekeepers are putting in the hive the last couple decasdes. Regular comb replacement is the only soluton. Replacement is not dependent on foundation type. Plastic foundation is easily scraped with a capping scratcher for "crush and strain" harvesting or regular comb replacement.
Small cell and natural cell studies in several states and worldwide have proven ineffective in controlling Varroa or anything else. The spatial relationship changes as bees "regress" so there is no benefit. The bee biology that makes AHB resistant to Varroa is called absconding. AHB leave when the mite load gets high. We are starting to see this with all bees. It goes by another name also - CCD.
Beekeeping is a relative unknown with so many people showing interest and the Internet so willing to show "a better mousetrap" or the "perfect solution" I would put more trust in scientific research than what you can read on the Internet, even this forum, or this post. More thn once I have read ardent seemingly knowledgeable posters here who experience the same challenges a year or two later when they get their first hive.
There is nothing natural about horizontal hives or checkerboarding, but great interest in both by beekeepers in the last couple decades.
 
#22 ·
"Small cell and natural cell studies in several states and worldwide have proven ineffective in controlling Varroa or anything else."

I do recall some controversy over some of the small cell studies done. I don't recall the natural cell studies though.

Apparently, you actually need to have established treatment free bees first for the whole thing to work with natural cell/small cell.

Treatment free bees could be resistant because of other scientifically proven mechanisms. Hygienic behaviors are one. Another is attenuated mites. I'm also very much aware of the Maori finding that inserted sequences (like those from viruses) can make bees resistant via RNAi molecular immunity. Monsanto acquired Beeologics based on that.

So, it is possible that treatment free bees and natural comb is real.

It's not just anectdotal. :)
 
#23 ·
Let's try to remember that treatment free is a layered approach. Simply putting any old bees onto natural cells isn't going to make them resistant.

For example, Steven G started with resistant queen stock.

Mr. Bush also dips his hives in artificial propolis.

There's the principal of creating competitors for pests/patogens by increasing microflora via eliminating chemical contaminants or putting frames close together (attenuated mites count as well).
 
#25 ·
Let's try to remember that treatment free is a layered approach. Simply putting any old bees onto natural cells isn't going to make them resistant.

For example, Steven G started with resistant queen stock.

Mr. Bush also dips his hives in artificial propolis.
That's the first time I've ever heard it called artificial propolis. It's just wax dipping, it is for wood preservation, it has nothing specifically to do with beekeeping.

I put my stock in the concept of natural selection. Let them die if they can't deal with it. People used to say that you couldn't beat mites because 'there's no such thing as wolf resistant sheep'. But nobody was breeding for wolf resistant sheep. They were breeding for wooly and tasty sheep. On the other hand, on the Serengheti, you have a better chance of surviving childhood if you're a wildebeest than if you're a lion if you get my meaning.

But back on topic. Being the moderator of the TBF forum and neck deep in small cell methodology and mythology almost since its mainstream beginnings (if in fact it is mainstream, at least it's available for purchase) I see 'natural cell' day by day. I refuse to use the term natural cell lately. It's foundationless. Just like there's no such thing as a 'natural treatment.'

I have tried it a frame at a time because I don't want to deal with having to do cutouts on my own hives (again). I find it to be most useful for creating drone frames in medium size because nobody makes them in plastic. Beyond that, they lose most all utility for me and utility is my main focus.
 
#26 ·
The foundationless hype: a distraction from neonic problems!

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?
I provide my bees with a strip of wax folded over horizontal fishing line. On a broodframe I have 4 parallel lines and 3 on a super frame, they go through holes in the side bars and are stretched tight, the comb built on them is pretty strong. As long as I am carful I can put even virgin comb through the extractor.

This system suits me and my bees, and I get lots of fresh comb drawn every year.
On the other hand I can understand people who use foundation instead, as it can make hive management more straightforward.

And now to the original question: Why the hype?

The answer is simple:

The whole topic is mainly a distraction from the real reason of our bee problems: modern agricultural pesticides.

Beekeepers are dragged into the most weird and wonderful discussions like cell orientations and cell sizes, while up and down the country colonies are sick and dying from neonic pesticides. But the blame is put on the varroa mite, which on it's own would never be as much of a problem as in combination with the neurotoxins brought into the hive with pollen, nectar and feed.

I say: ban the neonics - and varroa treatment will become much easier, as the bees won't be compromised in their hive hygiene anymore. Then everybody can just use the beekeeping method that suits himself without fearing to risk the survival of his bees.
 
#27 · (Edited)
Re: The foundationless hype: a distraction from neonic problems!

There are lots of other things in the hive besides neo-nics. Fungicides and herbicides also accumulate there, and the interactions between all these chemicals are unknown.

The two largest changes in beekeeping since WWII are probably large scale "migratory" bee "hauling" (the bees don't migrate, people load them on trucks and haul them all over) and the widespread use of pesticides. Lead and arsenic were significant problems before WWII, as most orchards were heavily sprayed with lead asenate to control codling moths and other pests (to the point where the soil was poisoned and the trees died, believe it or not), but the organic pesticides were post WWII.

The results are that not only are the bees exposed to low levels of a huge variety poisons and are exposed to lethal levels fairly often, but we spread whatever new diseases or pests appear all over the country in very short order by transporting hives to all 48 states during a growing season.

Peter
 
#28 ·
Re: The foundationless hype: a distraction from neonic problems!

There are lots of other things in the hive besides neo-nics. Fungicides and herbicides also accumulate there, and the interactions between all these chemicals are unknown.
The difference to other contaminants is that neonics were designed to kill sytemically and with a delayed action.

Here is Bayer describing how Imidacloprid kills colonies of termites:

Premise® Insecticide, introduced by Bayer Corporation in 1996, works synergistically with nature to provide value-added termite control. Premise Plus Nature,TM the term the manufacturer uses to describe the product's unique mode of action, affects termites by making them susceptible to infection, disease and death by naturally occurring organisms.
http://www.pctonline.com/Article.aspx?article_id=39807

Bees and termites are related to each other and both use grooming behaviour to keep out infections and parasites.

Neonic contamination is extremely widespread nowadays, it interferes with grooming and hive cleaning, that's why varroa mites can overrun our colonies.
 
#29 ·
Pick a side and run with it till it doesn't work, then pick a new side, run with that till it doesn't work. One day, something will work for you, your bees, where you are. The thing is, what do you want to end up with? Some chemicals, or none ? There are chemical free treatments, methods if you will, that are effective for mites. To each their own. What ever makes you happy with your bees. :)
Here's what makes me happy. :) Starting all my new hives and swarms(the one) with foundation less frames, beginning to change the established ones over as I can. Why? It is something I have not done before, I can't begin to understand the complex relationships between the micro flora and fauna, that exist in a bee hive. I just know that it is. I have no issue with foundation. It just makes sense to me if one chooses to be treatment free, to do it as "natural" as possible. I believe that environmental (mites) pressure can and does evoke change from a community to deal with problems. It makes no sense to me that will happen in an un natural state of anything I would do to eliminate mites. So, I'm trying foundation less. Might try regression next year, cuz I ain't never done it before.
My bees are alive, healthy, and I still enjoy this hobby. That's what matters:)
 
#30 ·
Foundationless vs natural cell? While I do use both terms, I think that foundation is any backing that has cells stamped on it. You could use boards without any cells on em and it would still be foundationless.

"That's the first time I've ever heard it called artificial propolis. It's just wax dipping, it is for wood preservation, it has nothing specifically to do with beekeeping."

I've mentioned it before. If you melt beeswax and rosen, you get artificial propolis.
 
#32 ·
If you melt beeswax and rosen, you get artificial propolis.
So is 'artificial propolis' defined as mostly wax? Because regular propolis is mostly not-wax. Or maybe you're confused with the differences between resin and rosin. I guess I could see your point on the basis of the number of constituents, two versus 50 including the two. Is gasoline artificial oil? Is coal artificial mountain? Is T-bone steak artificial cow?

Call it what you want, it is still for wood preservation and has nothing to do with beekeeping. Perhaps you remember how it was done to death in TFB by someone with an ax to grind wanting to call it a treatment?



In reply to Paul, you buy things you don't really need because they're darn useful. When you get past a handful of hives, suddenly all that effort to keep hundreds of frames of foundationless comb in order becomes prohibitive. Michael Bush uses foundationless, but most of his frames are PF-120's with some permacomb mixed in. Rather than treating a frame as a sub-unit of a hive like most of us do, he treats whole 8-frame boxes as units. It's why I switched to plastic frames. Sure, I got pretty good at assembling frames and wiring them and installing foundation, but not 'comes ready out of the box for the same price' good.
 
#31 ·
Foundation is darn pricy when compared to going without. And you have to replace every so often. I have no regrets about using foundationless frames. The bees like them better than the others and draw them quicker and make more bees per inch when they regress. You can also slap comb from cut-outs - (which I do regularly) - into foundationless MUCH easier. Foundation has it's place, but there are lot's of things out there designed simply to separate you from your money - especially in the bee world. Simplicity is a virtue. Why buy things you don't really need?

And WLC, I have seen some studies from South Africa where they used a blank sheet of wax for foundation with good result.
 
#34 ·
The difference between real money in bees and real money in cows is that even Texans can figure out how to raise cows. :D Just joking.

Cows are fully domesticated. Bees are not. Far more people will touch a cow than will touch a bee. Cows are more useful as food than bees. Cows require far more space and resources. Bees will do their job in the wild out in nature, cows will get eaten. And I won't even get into the massive government subsidies that go into meat production and research and into the grain that goes to feeding them.

On the other hand, cow farmers are out on horseback rounding up the herd, beekeepers stand around arguing about foundation.
 
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