# Is "foundationless" the biggest BeeSource 2010 Hoax?



## odfrank

After 40 years of successful beekeeping using vertical wired foundation, I decided to once again dabble in a technique suggested by this board's greatest Gurus - foundation-less. Dozens of newbees here have followed their suggestions and and will go foundation-less. Kelley is selling foundation-less frames. I better follow suit.
I caught a bait swarm that filled a deep box of drawn worker comb wall to wall, a wax drawing machine. I thought, they will only want to draw more worker comb so that they can guarantee a large future population, drone combs will come later. In the second brood chamber I spaced four of my first ever foundationless frames between worker cell foundation. Not only did the bees draw the foundationless out in flawless 100% drone comb, the queen laid in almost every single cell. Lets see, 16 drone cells per square inch, is that going to be about 18000 drones? I am in the business for honey production. Is 18000 drones really going to help me reach my goal?


----------



## Barry

Looks like you got yourself one of those drone laying queens.


----------



## Joseph Clemens

If one more "drone comb" is not wanted in the brood nest, simply take it out, now; let the brood die (easiest since they are still eggs), use it in the honey supers, let the bees try again. Drone comb works well in honey supers. You must have a good honey flow going on. My own honey flow is just now beginning to start. Foundationless has provided me with lots of nice drone comb, many of my best worker comb foundationless were built in 5-frame nucs.

And foundationless does not have to be wireless, it is even easier to wire foundationless, they don't have to be embedded into the foundation, the bees just incorporate them into the comb they build.


----------



## Michael Bush

According to 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 you will end up with the same number of drones no matter what you do. It's bee biology. They have a threshold of drones they want and they will find a way to get them.


----------



## Grant

I think it's a little premature to call this movement a "hoax." One hive's results don't necessarily create a trend. Try it on ten hives (an arbitrary guesstimate) and see. I haven't had the problems you found and I was basically doing the same technique.

It reminds me of that old joke where the repeating set-up line was, "Nope. Tried it once. Didn't like it."

Grant
Jackson, MO


----------



## jmgi

odfrank, 

Regardless of how your foundationless experiment went (there are a multitude of reasons why it happened the way it did), I and many others believe that letting the bees build what they want with foundationless is in their best interests. The bees are not one bit concerned that we want maximum honey production out of them. What is more important to you?


----------



## peterloringborst

Going "foundationless" is an excellent idea, even though_ it is _going back 150 years to the days before foundation was invented. However, I think it should be done with a complete understanding of bee behavior. Then it would work fine.

You have to understand the natural progression of comb building in a hive. When a swarm first moves into a cavity they build worker comb. The percentage of drone comb is zero. Gradually as the nest enlarges, they begin to build drone combs, mostly for honey storage. Drone combs are easier to build for them, use less wax and store more honey than worker comb. According to people who take wild hives apart, they usually have about 20 percent drone comb. 

So, if you hive a swarm, you can probably get a box of worker comb out of them, and then they will switch over to building drone cells. You could just let them do it, what harm is there? If you don't want umpteen million drones, you merely have to insert a queen excluder, and confine her to the first box. Then they can build all the drone comb they want in the honey supers.

If you have an established colony, the task is a little more complicated. I would suggest the best plan is to do a shook swarm. By this method, you shake all the bees off the combs and take the combs away, so that they have to rebuild the entire nest. They behave pretty much the same as a normal swarm, building worker cells first until they feel like they have enough.

The alternate way is to insert empty frames into the brood nest. The bees will build worker or drone, depending. By the way, whoever said putting wires in was a good idea, that is right. Wire them up good and tight and the bees will include the wires in the comb. They should be every bit as good as ones with foundation, plus, all natural.


----------



## odfrank

> you will end up with the same number of drones no matter what you do.

BS...None of the foundation frames I have made in 40 years are 100% drone comb nor is the queen making that many drones. Just because you read it in a book or on the internet proves that it is true.

> The bees are not one bit concerned that we want maximum honey production out of them. What is more important to you? 

I am not keeping bees to make the sex life of local virgin queens easier. They do just fine without 18000 extra drones. Making more honey is very important to me. Honey is money, duh.


----------



## jmgi

>Honey is money, duh.

Even if you are making a living keeping bees, a few thousand (18,000?) extra drones won't matter. How do you know that all those drones will reduce your honey crop more than, say, the weather, or your management, or even genetics, or etc. etc. Get the point?


----------



## odfrank

jmgi said:


> > a few thousand (18,000?) extra drones won't matter. How do you know that all those drones will reduce your honey crop more than, say, the weather, or your management, or even genetics, or etc. etc. Get the point?


Would any business, work force or lets say, army, of any kind, be as productive with a work force reduced by 20 -25 % ??? Regardless of weather, management or genetics?


----------



## jmgi

I really think you are missing the point odfrank, you cannot disregard those other more important factors that I listed, they have more impact on honey production than drone counts, unless of course you have a queen that lays only drones! I would focus my energy on things YOU CAN DO to up your honey production, and quit worrying about things you can't control.


----------



## Tom G. Laury

People are reexploring primitive beekeeping; foundationless, top bar hives, no medication, etcetera and they are so excited about it that they think it is better. It is not, unless you want tons of drones and combs that can't be transported or extracted. It's much cheaper to learn from others but more interesting to learn the hard way.


----------



## odfrank

I can control this problem - by continuing my use of worker foundation, which is one of the greatest factors of modern productive honey production.

I have no objections and only salute to those whose wish to go back to a more natural and pure type of beehive using no contaminated wax and letting the bees build comb naturally. None of these people should feel threatened by my opinions. I continue to test and compare organic theories against those with which I can produce a clean product in substantial and profitable quantities. For over six years I have tried small cell, housel positioning, unlimited brood chambers and now foundationless. I am not yet converted to any.


----------



## jmgi

> None of these people should feel threatened by my opinions.

Trust me, I don't. 

If you feel that using worker cell imprinted foundation is getting you more honey production, then I would continue to use it too. No question, bees use more honey, nectar or sugar syrup to construct comb from scratch, instead of using foundation, and that would possibly take away from your ultimate honey crop, but just possibly, because other factors can limit honey production also that may be harder for you to put a number to.


----------



## Countryboy

_I caught a bait swarm that filled a deep box of drawn worker comb wall to wall, a wax drawing machine. I thought, they will only want to draw more worker comb so that they can guarantee a large future population, drone combs will come later. _

Let me get this straight...

You thought you knew what the bees wanted. (to continue drawing worker comb.)
You thought the bees would draw drone combs later.

You gave the bees the choice to draw what they wanted, and the bees decided the later was right then.

You thought wrong, and now you are blaming the foundationless frames because the bees didn't do what you wanted them to do. I would surmise the bees decided the broodnest was large enough, and decided to draw honey storage cells, which are similar sized to drone cells. Since you placed these honey storage combs so close to the broodnest, the queen laid in them. 

Instead of trying to force the bees to do what you want, try to work with the bees and let them do what they want.

Next time, put the foundationless frames in during broodnest expansion. Install foundationless frames in that first box the bait swarm draws out.

This morning I videotaped an inspection of 4 package hives that were started mostly on combs drawn in foundationless frames. Yes, there is some drone brood in the combs, but not on the scale you are seeing. As soon as I get the video edited and uploaded to YouTube, I will post it here so you can see what foundationless frames look like with worker brood.

I'm glad my bees didn't read the same directions yours did.


----------



## odfrank

>>Next time, put the foundationless frames in during broodnest expansion. Install foundationless frames in that first box the bait swarm draws out.

This was a week after the swarm moved in, isn't that a time of brood nest expansion?. This was the first box the swarm drew out. They did not make honey storage combs, they made drone cells for the queen to lay in. They were almost 100% filled with larvae, just a trace of honey.

>>Instead of trying to force the bees to do what you want, try to work with the bees and let them do what they want.

I didn't try to force them to do anything, I let them do exactly what they wanted. They did what they wanted, not what I wanted.


----------



## Countryboy

_This was a week after the swarm moved in, isn't that a time of brood nest expansion?_

Bees don't go by a calendar. I think bees go more by broodnest volume. Once they feel their broodnest has an adequate volume of worker cells, then they start drawing honey storage and drone combs.

_This was the first box the swarm drew out. They did not make honey storage combs, they made drone cells for the queen to lay in. _

In your first post, you said the bees had already drawn out a deep box of worker comb wall to wall. and then you added a second box, with 4 foundationless frames and worker foundation.

I've seen feral colonies living successfully in cavities roughly the same volume as a deep box. That volume is adequate for broodnest, honey storage, etc. You gave your bees an even larger volume, but expected them to continue putting all their efforts into broodnest expansion.

Next time, put the foundationless frames in the center of the first box the bees draw out and see if they draw out drone comb or worker cells.


----------



## Michael Bush

>BS...None of the foundation frames I have made in 40 years are 100% drone comb nor is the queen making that many drones. Just because you read it in a book or on the internet proves that it is true.

Certainly not. But the study agrees with my experience. The bees have a threshold of what they want for drone comb and for drones. They will work to meet those thresholds no matter what you do. Also I've seen Dr. Collisons presentation on that research. Even if I didn't already have that same observaion, his research is pretty convincing.


----------



## Ivan Cerny

My first season of going foundationless bees draw almost two supers of drone combs. Looked like they were pent-up and enjoyed sudden freedom. The queen laid a lot of drone combs but not all. Next seasons they were satisfied and built mostly nice worker combs. Lot of drone cells in brood chamber used for honey or even pollen. No problem with drone cells now.
What is a concern for me now is system of replacing old combs. Picking comb by comb is labor extensive and removing by supers may disrupt broodnest structure. Do you have any hints?


----------



## Michael Bush

I don't pull old comb. Other than getting the 5.4mm comb out and the contaminated comb out, I leave the rest. I think the issue of old comb when it comes to smaller cells is this: Grout says they will reach a threshold where they will chew out the old cocoons when the cell gets too small. This happens in a few generations in small cell. This almost never happens in large cell. So you have many layers of cocoons. That might be a problem. I don't know but theoretically that is a lot of places for foulbrood etc. to hide.


----------



## Countryboy

Last year, I ran a few single deep colonies as comb factories. These colonies were never allowed to grow larger than a single deep. When they would get 8 frames drawn with comb, I removed the combs on the outside and placed foundationless frames near the center of the cluster. (like 4 and 6 position) These colonies produced me several combs of primarily worker cells.

On April 6th, I started four 2 pound packages. I gave each package 10 frames of drawn comb. The combs I started them on are primarily the worker cell sized foundationless combs drawn last year, but there are a few frames of Pierco and Mann Lake PF 120's mixed in. There were also a couple frames of older drawn comb with wood frames. The foundationless frames all have nice light yellow wood frames, so it is easy to tell which frames were the foundationless.

Yesterday, on April 24th, I videotaped the inspection of these 4 hives which had been started 18 days prior with 2 pound packages. While there was a little drone brood being raised, I only saw one frame of drone brood that I think needs culled for excessive drone brood. (My method of culling is to cut it out and let them redraw the comb, or use the frame for honey storage.)

I'm still getting the hang of this video camera. I'm a one man show, and I would hold frames up for the camera, but I don't always have them centered for the camera very good. I also apologize for the wind noise. It was a little windy yesterday morning. (Anyone ever use a cardboard box around the camera to block out the wind?)

This is my experience of how foundationless frames can turn out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzZXOjqh4fw


----------



## mcooper

I noticed on my foundation frames (which I cross wired); that the bees would chew out the foundation at the wire and make drone comb as they desired. I have 6 foundationless frames in a hive back home and so far 1 has a lot of drone comb, the other 5 have worker cells.


----------



## sylus p

Odfrank

Furter 

It seems a little odd to me that they drew ALL drone comb...

How did this colony end up? Did you give them worker comb and find that momma laid them up with nice plump lady bees? I guess I'm just wondering if something else might have been going on. ONLY drone comb is odd.


----------



## sylus p

odfrank said:


> I caught a bait swarm that filled a deep box of drawn worker comb wall to wall, a wax drawing machine. I thought, they will only want to draw more worker comb so that they can guarantee a large future population, drone combs will come later. In the second brood chamber I spaced four of my first ever foundationless frames between worker cell foundation. Not only did the bees draw the foundationless out in flawless 100% drone comb, the queen laid in almost every single cell. [/IMG]


Holy cow I just reread this post. Of course they drew drone comb, they had a 14-16 combs of worker comb drawn already. Given the option where you gave it they said, "Oh cool, lets raise some dudes, maybe swarm, and then backfill with honey. This place is awesome." I'm sorry, I shuould have read that before I posted. Also, duh. 

:lpf:
opcorn:
:lookout:


----------



## Ivan Cerny

Michael, thank you for advice. My bees draw naturally 5,1-5,3 mm cell size in brood nest so it is not SC. Probably I let few hives without combs replacing and will see if and when they chew it.


----------



## Michael Bush

5.1mm to 5.3mm on the first try is typical for large cell bees. The bees raised in those typically build 5.0mm to 4.8mm.


----------



## deknow

your experience is exactly what one would expect to happen under the circumstances...and exactly why "drone trapping" either with drone comb or foundationless works.

This thread:
http://beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=237620

has quite a few posts (by me) describing exactly why you are experiencing what you are experiencing if you are interested.

deknow


----------



## Jim Koenig

I noticed the same thing with inserting an empty frame between two drawn frames in a hive that only has drawn worker comb in it. Once the bees got the drone comb constructed they built more worker sized comb. The bees seemed to have a desire for a certain amount of drone comb.


----------



## bot

I did a foundationless hive from a package last year. Nothing drawn to start with. They quickly drew out about 3-4 frames of mostly worker comb then worked on 4 frames of drone comb. The hive was lousy with drones: literally 1 out of 4 bees was a drone. I couldn't stand not putting a stop to it, so I shook them through an excluder so the girls could get some work done. Then they went and swarmed on me.

I wondered then whether this is a problem of hive maturity and your story reinforces this. A swarm in nature is a precarious thing. They are desperate to either survive or reproduce, because that is what living things so. So as a swarm (or the similar situation in a package) after setting up housekeeping the easiest thing a hive can do to ensure that it gets a chance to procreate is to make a bunch of drones. I wonder if they grow out of it once they get established and start filling the drone comb with honey stores and making mamma bees.

Maybe I had a drone layer, maybe it was the foundation. I dunno. I had good time.
Made 4 pounds of honey 

-John McNeil


----------



## Michael Bush

When they want drones they will raise them like crazy. When they have enough they will not raise but a few. It is a cyclic thing, not a constant thing. The same with drawing drone comb. If they have none and they need drones, they will build nothing but drone comb. If they have enough drone comb they will stop drawing it. If you want a good idea of how this works, try reading Collison's work references above. If bees ill raise nothing but drones if you let them then bees were extinct before any of us were born. Luckily that is not the case.


----------



## Ivan Cerny

Michael Bush said:


> 5.1mm to 5.3mm on the first try is typical for large cell bees. The bees raised in those typically build 5.0mm to 4.8mm.


So maybe the best idea for next few seasons is removing some combs from brood nest to give them space for drawing smaller cell combs. I will look at it and measure to know if regressing will occur.


----------



## odfrank

So, what are some guidelines to prevent bees from drawing excessive drone cells on foundationless frames/topbars? 
I assume - not during honey storage phases, and better so during buildup phases without there being excessive worker comb present.


----------



## Hooday

odfrank said:


> Lets see, 16 drone cells per square inch, is that going to be about 18000 drones? I am in the business for honey production. Is 18000 drones really going to help me reach my goal?


Your hive must have had very few drone cells to begin with. That's why they made so many. Your existing "same size" foundation caused that. You were repressing their natural desires. I suppose you will see similar results in any hive likewise "managed."


----------



## bfriendly

od -

My experience: If you have at least one or 2 drone frames in the hive (I move them to outside position). Placing an empty frame in between 2 brood frames at the edge of the brood nest (ie frame 3-4) has always worked for me. Strong colony, you should be able to add 2 empty frames at a time.

4-5 frame nucs (overflowing with bees) almost always will draw out perfect foundationless worker comb... With a 5 frame nuc I add one empty to the edge of the brood and then under super with the drawn comb you stole from above and 4 foundationless.
-this usually works (for me) in the late summer / fall too  ....whereas if you were to do this with a single, not so simple...

Both these scenarios you have to have enough bees to fill the "gap" fairly quickly.


-I think that during "build up" phase is EXACTLY when the bees want to raise the most drones, it is possible you would have better luck during minor later flows.


----------



## dcross

odfrank said:


> So, what are some guidelines to prevent bees from drawing excessive drone cells on foundationless frames/topbars?


Recalibrate your expectations


----------



## Countryboy

_So, what are some guidelines to prevent bees from drawing excessive drone cells on foundationless frames/topbars? _

Having a shortage of worker sized cells near the cluster during buildup.

Small colonies seemed to draw my foundationless frames good. By keeping the colonies small, I think it worked to keep them in constant buildup. I would remove the outer frames and put foundationless frames into the center of the broodnest.

And some bees will be cantankerous just to spite your best intentions.


----------



## Tom G. Laury

Foundationless is the second biggest.


----------



## Michael Bush

>So, what are some guidelines to prevent bees from drawing excessive drone cells on foundationless frames/topbars? 

Leave the drone comb in... that way they will stop drawing it.  Move it to the outside edges of the brood nest, that way the queen will only lay it it when she really wants to, and not because it happens to be there. Also it's where they normally drawn it, it only ends up in the middle because we add the space in the middle at a time that they want some drone comb.


----------



## odfrank

Tom G. Laury said:


> Foundationless is the second biggest.


And the first is....?


----------



## odfrank

Pictures are in - I pulled the foundationless frames that started this thread and extracted them. Held up great in the uncapper and extractor. As suspected, 100% drone comb. Chopped them up and dropped them into the cappings spinner. Hive seems to have recovered from the million drones population after the queen layed two of these frames full. I guess I will drop a swarm onto them next spring and try again.


----------



## bigbearomaha

well let's see. honey bees have been building comb without frames for what, about 100 million years before humans invented frames to make the beekeepers experience easier and have managed to stay alive just fine.

I would guess with over 100 million years of "evidence" it's not a hoax.

I don't know about anyone else, but it's always interesting how the best advice I ever get comes from people a lot older than me. They hand down advice and information from long ago, often the same advice given to them by their grandparents and doggone if it isn't usually bang on correct.

For all the good old fashioned knowledge, most folks still ignore their elders advice and think new tech and fancy frilly ways are better.

Many new things have helped, no doubt.

But just because something is old, doesn't mean it is worthless. In fact, when the power goes out, it is the old "going backward" advice that usually saves our bacon.

I have a suggestion, keep bees the way you want and other folk can do it the way they want and we'll all be so busy we won't have time to criticize things no one is forcing us to do.

I think bees know more about beekeeping than we will ever know. I'd rather take their advice.


----------



## isensiman

bigbear i concur, in my neck of the woods foundation-less frame usage is quite widespread,my technique is to place such frames in the numbers three and seven position in the brood box,the two frame from both positions are then transferred to the honey super to be filled with honey as soon as the bees emerges.

the idea is the bee SEEM to draw more worker cell since the frame is most of the times between open brood and probably because the bee have sensed the reduction of the brood nest.


----------



## Vance G

Some people just don't understand that this is not the best of all possible worlds and that reality sucks! I bet your colonies don't miss the extra drones a bit and managing for productivity is not shamefull. Without surplus, the bees don't survive either. I like managing for surplus.


----------



## beeware10

the next step backwards will be the straw skep.


----------



## NorthernIllinoisPlumber

I pretty much have decided on one hive with foundations, and the other hive without. What appeals to me is the pictures (from a link) of cut up milk carton strips wedged and nailed in, then coated with wax. 

Is wax really needed on the starter strips?

Oh yeah, the hive will be started from a 2lb package, any other hints to startup?

Thanks.


----------



## Michael Bush

>Is wax really needed on the starter strips?

I've never used milk cartons, but it's certainly not needed (nor do I recommend it) on wood. A strip or a triangle of wood works great. A strip of wax foundation works ok, but is not as durable.

>Oh yeah, the hive will be started from a 2lb package, any other hints to startup?

Don't leave the queen cage in (direct release) and check on them in a few days to see that they are started off right. Straighten it out if they are not. cut the comb and tie it into the frames.

http://www.bushfarms.com/beespackages.htm
http://www.bushfarms.com/beesfoundationless.htm


----------



## NorthernIllinoisPlumber

Popsickle sticks ok? Any wax needed on them? And by direct release you mean actually placing the queen in with the bees? Just gently tap her out?

Thanks!

LOL...nevermind, I read info on your link!


----------



## Solomon Parker

Addressing the original subject:

I'm starting to see foundationless as a fad-ish kickback to the small cell crowd. There's been large cell popularity, then there was small cell, and people thought this one thing was the panacea, but it isn't, and university studies prove that. Then people get all philosophical and decide "what do I know, I'm only human, certainly the bees know better than I do." Then we get this crosshatched mishmash of natural and unnatural methods where you get a couple great combs of worker, and then a bunch full of drone.

Trying to do something "natural" inside a sawed and planed nailed together painted fully dismantle-able and often mobile "hive" with movable frames is like pretending jumping out of a plane and flapping your wings is "flying." You're lying to yourself. Whether there is foundation in there or not, you're lying to yourself. It's unnatural. It's unnatural. It's unnatural. Deal with it. Keeping bees is unnatural. Hacking down a tree and stealing the honey out of it is natural. So if you want to do it "natural" go, be my guest. But if you think owning a hive is natural, you're simply lying to yourself.

Bees are animals. When we use them for our ends, they are livestock. Should we next decide that cows should not be fenced in because it's "unnatural"? Surely the cow knows better than I do about in which field she belongs. Right, am I right?

That's the whole point. I want that cow in my field. I want those bees to build comb in my hive on my frames so I can get in there and make sure these wild "tamed" (get it, because they're gentle) are doing what I want so I can get honey and wax out of the deal.

On top of all that, I want them to do it without me having to dope them up to keep them alive. How do I pull this off? Then I hear about people using "natural" treatments. What is that supposed to mean? Are you telling me that FGMO naturally occurs in hives as a miticide so we should use it too? Nonsense. Hogwash. Hosewater. Load of hooey. 

My great uncle did foundationless, and all his bees are dead, he's dead too. What does that have to do with anything? Nothing, but I've seen more better believed in correlations around here.

So here's what I'm going to do. I'm gonna keep using small cell because it's like being foundationless, ONLY WITH FOUNDATION!!!! Those of us on small cell know for a fact that bees on small cell build whatever they want because we spend a good portion of our time making sure we give them foundation at the right time of year so they will draw it out well. Then we take the poorly drawn and excess drone stuff and use it for honey.

So, in conclusion, do it whatever way seems right to you, but call it what it is.

*Steps off soapbox.*


----------



## iwombat

"... do it whatever way seems right to you, but call it what it is."

For that reason, I call it jumbo and normal foundation.


----------



## Vance G

I am going to attempt foundationless because as a retired hobbyist, time has no more meaning to me than a pig. Someone trying to make an entire living from bee keeping, neccessarily has a very different standard on times. It is true, foundationless combs can be successfully extracted. BUT! Can they be sucessfully extracted by the extra help hired to extract because the honey is starting to sugar in the combs and you absolutely have to be doing something else? The ideas of pesticide, acaracid buildup in the combs being a danger makes sense to me. If I as a surviving bee keeper haven't found that to be a problem, I wouldn't believe it because I couldn't afford to! If it was indeed a big enough problem, that guy is gone and no longer posting on a forum mainly subscribed to by hobbyists. I am going to do everything possible to remain pesticide and antibiotic free. RIght up to the point that I am going to lose my stock because nothing else has worked! Moderation is more probably the answer. It makes no sense economicaly to use one drop more 'chemical' than you have found necessary. Neither side of the debate needs demeaned or sneered at. The differences are spawned by each individuals reality. I can make a good case for the rational usage of DDT! But it would have to be used in a sensible manner. Not dumped in ponds literally by the barrell. Moderation is the answer in most things.


----------



## Joseph Clemens

I use many foundationless frames in my hives, because I don't trust the wax used to make foundation to be free of bee-harmful contaminants. This season I plan to use, predominantly Mann Lake, PF-120 frames, which I purchased last Spring for just this purpose. Foundationless is not difficult, I use all medium depth frames, horizontally wire them and use comb guides cut with a router bit, but PF-120's are easier.


----------



## azeryth

I don't know about you guys, but i am definitely amazed when bees build their own combs without the foundation.

Problem for me is that they all end up making drone cell combs when i put a foundationless frame. I'm not sure this will be the case if i place the foundation anywhere else in the hive body.

Just my thoughts.


----------



## Oldtimer

Azeryth, I just started a foundationless hive a few weeks ago, by gradually switching out the combs and replacing with an empty frame. The first 3 combs they built were solid drone comb. But after that they must have decided there is enough drone comb and have built all the rest pure worker cells.


----------



## jmgi

I do all foundationless medium frames for brood and surplus honey, I seem to get alot of drone or majority drone comb built in the outer two or three frames in the brood boxes. The center frames, usually four to five are fairly solid worker cells. Now, even in the frames that are mostly drone, the queen doesn't necessarily lay all solid drone eggs there, the bees will use alot of these combs for nectar and pollen storage almost entirely, so don't get too concerned about seeing lots of drone cells in the outsides of the brood nest. John


----------



## azeryth

jmgi said:


> I do all foundationless medium frames for brood and surplus honey, I seem to get alot of drone or majority drone comb built in the outer two or three frames in the brood boxes. The center frames, usually four to five are fairly solid worker cells. Now, even in the frames that are mostly drone, the queen doesn't necessarily lay all solid drone eggs there, the bees will use alot of these combs for nectar and pollen storage almost entirely, so don't get too concerned about seeing lots of drone cells in the outsides of the brood nest. John


Thank you, john,

Actually, i'm now using those combs drawn out of foundationless frames for honey, or as a food frame.


----------



## azeryth

Oldtimer said:


> Azeryth, I just started a foundationless hive a few weeks ago, by gradually switching out the combs and replacing with an empty frame. The first 3 combs they built were solid drone comb. But after that they must have decided there is enough drone comb and have built all the rest pure worker cells.


thank you for that, oldtimer,

I'll try it in one of our hives.


----------



## Eek-a-beek

Foundationless is not shown to be fraud by odfrank's experience in getting all drone comb because its proponents do not claim that foundation has no impact on the drone census. Historically foundation was introduced as a ploy to force the bees to do without as many drones as they would otherwise have. If it is given up then another approach is necessary if drone counts are to be kept down, and not everyone agrees that they should be.

Some believe that drones are dead beats in a hive, eating honey but not gathering nectar. Others dispute this noting that drones are better at fanning which is necessary to making honey. In the tight confines of a hive the strong wings of a drone are an advantage. If you want more air circulation at home doubling up one fan behind the other does not help and if there is no room in the window for a second fan beside the first then what you really need is a stronger fan. Drones are the stronger fans. Furthermore, when drones fan all night making honey, it preserves the wings of workers which means they live longer and gather more nectar over their lifetimes so the drones are indirectly responsible for some of the nectar gathered.

For those who wish to keep drone numbers low in a foundationless hive the simplest ploy is to collect worker comb when it is made and harvest as cut comb or wax any drone comb found. Take note of when worker comb gets made and manipulate hives to promote those conditions. If a hive has a surplus of drone comb and a shortage of worker comb then the comb they make is worker comb.

For example, shaking a colony out into an empty box will cause rapid comb building. Many frames of perfect worker comb can be secured by putting a box of drone comb on top of that. Alternatively insert empty frames into the middle of the brood nest, taking out the combs on the end, and then stack a second full box of drone comb on top. The empty frames will then be drawn as worker comb.

The most obvious advantage of foundationless beekeeping is the cut comb it produces. For some the ease with which wax can be harvested is of great significance too. Comb cell size does not matter in either of these cases.

A popular ploy against varroa mites is to place a drone comb frame into the brood nest. The mites prefer attacking drones because the cells are roomier. When the drone cells are sealed the frame can be taken out and placed in the freezer overnight thereby killing everything. This helps reduce varroa levels by curtailing reproduction. Where can drone comb be procured? One answer is to place a foundationless frame in the hive, away from the brood nest, and it will be filled with the desired drone comb. Even those who nominally run with foundation have good reason to sometimes go foundationless.

The standard foundation cell size is 5.4 mm which is larger than natural, Root measured 5.26 mm/cell (4.83 cells/inch) back before foundation use became widespread. There is a theory of questionable credibility, a Lamarkian anachronism, that justified larger cells. It claimed that bees would adapt to larger cells by becoming larger and that larger bees could carry more nectar and therefore would produce more honey. There is also some reason to believe that the larger bees from oversized cells, being somewhat ungainly and sluggish, are more docile which is desirable.

Advocates of foundationless dispute the claim that larger bees make more honey. Among other things they assert that small bees are more industrious. The spunky diminutive killer bee is a prolific honey producer. Docility is nice but protective gear makes that less important and the natural variation in temperaments among colonies is much greater than any difference due to cell size.

The most serious charge against standard 5.4 mm foundation is that it makes the bees more susceptible to mites. Varroa benefits from the roomier cells which their young share with the bee brood. Larger adult bees have larger trachea which is convenient for the tracheal mites. These considerations have led to rebellion against standard foundation. The foundationless beekeepers have been prominent in that movement. Their successes have helped expand the market for smaller cell sized foundation which has now become readily available, e.g. Pierco at 5.25 mm.

Bees have different roles in the hive which they take for reasons not understood. Age matters but some bees of a particular age become undertakers removing the dead from the hive while others never touch a carcass. When mature all workers go out to forage but some gather nectar while others pollen, propolis, or water. The factors that determine these individual choices may include both the size of the bee and its genetics. Bees from different drones may have different biases. Breeding stations that flood the drone pool with selected strains from drone hives reduce the variation. This uniformity is compounded by the use of foundation. Giving up foundation may then increase hive efficiency because there is a greater range of cell sizes available when the bees build their brood combs without foundation. This means greater individual differences between workers and therefore more optimal task assignments.

There is a movement some are involved in to arrange the combs with what is called Housel positioning. The three-faced inverted pyramid in a cell bottom can have either its ridge or flat side up and wild comb is consistent in the choice. This configuration is automatically honored in foundationless hives provided the combs are left in their original orientations. Although the idea is controversial, those who accept it consider this an added advantage to going foundationless.

In summary there are many advantages, either manifest or presumed, of having bees build comb without foundation. Supporters of foundationless beekeeping claim some or all of them have merit. Among these is not, however, any claim to the effect that foundation has no influence on the number of drones in a colony. When foundationless bees start making lots of drone comb it in no way invalidates the reasons that beekeepers actually give for going foundationless.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Do drones fan? I hadn't heard that before. I can't recall ever seeing a drone fan.


----------



## Eek-a-beek

*@WiredForStereo*
It may be a myth, but if so it would not be the only one that influences beekeepers in their decision to go foundationless. There is even a passage in my copy of Root that claims drones contribute to colony "moral" and so many believe that a happy hive is a hive with drones. The validity of such claims is not necessary for foundationless beekeeping to be worthwhile. By collecting worker frames and harvesting the wax from drone frames one can reduce drone comb levels to that of foundation hives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_bee
http://www.ask.com/wiki/Drone_bee
"All bees, when they sense the hive's temperature deviating from proper limits, either generate heat by shivering, or exhaust heat by moving air with their wings—behaviors which drones do share with worker bees."


----------



## Michael Bush

>Foundationless is not shown to be fraud by odfrank's experience in getting all drone comb because its proponents do not claim that foundation has no impact on the drone census. 

You're making such an eloquent and otherwise sound case, I hate to disagree, but I would say I see no difference on "the drone census" and that Clarance Collison's research shows the same. In his experiment they took hives with nothing but drone foundation, hives with nothing but worker foundation, and hives free to build what they like and in the end there was no difference in the number of drones the bees reared. They have a threshold for that time of year that they will do everything they can to meet. Once it's met they will stop rearing drones until the population drops below their threshold again. They will rework that they have to to get enough drone comb to meet their quota and if it's all drone comb they will rework that to get workers and meet that quota.

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.


----------



## deejaycee

Michael Bush said:


> >
> 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.


Michael, do you know if that paper is available anywhere online? I would very much like to get a copy of it.


----------



## Michael Bush

>Michael, do you know if that paper is available anywhere online? I would very much like to get a copy of it. 

I saw Clarance do a presentation on it in Lincoln Nebraska, about 2001 or 2002. Try a search. Let us know if you find it.


----------



## deejaycee

Sorry, should have mentioned I searched before I asked. Found references to the paper, but not the paper itself, nor even an abstract.

I did find I believe Clarence Collison's profile. Would it be out of line to write and ask him for a copy? Don't know what the done thing is here.


----------



## Michael Bush

>Would it be out of line to write and ask him for a copy? Don't know what the done thing is here. 

He's a very nice guy and I'm sure he wouldn't be offended. But I don't know the protocol for getting a paper like that. I believe you can get subscriptions to research sites that have access to those papers.


----------



## Kieck

You nailed the protocol, deejaycee. Simply write him a polite letter and request a copy of the paper. If he doesn't have any more glossy, high-quality copies, he may photocopy it and send it to you.


----------



## deknow

...a researcher that resents being asked for a copy of a paper because someone is interested in their work is a rare bird.

it is also sometimes (often) a copyright violation (and a violation of publishing agreements) for researchers to provide free copies to such interested parties....i've only been denied such a request once (and it was not by the researcher in question).

alternatively, larger academic institutions have subscriptions and access to such things. we've gotten access to rare (and expensive) books through interlibrary loans legitimately (never tried with a journal article).

reference librarians are generally appalled at how the publishing world works these days (wrt demanding payment for access to studies that are often paid for by taxpayers), and are often helpful. likewise, university faculty can often source such things easily (and for free).

i've found it best to "play things cool" and not shout from the rooftops who sent you what, as it is usually (at least technically) a copyright violation to do so.

deknow


----------



## Ted Kretschmann

While I have read this thread, I wonder why I want to go back 150 years in time to the age of the "box" hive. It seems like an insult to the ingenuity of all those hard working beekeepers of yore that mechanized, modernized and standardized the industry. The invention and use of foundation was and is part of that history. Why are we reinventing the wheel??? I had a potential customer that wanted bees but I could not help her because she was going to keep bees in a Kenyan top bar hive. I told her if she was in standarded equipment I could supply her with a 4 frame nuc. So I ask why are we reinventing the wheel??? Kenyan top bar hives, foundationless frames, small cell foundation, these may have a home in the hearts and minds of those who keep bees just for the love of keeping of bees. BUT they have NO place in high production agriculture called COMMERCIAL BEEKEEPING by those who make a living at beekeeping. The difference between the two camps of beekeepers is like day and night. Michael Bush, should you ever get a chance, go to the Ukraine and work with the beekeepers there. Their industry has not standardized itself yet. When it does, it will be a power house.They are good beekeepers using the best of what they got. They like foundation if they can afford it.You would feel right at home there as they keep bees in a similar fashion as you do. They use Foudationless frames, Russian long hives and natural cell. And they have good bees--Carpathian race. BUT it is not high production Agriculture called commercial beekeeping. And one last thought, the Ukrainians will tell you that Peter Petrovich invented the movable frame hive. Langstroth just stole the idea. TK


----------



## Solomon Parker

You reinvent something if it was not correctly invented originally.


----------



## Oldtimer

When most of the people use something, *then* it can be considered reinvented.


----------



## Ted Kretschmann

Old timer, I just feel like we are going backwards, loosing our way down a path that might lead to no where. Instead of new innovation and new ideas, we are regressing to beliefs that our forefathers gave up on 150 years ago in the beekeeping industry. And they gave up on them for good reason--there was a better way. There are many new beekeepers coming into the industry. That was the one good thing CCD did, made people aware of the honeybee. Everybody wants to "save" the planet by saving the bee. Which way am I to teach these new beeks? The tested and time honored methods of Standardized, Mechanized, Modernized beekeeping or the new holistic approach as spouted by many on this forum??? (Which as a commercial beekeeper looks like cyrillic alphabet writing to me.) When everyone has regressed to the primitive, who will buy my standardized beekeeping operation when I retire????:scratch:TK


----------



## iwombat

Ted, I think you're equating foundationless with not using removable frames. Same equipment, just no wax in the frame. Wax foundation has only been around about 100 years or so, and it wasn't so widely adopted at first.

Foundationless != box manipulation.

I teach beginners to start their first hive body on black plastic. It's important to know what eggs and larvae look like, and it's scads easier to see little white dots on a black background. I go over all the standard modern stuff, and mention the alternates with references - they can read up on their own. Once they know what they're looking at, they can start making their own choices.


----------



## Eek-a-beek

*@Ted*
I just got into this thread for the sake of the truth since nobody seemed to be addressing the original poster's point properly. I sympathize with your point of view. I have no intention of extending my own foundationless adventures beyond some cut-comb for personal use and drone comb against the mites. I like the toughness of plastic foundation and the reliable straightness of its comb faces. Wiring frames is a finicky task but without it foundationless comb is downright fragile. I have no stomach for that, either. However, my personal preferences and intentions do not stop me from understanding the advantages of or how to make a proper case for foundationless beekeeping. It certainly is not a hoax.


----------



## Eek-a-beek

*@Michael*
It is fascinating to see you swinging for a home run with your citation of the Collison paper. Good luck! I must reserve opinion however because that paper is two decades old and although peer reviewed journal articles are the gold standard of science, the scientific method requires reproducibility. That he continued to give talks on his study for years after publishing implies little. Your personal observations, although interesting and a validation of sorts, are not sufficient.

I would have expected there would be more recent studies if it were true and if so then citing that old study would make no sense. This troubles me. That nobody bothered to look at the effect of foundation on the number of drones again seems implausible to me since it is such a fundamental issue. People actually buy drone traps and some use foundation partly in the belief that it is a shortcut in reducing their numbers. If the colonies modify worker comb to make room for drones until they have some fixed number then that knowledge is important. Certainly enough so to motivate those who live on grant based research and the mandatory published papers that result.

To study such a thing is difficult though because of the drifting of drones. I understand they are not so fussy about returning to the hive they left nor are foreign drones repulsed when they try to enter. What one would want to do is alternate hives with and without foundation all in the same apiary and then put drone traps on to tally how many are caught at each entry. However, when drones move around that does not work, especially if they tend to move over to those hives with the fewest resident drones. If one does studies of hives at different locations then it is difficult to correct for systematic effects. Marking drones is tedious, although there might be a way to color all the bees in a hive by feeding them a dye or something radioactive so as to get a handle on the degree of drone drift. I would want to read closely the methods used in a study before I accepted its conclusions. That goes doubly for an old study with no follow up confirmations.

Perhaps you know, because of personal experience or other studies, that the drone census can not be influenced by foundation. If so, I can understand your position. However, if there is any doubt then it would be more prudent to advocate foundationless beekeeping based only on its other manifold advantages.


----------



## Michael Bush

I went to foundationless because I was tired of all my bees dying. On natural comb they stopped dying. I think it makes a lot of sense when the path you're on is not working to go back to the fork in the road and correct your direction.


----------



## kilocharlie

Use drone comb for managing Varroa or place them above an excluder. OR, melt it and save it for me!


----------



## Omie

I'm still trying to figure out how bees building their own comb could be called a 'hoax'. :s


----------



## Oldtimer

He's asking if natural comb being promoted as a disease cure all is a hoax.

EDIT - No sorry, just checked that was a different thread. This one, the guy got a lot of drone comb, in his view.


----------



## Omie

Oldtimer said:


> EDIT - No sorry, just checked that was a different thread. This one, the guy got a lot of drone comb, in his view.


So, is that implying that foundationless frames are being promoted as a way to limit drone production? In that case, it might be considered a 'hoax' if those claims were being made...but they're not, so what's the hoax then?


----------



## beeware10

probably non-traditional would be a better term.


----------



## Solomon Parker

The word "hoax" can be a way to discount an idea without making a case. 

I'm not saying that's what odfrank was trying to do here, but four frames in one hive hardly constitutes a hoax of a practice that's been going on since the first hive was kept by a human. I suggested the concept of a fad instead.


----------



## Omie

WiredForStereo said:


> The word "hoax" can be a way to discount an idea without making a case.
> I'm not saying that's what odfrank was trying to do here, but four frames in one hive hardly constitutes a hoax of a practice that's been going on since the first hive was kept by a human. I suggested the concept of a fad instead.


I see, that makes more sense.
So then "foundationless hoax" could be used in much the same way as the ever popular term "small cell myth". :lookout:


----------



## Solomon Parker

Omie said:


> the ever popular term "small cell myth".


I'm not sure what you're referring to. ;-)


----------



## StevenG

Omie said:


> So, is that implying that foundationless frames are being promoted as a way to limit drone production? In that case, it might be considered a 'hoax' if those claims were being made...but they're not, so what's the hoax then?


Foundationless is promoted as a way to reduce chemical contamination of the colony, and improve viability of brood, including queens.
The concept is that since wax acts as a sump, and retains chemicals, either those installed in the hive by the beekeeper for mite control etc., or those inadvertently brought in by the bees with pollen or nectar, when the wax is shipped off to be made into foundation, the chemicals are returned to the hive in the newly milled foundation. Those chemicals then leach into the larval food, the royal jelly for the queens, and impacts health, longevity, and fecundity of the future queen. Some of this has been demonstrated in various articles...sorry, don't have them at my fingertips. That is why rotation and replacement of comb is practiced, to remove contaminated brood comb.

Regarding drone production, my experience has been that, at least initially, there is an increase in drone cells and drone production. Very frustrating. The other advantage is that the bees build the cells they want and need, and the theory is that in time they "regress" to small cell. Personally I don't know about the validity of the small cell argument, I don't care to go there now. Chemical contamination of brood is a concern however. 

So also is the amount of twisted, non-straight comb I now have in several of my hives!  And I thought I had them level... :doh: 
Regards,
Steven


----------



## Oldtimer

Yes interesting how many things are cyclic. After the initial move to small cell and a belief propogated by some, that that's all you had to do to deal with varroa, I've noticed more people saying it's not the whole answer, and even giving up on it totally.

Right about the time I actually start my first small cell hive!:doh:


----------



## odfrank

WOW, 8642 views to date. If I didn't know otherwise, I would say I have earned the official title of "TROLL". I never thought I would stir up such a tempest. 

What I meant by "Hoax": 

I have kept bees very successfully for 40 years using foundation. Last year my main site with 24 hives, produced a 100lb average, even after suffering a 80% loss due to the mystery five year old dieoff. I have cataloged my efforts and travails on this forum and on YouTube, - Jollyollie8. I have posted pictures of myself standing next to skyscraper hives, all on foundation. I have posted about my efforts to replace my die offs with swarm trapping, all on foundationed comb. 

But I also have an open mind, I have embraced small cell without any particular success even though many preached it as a save all. Since 100% of my small cell hive died this winter, it has not been my savior. Again being open minded, I thought I would try the latest cure all, so I attempted a few foundationless combs. But, as described at the beginning of this thread, these combs were drawn out and laid in, 100% drone comb. I have since read messages on how to get the bees to draw more of them with worker cells. 

What I meant by a hoax, is that foundationless is being preached to new beekeepers, and experienced ones like myself, with no warnings. I read this board daily, hundreds of newbies are going small cell, foundationless, topbar, Warre, because those methods are being presented on this board and elsewhere as THE WAY TO GO, no warnings. At least small cell came with a warning from Dadant, "for use by experienced beekeepers". I have now read several posts from others who experienced the same effect that I did, copious amounts of drone comb when attempting foundationless. My 40 years experience is that using foundation requires few warnings. Using Langs requires few warnings. But from what I read here, small cell, foundationless, top bar and Warre can be a rough road to travel. I feel that many are falling prey to a hoax, when sent out on these roads with out warnings of the perils that can ensue.


----------



## kilocharlie

Oldtimer - do you think I would be far off base to try some foundationless frames above an excluder over brood boxes with wired foundation? Seems like it wouldn't hurt anything...but I'd like your input. I noticed you used two strips smaller than the frame and let them draw the rest. Kiwi thrift, or a reason I saw but did not comprehend?

By the way, how are those cut-cell queens doing?


----------



## Oldtimer

Thanks the queens are doing great most are in other peoples hives now. It's a new hybrid I've made and looking very promising for now. 

As to the foundationless you're asking the wrong guy, I don't know much about it.. But I can say you will initially get a fair bit of drone cells until they figure they have enough. For keeping the combs straight what worked really well in my own foundationless hive was putting thin strips of foundation into the groove in the top bar just to get them started in the right place. They built the combs down hitting the wires exactly, the combs ended up so perfectly straight you could swear foundation had been used, other than the assortment of cell sizes which gives it away.


----------



## kilocharlie

Thanks! I had the feeling a starter strip could be a good thing. You may have saved me a lot of time cleaning out "natural" comb hives. 

Glad your hybrids are a big success!


----------



## StevenG

Kilocharlie, don't forget, your hives HAVE to be level! If not, the bees will follow gravity, your best intentions notwithstanding. 

My best luck with foundationless was to put a frame of foundationless between two frames of drawn comb. But, for all the aggravation, if it wasn't for my concern about chemically contaminated foundation, I'd forgo foundationless. It is a headache at times.
Regards,
Steven


----------



## Solomon Parker

odfrank said:


> Again being open minded, I thought I would try the latest cure all,...
> ...I read this board daily, hundreds of newbies are going small cell, foundationless, topbar, Warre, because those methods are being presented on this board and elsewhere as THE WAY TO GO, no warnings.


Who told you it was a cure all?

Small cell etc. I do "preach" as the "way to go." But the evidence is pretty clear that I and others have given warnings. I have said time and time again that small cell is not a panacea, and Dee Lusby never presented it as such. It is part of an entire method of beekeeping. Some have had few deadouts in the switch, but the rest including me have lost a lot of hives in the conversion from the time honored traditions to something more like the old ways. Who has hidden that fact?


----------



## Oldtimer

Well I didn't pick it up when I first joined the forum. I just saw "get off the treatment treadmill", "let bees be bees" etc. LOT of investigating before I got anything saying you need MORE than just small call.

Not saying it was hidden, just it was not made plain. Not talking about you either Wired, don't recall reading any of your posts till quite recently.


----------



## odfrank

WiredForStereo said:


> Who told you it was a cure all?
> Dee Lusby never presented it as such.


See post #74 on this thread: Michael Bush "I went to foundationless because I was tired of all my bees dying. On natural comb they stopped dying. I think it makes a lot of sense when the path you're on is not working to go back to the fork in the road and correct your direction."
Dee Lusby has said repeatedly that small cell controls "secondary diseases".


----------

