Beesource Beekeeping Forums banner

Plastic Foundation : Natural Cell Size

8K views 50 replies 13 participants last post by  GregB 
#1 ·
Has anyone used the natural cell size plastic foundation made by Premier Bee Products?
 
#4 ·
Dr. C.C. Miller, writing in the late 1890s, gave measurements of foundationless comb he found in his brood nests that would equal 5.2 mm average for worker cells. Roy Grout, writing in the 1930s, stated that the average size of worker cells in foundation was 5.3 mm.
 
#8 ·
Then their cell size, based on the way is it commonly measured, is a tad over 5.1, as it is normally measured including cell wall thickness. 5.1 is towards the lower end of natural cell size for most bees, however they should say the actual size.
 
#9 ·
Maybe. What is the cell "wall" diameter of wax cells vs. the plastic? If we're measuring total distance across 10 cells it might be different, based on the thickness of the cell wall.
I wonder if anyone has measured the distance "inside" the cell on "small cell" wax comb built from small cell plastic foundation?
 
#10 ·
Yes well that's a point of confusion. Most comb foundation, the thickness of the cell wall is much thicker than the wax cell wall that the bees will build on top of it. So they are claiming an <inside measurement> of 4.93, but that is just the shape embossed on the foundation, and not what will be the inside measurement of the cell once it is built by the bees.

The accepted method of measuring cell size is across 10 cells, so to be clear, they should be using that method.

Pretty much all foundation sold falls within the natural range of sizes, so, by a keen marketer, any foundation could be marketed as "natural size". But because of the beliefs and controversies around "natural size", any comb foundation seller should state the actual size, using the normal measurement method, to remove misunderstandings.

I rather suspect that they think they will sell more comb foundation if they say it is "natural size", than if they do what all other comb foundation manufacturers do, which is to state the actual size. It's also likely a bunch of 4.9 cell believers will buy it, because in their minds, natural cell equals 4.9. But they will have been duped, because the cell size is just over 5.1.

The 4.93 they mention is obtained by a measurement method nobody uses and in my view is a marketing ploy aimed at small cell believers.
 
#13 ·
The accepted method of measuring cell size is across 10 cells, so to be clear, they should be using that method.
Accepted by who ? Over the years I have at times 'measured' a sample of my natural brood comb with the butt-end of precision drill bits - with most, a 5mm drill bit cannot be inserted into a cell - thus they are sub-5mm. With the odd one or two cells, it can just be inserted ... as an interference fit.
Of course I'm just a natural cell 'believer'. :)
LJ
 
#12 ·
Mann Lake PF series plastic frames are generally considered "small cell", and are advertised as "4.9 cell size". Do they measure across 10 cells, or are they also measuring the distance between cell walls to come up with 4.9mm? I have some PF-120s but have never measured the cells.
 
#26 ·
Mann Lake PF series plastic frames are generally considered "small cell", and are advertised as "4.9 cell size".
That would be for the PF-100 series. My understanding is the PF-500 series frames have cells embossed at more traditional sizes. To me, from a marketing perspective, this makes a lot of sense. Those mostly interested in 'small cell' are usually also quite concerned about cost per unit. Those more interested in durability, ie the PF-500 with the metal inserts are typically not hung up on this cell size debate.

When we started, we got all PF-500 series frames, the ones with the metal insert. Wind the clock forward now for 9 years, every one of them is still in good shape. In our third year with bees, I tried to save some bucks, bought a few cases of PF-100 frames, the less expensive ones without the metal inserts. I've had quite a number of 'broken ears' on those since then. If buying Mann Lake frames again going forward, I have no interest any any of the lines that dont include the metal insert in the ear to strengthen the frame. Cell size is a non issue, in reality, bees will build whatever size cells they want. I've got lots of PF-500 and PF-100 frames where they went ahead and built drone comb that's nothing like the embossing.
 
#14 · (Edited)
Just measured cells on some frames with a dial caliper.
Measured across 10 cells. Divided by 10 to calculate average cell sizes below.

PF-120 plastic frames
1.88 in = average .48 mm cell size.

Drawn Foundation Comb
2.27 in = average .577 mm cell size.

Starter Strip Comb - Center of frame
2.02 in = average .513 mm cell size.


Looks like what they are producing falls somewhere between Small Cell & Wax Foundation, pretty close to my starter strip comb, which some might consider "natural".

The averages above include the cell walls. Looks like the PF frames I have from Mann Lake run much less than a .49 mm cell size. I measured the inside diameter of the embossed cell on the plastic frame and came up with .0160 in - or .41 mm.

Maybe someone better at math than me could double check my inches to mm conversion calculations above.
 
#15 · (Edited)
Ran your first 1.88 measurement through an online measuremnt converter, looks like you are pretty close.

Ran your other numbers through, and again, if decimals are rounded up, they are all good.

In your post, you have put the decimal dot in the wrong place, ie, .48 mm cell size should be 4.8 mm cell size LOL.

 
#17 ·
If you measure across 10 cells in the manner employed during biological surveys, then what will be measured is the diameter of 10 cells and either 10 or 11 cell-walls, depending on how much care is taken.
When this measurement is divided by 10, the result will be a fairly good average figure of the cell-spacing involved, but will not provide the average cell-size. This can only be determined by subtracting the thickness of the cell wall, which will be problematic to measure with any accuracy as this will vary according to the age of the comb.

If I were a manufacturer of plastic comb, then the first thing I'd do is select a suitable natural comb to use as a reference - which opens-up it's own can of worms, for how does one decide which comb to select ? Then - I'd pour fine Plaster of Paris into an area chosen as representative of that comb (more worms ..), before measuring a significant number of PoP plugs with an external micrometer. This procedure would provide me with a cell-size diameter which I could then - with all honesty - describe as being 'Natural', and which could therefore be used as a reference diameter for tooling purposes.

But - there would be little point in then measuring across 10 such plastic cells for some kind of confirmation, as the proto cell walls would need to be - in all probability - made much thicker than a natural wax wall due to manufacturing constraints. Thus there will always be a lack of correspondence between cell-size measured at the height of a proto wall, and at the height of a cell fully drawn-out with wax. I can see no way of avoiding this discrepancy - but as the cell wall will thicken with use anyway, and thus the cell-size diameter reduce accordingly - does this really matter ?
LJ
 
#18 ·
I guess it would matter if you are trying to determine cell size or cavity size created by the cell walls. Measuring cell size (including walls) is the same as laying out a ceramic tile floor with joints. How many will fit in any given space is the answer.

Alex
 
#20 ·
The thickness of the few mm of foundations embossed cell walls has very little to do with the functional size of the finished cell. As soon as the bees pull away from that base, they make cell walls their preferred thickness regardless of the base; It is the center to center space of the imprints that controls the working dimension. Another thing that has been mentioned is that every occupancy of the brood cell leaves remains of the cocoons that further reduce diameter: does not change distance spanning 50mm or however you measure it.

In my climate with my bees, the 4.9mm ML pf 1xx series foundation creates a mess of correction and adjustment ridges of wasted and drone cells amounting to near 20% of comb area.

I would like to see well controlled studies to support what advantages there are to different cell nominal diameters. Hunches, convictions, or a few seasons trial with only one type of bee, etc., dont constitute "well controlled" studies.
 
#29 ·
Because combs are both crucial and central to the life of the honeybee. We currently have a situation in which there is a range of cell sizes, from the 'natural-sized' cell (badly termed 'small-cell' - suggesting that it's size is somehow abnormal) to the 'standard-sized' cell (which really ought to be termed 'large-cell' in order for it to be more readily identified as a human invention).

When a situation develops in which there are two extremes of cell-size, it is only a matter of time before some large-cell bees find themselves expected to work within the smaller cells of natural-cell combs. How would you like to be forced to wear shoes two sizes too small, or live in a house where the ceilings were so low you couldn't stand up straight ? (the best analogies I could think of at short notice)
LJ
 
#23 ·
No argument here. It’s simply that the topic has been debated six ways to Sunday already. So, my inquiring mind would be interested in why others renew the debate. . It isn’t a criticism…just a curiousity.
 
#28 ·
>When measured using the 10 cell row measuring technique that would include walls the measurement is 5.105 mm.

This is the normal method of field measuring cell size. So for the purposes of discussion it's 5.105mm cell size. I want 4.9mm. My bees sometimes build as small as 4.6mm.
 
#33 · (Edited)
MB, I meant to ask....
You keep saying your bees do 4.9 - naturally.

Well, what is your real natural cell population range?
It can not be uniformed 4.9mm, top to bottom/side to side.
Does not happen normally.
It should be a range from X mm to Z mm with some predominant sizing Y mm (varies colony by colony too).
For example, 5.2mm-4.6mm and maybe 5.0-4.9mm being predominant range.
I have reported my own observations with pictures and can produce many more examples of natural variability.
I would love to see your representative pictures - trivial to make a few.
 
#31 ·
How on earth can a natural-sized cell be a human invention ? The size I'm talking about - whatever it happens to be - predates the Lusby's, indeed predates the human race by a few million years.
LJ

PS. It would be helpful if you did not trim a quotation to fit your argument.
We currently have a situation in which there is a range of cell sizes, from the 'natural-sized' cell (badly termed 'small-cell' - suggesting that it's size is somehow abnormal) to the 'standard-sized' cell (which really ought to be termed 'large-cell' in order for it to be more readily identified as a human invention).
Nowhere in my post do I specifically refer to 4.9mm.
 
#32 ·
Nowhere in my post do I specifically refer to 4.9mm.
You’re the one who associated 'natural-sized’ and ‘small-cell’. I would say that small cell is pretty commonly the term for 4.9mm in beekeeping circles.
I trim quotes I post so that readers can see what specifically I am responding to without having to read entire posts to try to infer it. It has absolutely nothing to do with changing context.
I’m not going to play semantic games with you.
My only point was that foundation comes in several different sizes. There is absolutely no scientific evidence that one size is healthier or works better than the others. So….to my original statement….why does anyone care?
 
#37 ·
>There is absolutely no scientific evidence that one size is healthier or works better than the others.
Not true:
Unsure either way.

I have already reported on wild bees of Russia, like here:
https://www.beesource.com/forums/sh...ee-trees-log-hives-etc)&p=1699509#post1699509
Those bees have been persisting fine when left to their own devices completely or only managed at very primitive levels.
The natural cell size for those particular bees ~5.4mm.
Those are naturally large bees.
About the same applies to the bees of Russian Far East (the original mite-resistant stock imported into the USA).

So - natural size varies race by race.
 
#41 ·
I have a lot more productive things to do than shoehorning larger bees into smaller cell denomination frames. Regressing! yah! right! I tried the 4.9 mm foundation and my bees showed me what they thought of it. I think they made more of a mess of it than they really had to just to make their point!;)
 
#43 · (Edited)
I have a lot more productive things to do than shoehorning larger bees into smaller cell denomination frames. Regressing! yah! right! I tried the 4.9 mm foundation and my bees showed me what they thought of it. I think they made more of a mess of it than they really had to just to make their point!
Back in the old days when I thought I cared about such things I attempted to regress about thirty hives. The rules that were being espoused then were that you first had them draw out an intermediate foundation of 5.1mm. I did that and my bees drew that out pretty well. Then I began inserting frames of 4.9 as per the rules of the day. I had to cull the majority as they were a mess. And a second attempt didn’t go much better. During the second season I got them forced down and within two seasons after, all collapsed under the mite load.
It was costly in terms of material, bees and my time.
 
#46 ·
Y'all hold on while I go get some beer and popcorn, this thread is a blast to read.

Simple definitions according to JWP.

Natural sized comb, whatever the bees produce on a foundationless frame. I imagine the actual dimensions change throughout the season but I have never felt the need nor had the inclination to measure.

Small cell, by consensus, anything at or below 4.9mm. If the bees draw 4.9 cells, it is natural for them. If they dont, forcing 4.9 on them is un-natural.

Large cell, what the queen lays drone eggs in. I do not need a ruler to find these cells or know what they are.

I suspect most bees are happy to use the cell sizes embossed on traditional foundation. When they want to make cells of another size, they do. That is why many foundation frames still have drone comb in the corners.

Why I may or may not care, I do not want excessive drone comb and I do want wax. After the flow, my predominantly drone frames, which are now filled with nectar, will be moved into the upper box and culled next spring. If the bees need more drone comb next year, they will have to draw it anew on the foundationless frames I give them.

Cheers!
 
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