Foundation-less frames: my experience
Results 1 to 20 of 62

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    1,306

    Default Foundation-less frames: my experience

    Last year I rehearsed in about 20 hives put only a small strip about 2 cm wax on top of the frames. My intention was that the bees build the comb with the size that they wanted . I had put these frames in the hive interchangeably with other already pulled . The frames was placed in February, at a time when queens have a good laying and often are prepared to swarm.

    I found the following :
    1 ) pulling the wax faster than the blade into frames with full wax ;
    2 ) The Queen began to lay eggs almost simultaneously with the pull wax ;
    3 ) pulled in too many cases drone cells .

    If point 1 ) and 2 ) I quite liked the point 3 ) led me to stop the experiment .

    I wonder if point 3 ) is normal in these conditions? What did I do wrong ? What should be done to that point 3 ) had not happened ?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Stone City, Iowa
    Posts
    273

    Default Re: Foundation-less frames: my experience

    If I am understanding you correctly, the part that you found unacceptable was too much drone comb?

    JC

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    1,306

    Default Re: Foundation-less frames: my experience

    Yes, exactly.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Nehawka, Nebraska USA
    Posts
    53,948

    Default Re: Foundation-less frames: my experience

    Dr. Clarence Collison researched the production of drones:
    Levin, C.G. and C.H. Collison. 1991. The production and distribution of drone comb and brood in honey bee (Apis mellifera L.) colonies as affected by freedom in comb construction. BeeScience 1: 203-211.

    I saw a presentation of his conclusions which basically were that the bees will find a way to raise the same number of drones no matter how much or how little drone comb there is. They will find a way to make enough drone comb and will use is until they have what they sense as the threshold for drones. They will also expend a lot of energy in the process. I let them make all the drone comb they want and all the drones they want.
    Michael Bush bushfarms.com/bees.htm "Everything works if you let it." ThePracticalBeekeeper.com 42y 40h 39yTF

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Benton county, Arkansas
    Posts
    838

    Default Re: Foundation-less frames: my experience

    Will drone comb will be forever drone comb, or after several cocoons becomes workers comb?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Nehawka, Nebraska USA
    Posts
    53,948

    Default Re: Foundation-less frames: my experience

    >Will drone comb will be forever drone comb

    Yes.

    > or after several cocoons becomes workers comb?

    No. But if you put it on the outside edges it often becomes honey comb...
    Michael Bush bushfarms.com/bees.htm "Everything works if you let it." ThePracticalBeekeeper.com 42y 40h 39yTF

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Pueblo, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    1,527

    Default Re: Foundation-less frames: my experience

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Bush View Post
    I let them make all the drone comb they want and all the drones they want.
    On natural comb you have to. I don't find it too offensive, the bees know better than I do, but when another beekeeper looks at my frames they always tell me how the comb is ruined by the drone cells. I have some really nicely drawn natural cell frames now and I am honestly happy that I have mastered getting them drawn straight in the plane of the frame with gravity. And it only took me 3 years to get there :P
    Zone 5 @ 4700 ft. High Desert

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Lakeland, Florida
    Posts
    638

    Default Re: Foundation-less frames: my experience

    Quote Originally Posted by green2btree View Post
    If I am understanding you correctly, the part that you found unacceptable was too much drone comb?JC
    To which you replied "Yes"

    so after all this....dont use foundationless and your problem is solved
    3 hives/2 nucs

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Denver, Colorado, U.S.A.
    Posts
    2,676

    Default Re: Foundation-less frames: my experience

    "so after all this....dont use foundationless and your problem is solved"

    Which is exactly the point the OP has made.
    --shinbone
    (1975-1980, and now since 2011; maintain about 10 hives; Zone 5b; 15" rain; 5500')

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    1,306

    Default Re: Foundation-less frames: my experience

    Quote Originally Posted by Eduardo Gomes View Post
    Last year I rehearsed in about 20 hives put only a small strip about 2 cm wax on top of the frames. My intention was that the bees build the comb with the size that they wanted . I had put these frames in the hive interchangeably with other already pulled . The frames was placed in February, at a time when queens have a good laying and often are prepared to swarm.

    I found the following :
    1 ) pulling the wax faster than the blade into frames with full wax ;
    2 ) The Queen began to lay eggs almost simultaneously with the pull wax ;
    3 ) pulled in too many cases drone cells .

    If point 1 ) and 2 ) I quite liked the point 3 ) led me to stop the experiment .

    I wonder if point 3 ) is normal in these conditions? What did I do wrong ? What should be done to that point 3 ) had not happened?
    I I think the way I started this treath shows as I'm open-minded about the use of frames without wax. My experience has given the results already described by me . Stopped the experiment for the reasons that I have already described. Really wish it had been otherwise , but it was what it was and the reality is imposed on our desires . I would love to continue and even extend this practice to all my hives . Take them all for frames without wax for two big reasons : 1 ) bees can choose the size of the working- cell ; 2 ) avoid waxes that were probably contaminated by the chemical miticides .

    However some of the intervenors wanted hurriedly put me on one side of the barricade . I've noticed in these few days of attendance in this forum that the issue with vs. no wax divides much of this community.

    Some of the answers and hurried and inattentive comments made ​​to my request for help took me some research on the net about this subject. It was during this search that I found the scientific article by Dr. Seeley . Even the crystal data presented here were difficult to digest for some ( or have already been ? )

    The haul these this challenge : find on the net or elsewhere a scientific article that refutes the data and conclusions of Dr. Seeley . A scientific paper requires , in my humble opinion, some conditions must be fulfilled : definition of dependent variables vs. independent variables ; the experimental group vs. the control group ; adequate statistical analysis of the data and an acceptable level of significance according to the current standards in this type of study ; conclusions adjusted in the light of the data and statistics presented .

    I will be very grateful ! I hope you could find something. I still open minded and I'm not on either side of the barricade !

    Not looking for your personal opinions and your personal experiences . I know these already . Thank you for your understanding .

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Essex, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    87

    Default Re: Foundation-less frames: my experience

    After looking over the Seeley article (https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/fil...l-00891902.pdf), I find his conclusions pretty convincing. Others stated that the range he gives for the hive weight gain overlaps, and it does but he uses a very, very low P value to make up his range.

    To quote his article: "colonies with drone comb, 25.2 16.0 kg; colonies without drone comb, 48.8 14.8kg(P< 0.0001)"
    Using a P value that low to create a range is very unusual, and creates a very broad range. Most scientific articles either use a value of 0.01 or 0.05, which is considered statistically significant. I would like to see the raw data to look it over and do some statistical tests.
    -----------------------
    The real test is the P-values that show the differences between data sets. Seeley notes that in two of the three years the differences in the mean weight gain were statistically significant: 1998:P< 0.01; 1999:P< 0.005; 2000:P= 0.09. He does not give a pooled absolute P value for all three years combined, however.

    What these P values show, is that in 1998 there was only a 1% chance that the differences in weight gain were due to random chance alone and was not related to the drone comb difference. In 1999 that chance was 0.5%, and in 2000 it was 9%. I would like to know what the P value for the three years combined is, but I don't have the raw data and I don't know how to combine P values.
    -----------------------
    Again, it would be nice to see some raw data, but the results are fairly conclusive. I know it will change the way I think about drone comb.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Morro Bay, California, USA
    Posts
    2,273

    Default Re: Foundation-less frames: my experience

    datsdajoke,
    the plus/minus value is one standard deviation in the data, this range is intrinsic to the data being reported, not selected by the researcher. The p-value is the probability of the data comparison being reported arising from chance. In the case of the Seeley paper the p is the result of the Student's T-test. The p is not conditioned by the researcher, but is a function of the data. The research does select (in advance) the level of significance he will use for hypothesis testing.

    Anyone who knows the mean, the standard deviation, and the n-number can repeat the same statistical comparison that Seeley did, which is why it is standard deviation is rigourously reported in academic papers.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Essex, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    87

    Default Re: Foundation-less frames: my experience

    JWChesnut:
    Now that I read his article more carefully I see what you are saying. He states that the results are means +/- the SD. What doesn't make sense is why he states a P value of 0.0001 after the interval he gives. Usually results are stated as a mean +/- 2SD (P<0.05), which is a 95% confidence interval for the true mean. The way he states his results is confusing, and I still wish I could look at the data to make my own conclusion.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Auburn, Washington, USA
    Posts
    327

    Default Re: Foundation-less frames: my experience

    Datsdajoke, I think he was simply stating the strength of his analysis by including a p-value significantly below the (P<.05). For example, both P=.049 and P=.0049 are below 5%, but wouldn't you think that the second one is much more significant than then first? I like Seeley. Reading his books answers so many questions about bees in such a short time. Unfortunately I have to reread them to rediscover same facts.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •