# Foundationless study



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

My apologies if this has already been posted.
Check study number 15.
http://www.extension.org/pages/Proceedings_of_the_American_Bee_Research_Conference,_2009
Varroa were significantly lower with foundationless but in both cases (foudation and foundationless) above economic thresholds. This occurred in spite of the fact that the foundationless hives had significantly more drone cells. Interesting.
Equally interesting that the average worker cell in the foundationless hives was 5.4mm (natural cells) and the average worker cell size did not get smaller over the three year period.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

beemandan said:


> interesting that the average worker cell in the foundationless hives was 5.4mm (natural cells) and the average worker cell size did not get smaller over the three year period.


Explain why you find this interesting.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Barry said:


> Explain why you find this interesting.


Barry, there are a number of folks who insist that bees left to draw their own comb, without foundation, will ‘progress to regress’ (my words) and with each succeeding generation draw smaller cells until they reach their natural size. This is claimed, by some, to be smaller than 5mm. In this study the bees failed to show any indication of that progress.


----------



## Delta Bay (Dec 4, 2009)

> This study suggests that an increased mite reproduction rate in drone cells (Martin 1994 Exp Appl Acarol 18: 87-100) may not increase total Varroa reproduction in drone producing colonies.


This suggests that drone culling is not such a good idea! If we look at the Russian and AHB they also produce a higher % of drone brood. If more mites are in drone brood and the total is the same, less are in worker brood. I would also think that the worker bees would be healthier because of this. Really looks as though the drones are the tonsils of the hive.(Infection gatherers, protecting the rest of the hive) 
I've not seen my bees building natural worker brood comb at 5.4mm. They range from 4.9mm to 5.2mm


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

When you say "each succeeding generation draw smaller cells until they reach their natural size.", do you(they) mean ALL the cells get smaller, or just SOME of the cells? I know from what I've seen with "natural" comb, some of the cells get very small (4.5 mm) while other cells get really big, like in the 7.2 mm range. Obviously some (smaller) cells are used for brood while other cells (large) are used for honey storage.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

beemandan said:


> Varroa were significantly lower with foundationless but in both cases (foudation and foundationless) above economic thresholds.


So this study measures mites. OK, let's agree that in the realm of mite loads, there is no significant difference between the two sizes. Wonder why it is then that I've not seen mite problems with my SC hives?


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Barry said:


> Obviously some (smaller) cells are used for brood while other cells (large) are used for honey storage.


I don’t think its an unreasonable expectation to believe that the fellows conducting this study knew the difference between worker, drone and honey storage cells. They said worker cells, so I have to believe that’s what they measured. The average in this study…..5.4mm



Barry said:


> Wonder why it is then that I've not seen mite problems with my SC hives?


That’s a million dollar question. But, I don’t see what it has to do with this study. In this study they were comparing foundation with natural cell. 

The real question, in my opinion, is why, when your bees produce 'natural cell' is it significantly smaller than what the bees in this study produced. This, by the way, is why I originally said it was 'interesting'.



Delta Bay said:


> This suggests that drone culling is not such a good idea!


If these results can be duplicated it would surely debunk the premise that the more drone cells, the higher the varroa populations. On the other hand, it would be interesting to see how many drones these colonies produced i.e. are the number of drones produced proportional to the number of cells.


----------



## odfrank (May 13, 2002)

If bees need to be "regressed" to properly produce "small cell", what tells us that foundationless bees are properly producing " natural cell" sizes?

And since the small cell proponents suggest that small cell is different at different latitudes, how do we know what natural cell size is for our area and what percent of cells are what size?


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Lusby's have studied size in relation to geography, http://www.beesource.com/point-of-v...oundation-for-mite-control/is-smaller-better/
but percent of smaller cells to larger in the brood, I have no idea. My general observation is about 10 to 20 percent.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

odfrank said:


> If bees need to be "regressed" to properly produce "small cell", what tells us that foundationless bees are properly producing " natural cell" sizes?


Actually, it seems like it's the other way around to me. If bee's need to be 'regressed' to produce 'small cell' what tells us that small cell is natural? You see, in my opinion, foundationless is natural and small cell may or may not be, depending on variables that no one seems to understand.


----------



## bigbearomaha (Sep 3, 2009)

I am wondering what the point is for the need to "average out" cell size on a comb?

Cell size and use of those cells for different purposes on the comb is specific.

Averaging the cell size across the entire comb really accomplishes little to nothing.

in one natural comb, you will find honey stores cells that are a different size from worker brood cells which are a different size from drone brood cells.

Each cell with it's own purpose and size to meet that purpose. 

Averaging across comb accomplishes nothing in that light.

Ican see trying to average the worker brood cells in a comb or the stores cells in a comb, but not all cells combined.

just me maybe.

Big Bear


----------



## Countryboy (Feb 15, 2009)

The extract that I read did not make it clear if they continuously (over 2 or 3 years) added foundationless frames into the broodnest, or if they allowed bees to keep all drawn combs. In making splits, how did they add the extra foundationless frames?

Part of regressing bees involves adding frames into the broodnest, rather than adding empty frames outside the broodnest, where bees may draw larger cells used for different purposes, and then later used for brood when the broodnest expands. If you want a comb the bees made specifically for brood rearing, the empty frame needs to be placed into the broodnest.

_I am wondering what the point is for the need to "average out" cell size on a comb?_

Go measure one cell accurately. You'll understand then. Most cells may be similar sized, but there are size discrepancies. When you measure across 10 cells, those minor size differences are less noticeable. Also, you must be better at measuring one cell than I am - for me, it is much easier to measure 10 cells, and then divide by 10.

_Averaging the cell size across the entire comb really accomplishes little to nothing._

Who said anything about doing that?

_Averaging across comb accomplishes nothing in that light._

Again, who said anything about averaging across comb?

_in one natural comb, you will find honey stores cells that are a different size from worker brood cells which are a different size from drone brood cells._

And if you look at a patch of worker cells, and measure across 10 of them, and find the average worker cell size...

_Ican see trying to average the worker brood cells in a comb or the stores cells in a comb, but not all cells combined._

Now you're catching on. :thumbsup:


----------



## pahvantpiper (Apr 25, 2006)

"Really looks as though the drones are the tonsils of the hive.(Infection gatherers, protecting the rest of the hive)"

I totally believe this!!! In my observation, hives with no drone brood are the ones typically to have problems with foulbrood. Drone brood = no foulbrood.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

beemandan said:


> The real question, in my opinion, is why, when your bees produce 'natural cell' is it significantly smaller than what the bees in this study produced.


I don't let my bees build "natural" cells but have always used SC foundation so I can't address this firsthand.


----------



## bigbearomaha (Sep 3, 2009)

Countryboy, that was my point.

The discussion seemed to me to be talking about averaging cell sizes across the whole comb. Hence my comment.

it was not clear that you were only talking averaging worker cell size, at the time, you simply said 'cell size"

again, clear communication helps.

We are on the same page now it seems though.

Big Bear


----------



## Delta Bay (Dec 4, 2009)

beemandan said:


> The real question, in my opinion, is why, when your bees produce 'natural cell' is it significantly smaller than what the bees in this study produced. This, by the way, is why I originally said it was 'interesting'.


I noticed in the study the natural comb bees had about 33% drone brood compared to the 1% of the foundation bees. This seems like a very high amount of drone brood. 33% drone comb is outside of what I would consider normal for my natural comb bees. About 15% is what I see in my hives.




> Plentiful drone production was evident in the second year of group 2007 natural cell colonies, as opposed to controls. In first year natural cell colonies, drone production was not as evident.


I wonder what time of the year these splits where made? I wonder if they where in storage mode building?


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Delta Bay said:


> 33% drone comb is outside of what I would consider normal for my natural comb bees. About 15% is what I see in my hives.


33% seems close to what I see in my foundationless hives. That has been one of my concerns. Based on these results, I may need to rethink my 'concerns'.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Countryboy said:


> The extract that I read did not make it clear if they continuously (over 2 or 3 years) added foundationless frames into the broodnest, or if they allowed bees to keep all drawn combs. In making splits, how did they add the extra foundationless frames?


However it was done, there were new foundationless frames introduced into the ‘system’ during the study….and note that they started with ‘natural cell’ bees.



Countryboy said:


> If you want a comb the bees made specifically for brood rearing, the empty frame needs to be placed into the broodnest.


The guys conducting this study are bright enough to understand this.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

countryboy hit the nail on the head here. the key is in the management details.



> there were new foundationless frames introduced into the ‘system’ during the study….


yes, but where? when? under what circumstances?

one would think that since such management details are important, that they would have specified how it was done.

deknow


----------



## Bodo (Mar 11, 2008)

deknow said:


> one would think that since such management details are important, that they would have specified how it was done.


It's a shame too. This 'study' could have been important. 
Does anyone have a copy of the full article?


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

deknow said:


> countryboy hit the nail on the head here. the key is in the management details.
> one would think that since such management details are important, that they would have specified how it was done.


Since all we've seen is the abstract, I'm not surprised that we didn't get all of the details. Why would 'one' suppose that they didn't understand the important management details? Once again, I'd like to suggest that these guys are somewhat above semi-bright.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

what is really weird about the abstract presented is that it was printed in 2009, and the study started in 2007...yet they report 3 year results?



> Cells of natural cell colonies did not decrease in size between 2 years (2007) and 3 years (2008) of management without foundation.


so, what is going on here? the "3 years (2008)" either means that the colonies were started in 2005 (and observed 3 years later, in 2008), or they were started in 2008 and measured 3 years later (in 2011).

regardless of whether you think these folks are smart or not, without knowing more about what they did, there is nothing really to evaluate here.

deknow


----------



## Delta Bay (Dec 4, 2009)

deknow said:


> without knowing more about what they did, there is nothing really to evaluate here.
> deknow


Maybe not, but it makes me question the value of drone culling. This is something I will be looking at for my own interest.


----------



## kennedy (Jul 31, 2009)

Beemandan thanks for the post although it gets into advanced bee biology that i study but dont fully understand.I think the study is very inportant in that its proof the health of honey bees can be affected in a positive way by natural beekeeping management. as far as bee not getting smaller on natural cell.i line bees sometimes and never fellow the fat ones as i sometimes end up in someones backyard much regards kennedy


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

kennedy said:


> I think the study is very inportant in that its proof the health of honey bees can be affected in a positive way by natural beekeeping management.


I believe that there are natural ways to manage bees that improve their health. In this study they state that the varroa population was significantly lower in the natural cell....even with an apparent increase in drone production. On the other hand the natural cell colonies produced significantly less honey....which would not likely be good for their well being. I, too, will be interested in reading the complete study.


----------



## doc25 (Mar 9, 2007)

beemandan said:


> I believe that there are natural ways to manage bees that improve their health. In this study they state that the varroa population was significantly lower in the natural cell....even with an apparent increase in drone production. On the other hand the natural cell colonies produced significantly less honey....which would not likely be good for their well being. I, too, will be interested in reading the complete study.


Maybe less honey was produced based on the fact that somewhere around 33% of the hive would not be needing to eat come winter or those **** drones ate too much? 

You'd have to figure out how many bees were going to overwinter from the hive and divide it by the amount of bees to see if they produced less per bee.

When you really think about it answering all questions with one study would be impossible. What was the original question of the study?


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

doc25 said:


> Maybe less honey was produced based on the fact that somewhere around 33% of the hive would not be needing to eat come winter or those **** drones ate too much?


No doubt that nuturing a boatload of drones took a lot of energy...they suggested as much in the abstract.
I really don't know what the original objective of the study might have been. I just ran across the abstract while searching for something else.


----------



## MichaelW (Jun 1, 2005)

Hi guys, sorry its been so slow to put my results from the foundationless study into a complete article. A pollination study, which is for my Masters, and my job have really taken up my time. I am within about 4 weeks though of being able to go back to my notebook and data tables to write this up. At this point, it would be better to precisely define what I did in an article format then to discuss generally here, but keep up the debate. It helps to think about what I can address. Scientific questions are statistical in nature, and I still have some data that has not yet been analyzed. You have seen all the statistical results from the varroa mites, bee population, and cell size, but there is some more data about comb building and timing that may address some of the other questions. I have not fully analyzed this data myself yet, partially due to lack of statistical knowledge. I finished a course in Mixed Models in SAS this past semester, and this will help get some things done.


----------



## Myron Denny (Sep 27, 2009)

Some of us "oldtimers" might not still be here in 4 weeks, give us a clue what you did and how long it took for your study. This winter is taking its toll on people!


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

I never cull drone comb or drones and there is more drone comb with foundationless. But I don't believe there are more drones. According to the research on the subject, they make the same number of drones no matter what.

As far as size, as Dean points out, what size you get depends on many things. Combs drawn during a flow tend to be large for honey storage. Combs drawn earlier tend to be for brood and are smaller. I typically get natural worker cells in the core of the brood nest that are 4.7mm and the grow up from there as you move to the outside edges of the brood nest, both on the same comb and on combs further out in the brood nest. But an empty frame put in the brood nest during a flow will be drawn much larger.

Some of us have been observing this a bit longer than three years...


----------



## fat/beeman (Aug 23, 2002)

hello
I am not trying to convince anyone =anything,here's what I see on a good flow the bees [in brood chamber] seem to draw 4.9 or smaller on my own studies I have noticed even if I don't use full sheets of foundation they will draw smaller cells in brood area. the amounts of drone comb seems to be related to swarm preparation. but cell size seems to be slightly larger the higher you go up in supers.
my research was done with any grants or government money or even the chemical company. so many people make lot of argument about this topic but only have a few hives 4-10 maybe being said that what makes then a expert? believe what you want.

Don


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

one (not the only one) of the issues is the expanding broodnest.

if you use foundation (all worker size) throughout a box, near 100% of those cells will be very close to 5.4 (talking lc foundation here).

in a foundationless system, the cluster gets to a certain size, and starts putting drone and honey cells outside the broodnest. this happens before the hive is "full grown".

when the colony grows beyond this size, and increases the size of the broodnest, you now have some drone and honey storage cells in the broodnest. in nature, the colony would tend to choose a smallish cavity to build a nest in, and would swarm.

as beekeepers, we are trying to redirect this swarming impulse into honey production.

when you are working with a growing foundationless colony, you need to help the bees expand the broodnest by moving some of this drone and honey storage comb out, making room for more broodcomb adjacent to the existing broodnest, not outside the drone and honey comb.

this is not an issue if you are using all worker foundation, as the foundation dictates that throughout the box, almost everything is worker cell sized....as the cluster grows and shrinks it stays on almost 100% worker comb.

this has nothing to do with researchers being smart or not...it has to do with experience with acutally working with foundationless colonies. i have no idea what was done in this study, but the management required for foundationless and foundation when growing a colony is really different. 

if the foundationless frames were not maniuplated to help build the broodnest, how would one expect the cell size to reduce over the course of the study? without the ability to build new broodcomb in the middle of the broodnest (or let them swarm or shake them down), how is the size of the cell (with coccoons from emerging bees embedded in it) supposed to change size? by magic? 

foundation virtually eliminates the bees' ability to make a variety of cell sizes, which changes the entire dynamics of a growing colony and it's relationship to the comb. when you go back to letting the bees do what they do, you have to pay attention to what they are doing, what your goals are, and how to get there.

deknow


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

deknow said:


> when you go back to letting the bees do what they do, you have to pay attention to what they are doing, what your goals are, and how to get there.


In other words, you have to manage them. So going foundationless isn't really "natural" if you are manipulating comb around. I think we all need to wait till Michael has the time to lay out the data and show the details before jumping to any conclusions.


----------



## bigbearomaha (Sep 3, 2009)

I don't think using the term "natural" as if it were an all or none situation would be the right direction to go either.

all creatures, including people, exhibit 'natural' behaviors in a variety of settings, be they 'natural' setting's or 'manufactured'

comb that has been fully drawn, without man made foundation, is a naturally occurring behavior or situation as the act of drawing comb without an underlying foundation is what they do 'naturally'.

calling something 'natural' beekeeping as an approach or style of beekeeping is not the same thing as incorporating 'natural' elements into a manufactured environment.

so no, I would agree that by itself, allowing 'naturally' drawn comb in your hive is not 'natural beekeeping' it is still a 'natural' element.

Big Bear


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Maybe better to use the term "natural drawn comb", with the understanding that there is still management and manipulation behind that term.


----------



## stangardener (Mar 8, 2005)

Maybe better to use the term "natural drawn comb", with the understanding that there is still management and manipulation behind that term.

"foundationless comb" is also a good description.


----------



## doc25 (Mar 9, 2007)

An interesting point is that you are starting them in say 2 deeps and keep adding space. They prepare comb for the limitations of the original cavity size and so we must help out with the expansion. If you were to say start them with 6 deeps the hive configuration might be different, unless as deknow stated above when the bees reached "their" natural cavity limitation they would swarm regardless of space.

You would think after mankind keeping bees for so long we would have a clue why and how they do things!


----------

