# Premier Foundation



## HiveTime (Sep 9, 2021)

Curious if anyone has tried foundation from Premier? If so were the results positive? Thanks!


----------



## MJC417 (Jul 26, 2008)

Premier foundation looks to be a new product line. So, you probably won't get much feedback. If its anything like Acorn foundation Im sure it's a fine product. Acorn seems to be a bit cheaper. You probably won't go wrong with either one. Pierco? Never again.


----------



## HiveTime (Sep 9, 2021)

Thanks. I was actually considering between all 3 to get started, typically I would go tried and true but Premier looks interesting, especially in regards to their wax sourcing. Just curious what seemed to be the issue with Pierco? I had been looking at their foundation (framed in wood) as an option.


----------



## JustBees (Sep 7, 2021)

I think it was price point, and rigidity of the foundation.

If you do your own wax coating you won't have to worry about importing wax from outside sources.


----------



## William Bagwell (Sep 4, 2019)

JustBees said:


> If you do your own wax coating you won't have to worry about importing wax from outside sources.


Interesting that Premier states "Choose from no wax, premier heavy wax, and platinum extra-heavy wax to suit your needs." yet only heavy and extra heavy are listed for sale.


----------



## Amibusiness (Oct 3, 2016)

For the "no wax" choice you have to buy one of the other options but you can then melt it off yourself.....


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

My guess is that no wax option would be a small percentage of sales. I wonder if their higher cell count gives smaller center to center cell size. They tout the thinner cell walls as being the cause. The video sure does look like some nice comb being drawn out.


----------



## William Bagwell (Sep 4, 2019)

Amibusiness said:


> For the "no wax" choice you have to buy one of the other options but you can then melt it off yourself.....


Might as well shop elsewhere for lowest price.

From their "Cell Sizes of Bee Foundation Explained" page, 
"Perhaps you’ve already caught the error: A string of 10 cells includes _11 cell walls_. Uh-oh!" 
A machinist or draftsman would never make that error and measure center to center if possible or inside edge to outside edge. Why assume _all_ beekeepers make this error?

And this,
"Through our new measurement methods mentioned above with high-resolution microscopes, we determined the natural cell size to be 4.93 mm exactly. 
But remember, this number includes the _cell interior only_. You may be tempted to think this number is close to small-cell foundation, but small-cell foundation’s 4.9 mm or smaller dimensions were derived from standard measurement methods — i.e., the inclusion of cell walls in the measurement."
So roughly equivalent to 5.1 mm sold elsewhere? If so, I agree, have read that 5.1 is more natural than 5.4 or 4.9. Just wish vendors would explain in ways you can compare. 

Not picking on you Amibusiness, just throwing this out for all to see.


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

*"with high-resolution microscopes, we determined the natural cell size to be 4.93 mm exactly." *A bunch of important sounding horse feathers! Not a good omen!


----------



## Amibusiness (Oct 3, 2016)

I hope they were looking at something waxy through those scopes and not hamburger meat.... What was so off with the old methods of measuring again?


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

Amibusiness said:


> I hope they were looking at something waxy through those scopes and not hamburger meat.... What was so off with the old methods of measuring again?


Convoluted rationalization of the merits of small cell and housel positioning, and conspiracy involved in enlarging cell size of foundation. Many pages of posts. A study in the power of human conviction.


----------



## Amibusiness (Oct 3, 2016)

Yes yes, maybe I misunderstood you, Frank. I was meaning the actual technique of measuring, not the outcome. If the outcome of the old measurements is tainted by the measurers convictions, how is a microscope going to change that?


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

Amibusiness said:


> Yes yes, maybe I misunderstood you, Frank. I was meaning the actual technique of measuring, not the outcome. If the outcome of the old measurements is tainted by the measurers convictions, how is a microscope going to change that?


I call BS when I see an attempt to insinuate quality by trying to impress with their ridicuoulous accuracy scenario. A bit like claiming quality by saying the stove wood you deliver is exactly 16inches in length plus or minus a thirty second of an inch!

Had they stopped at saying the cell walls were thinner and approaching what bees naturally build, I would have bought it. What they got off into was either deliberately misleading or messed up in transcribing by someone not being familiar with what they were typing. I suspect maybe the latter but it should have been caught in the proofreeding then.

It may be really good foundation. I am not suggesting otherwise but I see a bit of a red flag. I hope I am wrong.


----------



## Amibusiness (Oct 3, 2016)

Indeed. And they all seem to work fine for most of the people who use them. I guess maybe there is a section of the market who looks for that sort of "detail" and will therefore trust them more. So they get that edge....


----------



## KellyW (May 16, 2020)

Frederick Dunn has done a Youtube comparison of the two brands.


----------



## e-spice (Sep 21, 2013)

MJC417 said:


> Premier foundation looks to be a new product line. So, you probably won't get much feedback. If its anything like Acorn foundation Im sure it's a fine product. Acorn seems to be a bit cheaper. You probably won't go wrong with either one. Pierco? Never again.


Care to share any experience about Pierco?


----------



## joebeewhisperer (May 13, 2020)

Yep. I’ve used it. A friend bought a pallet of 800 deep frames assembled with Premier and I took 100. I put most of them in play immediately. I’ll try to give some detail soon (maybe tomorrow), but this will be long enough to require my keyboard and not my phone. Lol


----------



## Thorting (Apr 18, 2020)

I purchased Premier foundation and 20 cells measured 106.0 mm making the cell size 5.30mm/cell. Acorn is slightly smaller 20 size measured 104.1 making cell size slightly over 5.2mm/cell. Neither is small cell, but Premier has not been honest about their cell size and theirs is actually bigger than one of the best. I actually use MannLake pf120 that 20 cells measured 99.5 mm with a cell size of 4.98 mm/cell.


----------



## HiveTime (Sep 9, 2021)

joebeewhisperer said:


> Yep. I’ve used it. A friend bought a pallet of 800 deep frames assembled with Premier and I took 100. I put most of them in play immediately. I’ll try to give some detail soon (maybe tomorrow), but this will be long enough to require my keyboard and not my phone. Lol


Look forward to hearing more about your experience @joebeewhisperer !


----------



## edzkoda (Aug 9, 2014)

Thorting said:


> I purchased Premier foundation and 20 cells measured 106.0 mm making the cell size 5.30mm/cell. Acorn is slightly smaller 20 size measured 104.1 making cell size slightly over 5.2mm/cell. Neither is small cell, but Premier has not been honest about their cell size and theirs is actually bigger than one of the best. I actually use MannLake pf120 that 20 cells measured 99.5 mm with a cell size of 4.98 mm/cell.


Not claiming to be smaller size. Just the opisite. The cell wall size is thinner.


----------



## edzkoda (Aug 9, 2014)

We switched to Premier. One of the things we appreciate is how the owner has never claimed that you cant get good results from others. Just to help clarify, after many calls and meetings, as well as using it for several years. The owner is not a beekeeper. When he went into this adventure, he sent the big name foundations to an independent lab for research. After this he had folks from all over send in naturally drawn foundation to check sizes. The results were , bees draw out comb with cell walls 1/3 (approx.) thiner than the plastic foundation that was being sold. That was what Premier was designed from, the bees. To us it made sense to follow what the bees did. Thought that if the bees had to make less wax then they could be more productive elsewhere. We were long time users of Acorn and belive many will still get good results from it. We have had better production with Premier so follow what is working for us or whats working for the bees


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

After the bees pull away from the cell base provided by the foundation, they will build the same thickness cell wall, will they not? Not expecting that would be easily answered without some close scrutiny. I wonder if it is a claim from hypothesis. The proof of the pudding is in the tasting! Will have to see how it pans out. I have seen some of mine get distorted if left in the sun for only a minute or two. Wonder how the Premier will be in this respect, being thinner.


----------



## edzkoda (Aug 9, 2014)

crofter said:


> I call BS when I see an attempt to insinuate quality by trying to impress with their ridicuoulous accuracy scenario. A bit like claiming quality by saying the stove wood you deliver is exactly 16inches in length plus or minus a thirty second of an inch!
> 
> Had they stopped at saying the cell walls were thinner and approaching what bees naturally build, I would have bought it. What they got off into was either deliberately misleading or messed up in transcribing by someone not being familiar with what they were typing. I suspect maybe the latter but it should have been caught in the proofreeding then.
> 
> It may be really good foundation. I am not suggesting otherwise but I see a bit of a red flag. I hope I am wrong.


Agree that all that need to be said was the cell wall being thinner. But I have counted and while Acorn is the closest there are some some with pretty big differnces.


crofter said:


> After the bees pull away from the cell base provided by the foundation, they will build the same thickness cell wall, will they not? Not expecting that would be easily answered without some close scrutiny. I wonder if it is a claim from hypothesis. The proof of the pudding is in the tasting! Will have to see how it pans out. I have seen some of mine get distorted if left in the sun for only a minute or two. Wonder how the Premier will be in this respect, being thinner.




From what I have seen and heard
the bees will continue to draw out what the , shall we say pattern or imprint is.


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

Did a quick search but did not find Canadian dealers for it. Getting price shock at a lot of beekeeping supplies lately. Not seeing much promise that its a temporary situation either.


----------



## Thorting (Apr 18, 2020)

This is the page in which Premier explains there cell size. https://www.premierbeeproducts.com/blog/cell-sizes-of-bee-foundation-explained

When most people measure they measure center to center or leading edge to leading edge. Not sure of the blonde logic that Premier uses on its measurements. I know that the bees will draw the comb the way they want immediately after they get off the foundation. If I use small cell foundation and the bees are not fully regressed and want it a little big they will and fan them out and skip a column. All walls that the bees draw are paper thin and can be seen as it is drawn.


----------



## edzkoda (Aug 9, 2014)

crofter said:


> Did a quick search but did not find Canadian dealers for it. Getting price shock at a lot of beekeeping supplies lately. Not seeing much promise that its a temporary situation either.


Send an adress and I will send you a few to decide for yourself.


----------



## joebeewhisperer (May 13, 2020)

OK, so I put in most of 100 frames and a flow started immediately. My bees were reluctant to lay eggs in the Premier, although I saw a JC Chrisman video where he said the opposite. The gentleman I buy wooden ware from also said the opposite.

As far as being different, it is porous-feeling. Without wax this would almost feel gritty. The top and bottom comes off to a thinner bevel, as if you took an Acorn or Pierco foundation and carefully ground a 3/4” (approx) horizontal stripe across the top and bottom.

On the pros: They draw it out evenly, like they can start in 4 different places and it still ends up being symmetrical at some point (assuming the population and flow hold out, and bee space is maintained). In fact, I’d wager that you might melt the wax off and they might still draw it out eventually (not so with smoother types). So I’m not saying it’s without benefit.

On the cons: I do believe that a slightly smaller cell and/or the design makes for a thinner cell wall and a quicker draw. However, this makes for some tender cells that my queens didn’t like putting eggs in. It also make for some careful cutting of cappings to avoid jerking chunks of comb out. It also melts quickly in sunlight, although foragers are quick to snatch it up if they find it first.

I eventually extracted some then put those frames back in the center of brood nests where they were used for brood the second time around.

I’m not knocking the product or company. I think they may be headed in a good direction. If you used it exclusively in a hive they would have no choice but to lay in it (and build to their own specs).

My experiment also had some holes in it.

1. I prewax almost every frame I use so I don’t mind using the sturdier Acorn or Pierco even if it takes a thicker wall because I have already saved them a ton of work and resources. I bought 100 ML foundations from Mr Binnie and those things are very think by comparison to either of the others. Haven’t used them yet.
2. A flow started immediately after I installed these so it’s possible they were just in hyper-storage mode. But this seems odd given some of the placements (where I expected brood).
3. On uncapping I have little experience so that factors in to me ripping chunks. It did not all turn out that way, but it did require extra care. 
4. A box of foundation (or in my case 100 frames) is not a good enough sample. But it’s likely to be all the testing I do with these fir a while.

I bought these because my buddy said he had a hive last fall that was drawing comb in Oct. this was an observation hive so temps were warm and food was plentiful. My aim was to try and see if the comb-drawing season could be extended by 1-2 weeks on each end.

I asked my wooden ware guy for some deep frames around July. I then looked over and saw that he had a pallet of Premier and only Premier. I told him I’d just take 30 because I needed them that weekend. The next time I was in his shop he had 2 boxes of Acorn sitting out. I bought one of them.


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

Thorting said:


> This is the page in which Premier explains there cell size. https://www.premierbeeproducts.com/blog/cell-sizes-of-bee-foundation-explained
> 
> When most people measure they measure center to center or leading edge to leading edge. Not sure of the blonde logic that Premier uses on its measurements. I know that the bees will draw the comb the way they want immediately after they get off the foundation. If I use small cell foundation and the bees are not fully regressed and want it a little big they will and fan them out and skip a column. All walls that the bees draw are paper thin and can be seen as it is drawn.


That was my experience with small cell plastic PF100 series. A correction ridge every so often when cells developed too much lean from being cramped. Close to 20% garbled, drone or unusable. When a real good flow on it drew out better. Not a fan of small cells per se. _"Blonde logic"; _can I borrow that?


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

edzkoda said:


> Send an adress and I will send you a few to decide for yourself.


Is that addresses of Canadian dealers?


----------



## edzkoda (Aug 9, 2014)

crofter said:


> Is that addresses of Canadian dealers?


No Sir, just shoot me an adress and I wil send you a few to try out


----------



## edzkoda (Aug 9, 2014)

edzkoda said:


> No Sir, just shoot me an adress and I wil send you a few to try out


Sorry about spelling ,


----------



## joebeewhisperer (May 13, 2020)

crofter said:


> Close to 20% garbled, drone or unusable.


I really hate to defend this stuff but I didn’t find them having to adjust every so often. Sometimes in a nuc they start drawing one quadrant then maybe I would switch the frame or they would get distracted. I might come back in a few days and find them drawing a patch several inches from where they started the first. When the 2 sections would meet they did a good job finishing in out pretty evenly. Of course when you get ADD efforts, they sometimes draw one comb out into the next frame’s space. But I think that remains true with other foundations as well.


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

edzkoda said:


> No Sir, just shoot me an adress and I wil send you a few to try out


Thanks for the offer;
I wouldnt feel right about you going to that expense and trouble. I will keep an eye out and see if a Canadian dealer takes them on.


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

joebeewhisperer said:


> I really hate to defend this stuff but I didn’t find them having to adjust every so often. Sometimes in a nuc they start drawing one quadrant then maybe I would switch the frame or they would get distracted. I might come back in a few days and find them drawing a patch several inches from where they started the first. When the 2 sections would meet they did a good job finishing in out pretty evenly. Of course when you get ADD efforts, they sometimes draw one comb out into the next frame’s space. But I think that remains true with other foundations as well.


I dont have any experience with regressing bees or why some bees seem to accept smaller than industry standard with no problems while others struggle. Like I say some of it got drawn without a hiccup and others progressively leaned the cell structure then built a row of jumble that looked a bit like a stone fence and then struck off again with cells normal angle. Rinse and repeat. 

This is off topic of the Premier Foundation and no way suggesting it would have similar issues. Other posters in the thread show some beautifully drawn comb.


----------



## edzkoda (Aug 9, 2014)

crofter said:


> Thanks for the offer;
> I wouldnt feel right about you going to that expense and trouble. I will keep an eye out and see if a Canadian dealer takes them on.


May want to call Premier ,and tell them you would like to try it. They may help you out.


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

edzkoda said:


> May want to call Premier ,and tell them you would like to try it. They may help you out.


I sent them an email re. Canadian dealer. Got a reply saying they are in discussions with several beekeeping supply distributors and hope to have something available to us for spring.
Thanks!


----------



## HiveTime (Sep 9, 2021)

Been a while on this one so thought I’d see if anyone had any more experience with Premier. Also has anyone tried running these through an extractor yet?


----------



## Kamon A. Reynolds (Apr 15, 2012)

HiveTime said:


> Been a while on this one so thought I’d see if anyone had any more experience with Premier. Also has anyone tried running these through an extractor yet?


I ran several hundred 1st year premier drawn combs thru our system last year. Not a blow out. However, I never had issues with Rite Cell or Acorn on blow outs either. Premier and Acorn are my 2 favorites. I go by whichever I can get better pricing on. Ritecell has too little wax!
Between Acorn and Premier I can get premier cheapest. Even more so now that they bring a semi load to our conference and I can get 20% off and free shipping due to the bulk buy over 900 beekeepers made.


----------



## HiveTime (Sep 9, 2021)

Thanks! I had read of some concern there in regards to Premier having thinner or more flexible plastic I believe. Sounds promising!


----------



## rtaylor (Feb 5, 2019)

I installed several frames in several colonies last week and they are drawing them out nicely. We aren't really in much of a flow at all so I was a little surprised to see them working on drawing them. I wish I had more feedback but here in about a month I'll give a good review after the bulk of our flow is over and I can extract a few frames. I got the frames with the most wax. I don't remember if that is double or triple but you can really see it good when you set your frames in the sun and they start to melt a little.


----------



## edzkoda (Aug 9, 2014)

Premier is a little thiner, but bees react very well to it and they hold up great. It is the only foundation I know of that was designed from measurements on naturally drawn out foundation.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

MJC417 said:


> Pierco? Never again.





e-spice said:


> Care to share any experience about Pierco?


I was also interested to hear the complaint with Pierco.

They have been my primary source now for several years. No complaints.


----------

