# Plastic Frames and Regression



## hillhousehoney (Oct 7, 2008)

Mr. Parker,
While reading your blog, I noticed the Mann Lake pf105 frames. I was not aware that there was any plastic frame advertised as 4.9 except for Honey Super Cell which I have been using as my primary regression tool prior to adding in the Mann Lake pf120 frames which are 4.95.
In the caption above the picture with the caliper you mention that they are about 4.9. Can you elaborate a little more on "about". As in which way of 4.9. In other words are they truly smaller than the pf120 frames. 
If they are do you feel that this would be a viable first step in regression, or is the HSC still king because of the cell being fully drawn and small (4.83) at the bottom.
It sure would save on purchasing the HSC. Thanks for your time. Others, please offer your observations as well.


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

The PF-100's are the deep version of the PF-120. The PF-105 are the black version of PF-100.

You are correct, they are as far as I can tell about 4.95mm in diameter. I had intended to put the 5 in there, but somehow I missed it and have yet to go back and fix it. As far as I know, they are exactly the same size as the PF-120.

As far as regression, while I've heard from Barry and others that they are a viable first and only step in regression, I regressed all mine from packages on wax 4.9mm foundation and therefore cannot offer any direct experience. I consider them the only step necessary for myself with my already regressed bees, and I do not intend to artificially go smaller. I intend to keep them in use as long as they are serviceable. 

Having only measured one frame of foundationless worker comb built by small cell workers and finding it near 5.2mm, I'm not sure it would be necessary in my area to go smaller than that due to regional variability. I am experimenting with more foundationless frames this year to see if they are a viable option for long term use in my operation. As of yet, the PF-105's are also an experiment as I have not tried them before. They come well recommended, so I am confident they will produce results. Quick tip, order them in multiples of 30, that's how they're originally packaged.

After doing a little economic analysis, I found them to be the most economical option for small cell available, at least among the options I was willing to consider. Foundationless are technically cheaper, but I had not tried them yet. For me, a frame/foundation set costs about $2 per unit. PF-105 costs about $1.70. Even with a reported 'failure' rate of about 10%, it's still economical, not to mention, very convenient labor wise.

On the other hand, regression is not as necessary as it once was with the availability of small cell package bees and nucs, treated as they may be. But I don't know your situation. 

What is your situation? What did you start with, how are you regressing, how far have you come?


----------



## hillhousehoney (Oct 7, 2008)

*Boy, do I feel . . . . . . .*

stupid. That explains it. I had just never noticed the black frames before and assumed they were something new. My fault. Sorry. I use Honey Super Cell for a few brood cycles. Then adding in the Mann Lake PF frame and pulling out the HSC. The bees have always taken well to the plastic, but I have considered foundationless. I see you wire the frames. I would do that as well. Anyway, all of my hives are regressed now, and about to be split into 12 hives. I will split via walk away. With the HSC I have removed, I will use them for the packages arriving in a couple weeks. Should be around 24 hives by the end of Spring if all continues to go well. Year four without chems or treatments, and sucess so far. Good winter survival and I don't even look for mites. I wish there were small cell bees for sale in my area, but have yet to locate any. Thank you for taking the time to respond, and thank you for your willingness to moderate this new forum. TW


----------

