# Proposed Investigation About Wax Usage in Natural Cell



## NeilV (Nov 18, 2006)

Or ... if a person was willing to destroy a drawn frame, the wax could be melted and weighed.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

My guess is the difference in speed is the enthusiasm with which they do their own thing as opposed to finishing something the beekeeper started (foundation). The mechanical part is an issue, since with natural comb they are hanging from both sides with communication at the bottom of the comb building project.

Waya had a study on the subject where they used embossed sheets, plain sheets and even thick plain sheets and thin plain sheets, and starter strips. The fastest was the starter strips. Next was the thin plain sheets, followed by the thick plain sheets with the embossed sheets the slowest.

This is a good illustration that the issue isn't the wax production. The thick plain sheets require even less wax production and it's obvious that the bees USE the wax from the sheet. However they build from the thinner sheet more quickly.


----------



## MichaelW (Jun 1, 2005)

There is no leading edge on foundation.

I don't know how that effects it, but seems like it must have something to do with it.


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

It seems to me that foundation slows down the bees in the same way that you might write more quickly in your own handwriting that you would if you were trying to write exactly over the top of someone else's. Even with the letters laid out for you, they are still not yours.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>It seems to me that foundation slows down the bees in the same way that you might write more quickly in your own handwriting that you would if you were trying to write exactly over the top of someone else's. Even with the letters laid out for you, they are still not yours.

That's what my theory is. The bees have an idea what they want to do and the foundation is just in the way. From their perspective some other bees have started cells and they think they should finish them, but they don't meet the criteria of what they think they should, so there is all this indecision and trying to fit what they sense they need into what is already started.

http://www.bushfarms.com/beesdecisions.htm


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

From MB's web page>>Indecision requires a lot of energy and wasted time for the bees. Sometimes this just sets them back and sometimes it even gets them killed.

I think that's right on the button, Michael. That's why I like foundation-less TBHs so much - the bees have fewer decisions to make. All they have to do is build comb, store honey... build comb, store honey... It cuts out all the "should we build comb on this or that foundation?"; "should we put honey here or upstairs?"; "why am I suddenly in another box?" stuff that must drive them crazy. 

I know that for me, the fewere decisions I have to make, the more my mind is at peace. Why should bees be any different, fundamentally? (Rhetorical question...)


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> One objection people make to natural cell is 
> that the bees must use more wax. 

Its not an "objection", it is a mere simple statement
of fact, one that can be demonstrated with ease.
I outline a clear and compelling test  here. 
Anyone can try it, and see for themselves.

> However, the posts I see from people who tried 
> foundationless say that the bees draw out empty 
> frames faster. 

Once again, one can test by inserting both types
of frames (with foundation and foundarionless)
into the same hive, and seeing which is drawn out 
and useful first. You'd need to run the test 
more than once to get convincing numbers, but
even a small number of hives can provide a
statistically significant result.

> It seems logical that sticking in a piece of 
> wax foundation would reduce the amount of wax
> the bees have to contribute. However, is that 
> really the case?

If it were not, would large operations go to the
trouble of buying wax and installing wax? No,
they'd save themselves the time, expense and
trouble.

> I am a newbee, and this may be a really stupid 
> idea. 

Not at all. It is a good question, given the
massive amount of misinformation presented in
support of all things "natural". I wish that
*un*-embossed sheets of wax were still sold,
as this would allow beekeepers who wished to
experiment with "cell sizes" to still provide
foundation for their bees. Perhaps one could
take embossed foundation and squish it flat 
under pressure? Dunno.

So, don't take anyone's word for it, as running
your own tests is easy.


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

> The thick plain sheets require even less wax
> production and it's obvious that the bees USE 
> the wax from the sheet. However they build 
> from the thinner sheet more quickly.

Ah Mike, Waya (and you) neglected the important
issue of *mass*. A thicker mass of wax is going to
be harder to soften at the same ambient temperature
than a thinner one. The heat a bee can generate is
finite. So, in general, thin foundation will be
workable earlier in the season, and in less total
time than thicker.

So, it is a trade-off as far as the thickness of
the foundation used, and not a general property
of foundation/foundationless at work here.

But trying to make predictions of what a specific
hive will do in advance is a bit of a crap shoot,
which is why one does experiments with multiple
hives, and with "controls" of one sort or another,


----------



## suprstakr (Feb 10, 2006)

Yes the thick and thin sound logical but the sheet to empty not. Bees are frugal and they will work available to empty faster not becouse of material but space . Placing empty frame becides a foundation in same hive is ilogical , if you want to see which draws faster , becouse bees will finish what was started first. Now the speed--- having been in construction a remodel is 3 times more time consuming than new construction , and I would rather quit the company than finish another mans job ,the frustration level is that high. I would therefore think calm jobs ( empty frame) will go faster than frustrating ( with foundation) in diferent hives .


----------



## Aspera (Aug 1, 2005)

I would like to point out that foundation is a relatively recent invention (the last 100 years) and has been widely adopted where ever beekeeper can afford it. This is not an accident. Just try installing ten swarms on hives consisting of all empty frames. Yes foundation is not necessary, but neither are beespaces, movable frames, hive tools, smokers, veils, wood, extractors, queen cages, sugar, trucks, bottom boards, innercovers, wheeled vehicles or any of the over things that many of us find needful. A more interesting study would be to find out why beekeepers must always learn everything for themselves as though they were the first to encounter these creatures.


----------



## inga (Feb 21, 2007)

I see Ray already mentioned the difference between remodeling and building from scratch, which also came to my mind. As a contractor's wife I know that it's most often a lot faster to build from scratch than to remodel an existing structure to provide the same effect, not to mention less expensive. Having to reuse materials makes it worse. (The exception would be very _minor_ "remodeling" touches.)

Perhaps it's easier for the bees to make their own wax than to move the wax provided by foundations to where they want it. Think time is mon ... er .. honey.  

I read about a 'convincing' illustration of providing colored foundation for the bees and seeing how much of it they reuse. This proves only that they _reuse_ it, not that it is a benefit to them, nor that they draw it faster. 

Another example: Usually it is much faster to sew a new outfit from scratch than to do a major remodeling on an old one. 

It appears to be the same for bees. This is in addition to the enthusiasm factor suggested by Michael.

The fact that most beekeepers use foundation doesn't prove anything either. When foundation was introduced, I suspect the "advantage" made logical sense, and they were adopted with enthusiasm, without questioning whether the logic was correct. So now "everbody uses it."

I appreciate Michael Bush's input because he doesn't just follow what everyone else is doing, but experiments for himself and does what is most practical and least time-consuming. And he says _why_ he does it, rather than saying, "This is the way to do it."

[ February 28, 2007, 10:28 AM: Message edited by: inga ]


----------



## BULLSEYE BILL (Oct 2, 2002)

On another thread long ago, we discussed the ability of the bees to communicate through the vibrations from either side of the foundation.

Apparently the thinner the foundation is, the easier the bees can vibrate the foundation to communicate?

Humanizing bees and believing that they "think" is silly to me. They are BUGS and programed by nature to do certain things in different situations. They deal with what they have the best way they can.

It's all a non-issue to me because I don't use wax foundation and very little foundationless.


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

Why not simply get some colored foundation, some
thin foundation, and some empty frames, and
see for yourself?

Inga forgets that "materials" are not something
that bees can pick up at the lumber yard. Bees
must manufacture wax, one tiny scale at a time.

Clearly, re-use of wax is what bees "prefer",
if they did not, brood cappings would be as
white and "clean" as honey super cappings.

> we discussed the ability of the bees to 
> communicate through the vibrations from 
> either side of the foundation.

I recall the study that talked about the
transmission of vibrations across drawn
comb, but I don't recall ever hearing that
the final comb midrib had much impact one
way or another.


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

Jim, as everyone here knows, bees extrude wax from glands between their abdominal plates, which, presumably, emerges at 'body' temperature - i.e. the perfect temperature for moulding and kneading into comb. It is also conveniently within reach.

Foundation, on theother hand, is old and cold by comparison and must require a lot of extra work to render into a useable state. Therefore, it is easy to imagine that bees would prefer the DIY approach to building comb - as described by Inga - to having to break up and melt old 'bricks and mortar' and rebuild the walls.

That seems perfectly logical to me - or am I missing something?


----------

