# Foundationless honey production



## bamabeedude (Jun 2, 2015)

I'm a 1st year beek. I have one top bar hive but I'm building 5 langs this winter for next season. I am planning for all to be foundationless. I have just read a SARE study that observed that honey production was significantly less with foundationless hives than those with foundation. Have any of you run the two side by side? If so, what were your observations? If a difference indeed exists, how much? Thanks.


----------



## ChuckReburn (Dec 17, 2013)

I've had this discussion with Les Crowder and a few experienced beekeepers. Foundation-less langstroth frames that have had a few rounds of brood through them can be extracted - support wires are added insurance. If you intend to extract the comb, I see no difference. 

My impression making honey was that I could either fill 2 supers or draw 1 out and fill that one. That 50% impression has been echoed by others.

Les feels it's closer to 80% but he works "outside the box" = keeping 2 colonies in a 4 foot top bar over winter, he crowds them to swarming conditions at the start of the flow, pulls the 2 queens into nucs and combines the remaining workforce and queen cells - lacking open brood to feed and the brood break he gets a bigger yield than a typical person doing crush and strain out of a back yard TBH.


----------



## bamabeedude (Jun 2, 2015)

Thanks. Please let me clarify my post. My plan is to extract when I think the comb will endure it. And I understand that crush and strain will have an adverse effect on production. The study seemed to indicate that unlimited drone production would reduce honey production. Just wanting a "heads-up" if production of foundationless hive will be closer to a hive with foudation or (God forbid) that of a top-bar.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

In my experience honey production is a lot less without drawn comb. But foundation has little to do with that. Drawn comb gives them a place to put nectar when there is a flow. Having to draw comb slows down that process while they build somewhere to put the nectar while the flow is happening. If you use foundation and crush and strain and compare it to foundationless doing crush and strain I don't think you'll see a very significant difference. I think the foundationless might even win. It's extracting and reusing drawn comb that changes the numbers significantly.


----------



## lharder (Mar 21, 2015)

The advantage of foundation is that you can manage the comb much easier. Put a super on and forget about it. I run mostly foundationless and the techniques of getting good comb would be a little different that using foundation. Judicious use of a little plastic can make things a little easier, especially in the outside frames and honey supers.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

bamabeedude said:


> Have any of you run the two side by side?


Yes, and results were in parallel with the SARE study.

There are several factors involved. Firstly, if you want to know about honey production or making money, Les Crowder would not be the guy to talk to. No disrespect to him it simply that his emphasis is not on making honey but on keeping bees (he thinks) more naturally, that's his goal.

What happened with my natural comb hives (which were langstroths) was they initially seemed to draw combs quickly, but eventually fell behind the hives using comb foundation. They also have a lot of drone comb, in a typical 2 deep brood box hive they will have the equivalent of at least 3 full frames of drone, and these hives have noticeably more drones in summer, many more. And this did negatively effect honey. I did not keep individual hive records but the lower production of these hives was plain to see. 

It can be mitigated though. The thing to understand is bees want a certain percentage of drone comb. So I was able to put plenty of drone combs into a new hive, and the bees would then build only worker comb. Eventually the drone comb could be removed and replaced with more worker comb and in this way it was possible to have hives with almost no drone comb even though all comb in the hive was naturally built.

Re extracting, natural comb has thinner foundation and is more likely to blow out.


----------



## Adam Foster Collins (Nov 4, 2009)

Oldtimer said:


> ... I was able to put plenty of drone combs into a new hive, and the bees would then build only worker comb. Eventually the drone comb could be removed and replaced with more worker comb and in this way it was possible to have hives with almost no drone comb even though all comb in the hive was naturally built...


Hey Oldtimer - Can you talk a little more on this? Can you elaborate on timing, number of combs and placement in the hive - things like that?

Thanks,

Adam


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Sure, it's not complex though.

It was most useful to have frames of pure drone comb rather than mixed comb. The way to get pure drone comb is to put foundationless frames in a hive of nearly all worker comb, so they will fill the foundationless frames with drone.

Once I had a bunch of pure drone combs I would set up a foundationless hive in a single but give it 3 drone combs with drone larvae in them. Placement just depended how many bees and what other combs, ie the single may be set up from say, 2 frames of worker brood plus bees, the drone comb would have to go where the bees can cover it. But empty foundationless frames would be fed in as the bees could deal with them and they would be filled with pure worker comb. 

Timing, any time there was a flow, to encourage comb building.

The reason the drone comb was given with larvae in them was I found just having lots of drone comb was not always enough to prevent more drone comb being built. But as the larvae in the drone combs emerge the hive becomes overrun by adult drones. This seems to have a major effect and focus the bees minds on building only worker comb. So it is possible by feeding more frames in as the bees can deal with them, to end up with a single box hive of 3 drone combs and the rest pure worker combs, just as beautifully built as if they had been on comb foundation, I use wires in the frames and make sure the hive is level.

A second brood box can be added, the drone combs should be placed around central brood nest so the queen might lay in them plus the bees are well aware of them and inclined to build worker comb, although I did often find it necessary to put a 4th drone comb into a 2 brood box hive to ensure the bees would only build worker comb.

If someone only has one hive, it is possible to remove a few worker combs and replace them with more foundationless frames for the bees to work on, until there are enough worker combs built that the drone combs can be removed from the hive and the spare worker combs put back in, so the entire hive is worker comb.

I just don't let bees draw a foundationless hive from scratch, with no drone comb present, as you will then get a lot of frames being a mix of comb types and makes management of drone vs worker comb pretty much impossible. The other thing is that drone combs have to be spaced wider, so worker combs are squeezed together hard, drone combs are wedged apart slightly because if they are not the drone larvae protrude further and interfere with the next comb. If most frames are a mix of drone and worker they cannot be spaced the way the bees prefer, it will either be too cramped for the drone comb or too spaced apart for the worker comb.

For you Adam, exactly the same thing can be done in a TBH.


----------



## aunt betty (May 4, 2015)

Foundation that is heavily coated with wax (by the beekeeper) gets drawn out even under poor flow conditions. Give the bees the raw materials that they need and good things happen. Had bees drawing combs in August, September, and even October which they say is not possible. I'd coated the plastic foundations THICK with wax from my own bees. (cappings from extracting in July) Don't waste that wax...your bees need it. It is precious.


----------



## Adam Foster Collins (Nov 4, 2009)

Oldtimer said:


> ...For you Adam, exactly the same thing can be done in a TBH.


Thanks OT - Always like to hear your input. I'm not currently using any TBH's although I will likely use them again in the future. Using TBH's is a great way to learn how to manage foundationless and still get good, straight comb.

After a year separation from beekeeping, I am building up on all-deeps. I went from 12 nucs to 30 colonies going into winter. I also managed to get some of Mike Palmer's queens to add to the mix. I've built 100 nuc boxes and another 100 deep 10's. Just to get rolling. All foundationless, and wired as per your advice last spring.

Thanks again,

Adam


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Adam Foster Collins said:


> After a year separation from beekeeping,


That explains it, been wondering where you've been, used to enjoy your posts.

Wow sounds like you are heading for the big time!

Don't be too scared of comb foundation LOL there is a reason why shortly after someone invented it, it became very popular very quickly.


----------



## Adam Foster Collins (Nov 4, 2009)

Oldtimer said:


> ...sounds like you are heading for the big time! Don't be too scared of comb foundation LOL there is a reason why shortly after someone invented it, it became very popular very quickly.


Haha, well, "the bigger time" anyway... I've been watching the forums all summer, but mostly just "listening in".

I've got nothing against foundation except the cost. I've got a hundred sheets or so, and I'll certainly use it. I've been doing my best to cut costs, and I'm really trying to design my approach in an effort to be as minimal as I can. I'm trying to use as few variations in gear as I can, and I'm making most things, so I'm trying to make them as simply as I can.

Foundation is popular for good reason, but I have found that if you just decide to go without something, you can get pretty good at not having it. Given the added expense, I'd just like to get good at not using it. I'm just using deep frames and wire.

Adam


----------



## jadebees (May 9, 2013)

There has been some threads here & there on Beesource that describe production being around 50% less when all the comb is natural. It may be just the time factor, for the bees. It sure saves time to replace extracted comb, you see a rise in production. Topbar hives are noticably less honey producing, but healthier, as the comb is fresher. You can use a wired frame, with a starter strip at the top, and once built, it is just like any wired frame. I first did this, from running out of foundation, and not wanting to wait on shipping, to do the hive work. They just build right over the wire if they start in the center. Use a good starter strip. And you can extract & reuse them.


----------



## TSWisla (Nov 13, 2014)

Michael Bush said:


> In my experience honey production is a lot less without drawn comb. But foundation has little to do with that. Drawn comb gives them a place to put nectar when there is a flow. Having to draw comb slows down that process while they build somewhere to put the nectar while the flow is happening. If you use foundation and crush and strain and compare it to foundationless doing crush and strain I don't think you'll see a very significant difference. I think the foundationless might even win. It's extracting and reusing drawn comb that changes the numbers significantly.


Mr. Bush,

Are you saying that crush and strain is NOT the way to go?


----------



## BeesFromPoland (Dec 27, 2014)

Crush and strain makes the honey crop smaller (because bees have less combs to store). But surely You can't say it "is NOT the way to go". It's not the way to make Your crops bigger, but honey from crush and strain is said to be somehow better that honey from extraction (in the process of extraction some aromatic compounds evaporate). 
So it is said that the best honey is a comb honey (that You can eat with wax), than crushed and strained, and than extracted. If You have couple of hives just for Yourself I think the best would be comb honey or crushed and strained honey. And it would be the way to go . If You want to make some money probably this methods would be worse, however You can have bigger price for comb honey if Your customers would be willing to pay more for "better" honey.

here are some basics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VexD9N--fQ


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

bamabeedude said:


> If a difference indeed exists, how much?


I have heard 40%

However much will depend on how well the beekeeper understands bees and is able to support them to build comb efficiently. But EOD, crush and strain is less profitable. If it was more profitable, or even equal, we would see more people who rely on their bees produce financially, using the method.


----------



## TSWisla (Nov 13, 2014)

BeesFromPoland said:


> Crush and strain makes the honey crop smaller (because bees have less combs to store). But surely You can't say it "is NOT the way to go". It's not the way to make Your crops bigger, but honey from crush and strain is said to be somehow better that honey from extraction (in the process of extraction some aromatic compounds evaporate).
> So it is said that the best honey is a comb honey (that You can eat with wax), than crushed and strained, and than extracted. If You have couple of hives just for Yourself I think the best would be comb honey or crushed and strained honey. And it would be the way to go . If You want to make some money probably this methods would be worse, however You can have bigger price for comb honey if Your customers would be willing to pay more for "better" honey.
> 
> here are some basics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VexD9N--fQ


I am trying to get some direction this year (hopefull the right direction!) as last year was a disaster. Dziekuje!


----------



## BeesFromPoland (Dec 27, 2014)

TSWisla said:


> Dziekuje!


Proszę


----------



## Girl Next Door Honey (Jan 4, 2016)

I have consistently found that bees will draw comb faster on foundationless frames. So, if the argument is that they "waste" energy building combs from scratch I think the increase in productivity makes up for it. 

I wrote a whole blog post about foundationless beekeeping in a Langstroth Hive for those who are interested.


----------



## Riskybizz (Mar 12, 2010)

Oldtimer "Firstly, if you want to know about honey production or making money, Les Crowder would not be the guy to talk to"....

No truer words have ever been spoken...


----------



## Riskybizz (Mar 12, 2010)

"I have consistently found that bees will draw comb faster on foundationless frames"..

gee that sounds eerily like what Mike Bush always says...


----------



## jwcarlson (Feb 14, 2014)

I extracted a few foundationless deep frames this summer. It was really warm, most were fine, a few broke off or cracked. Could not spin them as clean as the foundations. The ones worst damaged were the ones that hadn't had much or any brood through them. The nice part is the comb is pretty much the size you need it even if it breaks off. Just toss a rubber band around it.

Certainly possible, but you need to exercise care which means you're going to move more slowly.


----------



## Girl Next Door Honey (Jan 4, 2016)

Riskybizz said:


> "I have consistently found that bees will draw comb faster on foundationless frames"..
> 
> gee that sounds eerily like what Mike Bush always says...


What are you implying?


----------



## JWChesnut (Jul 31, 2013)

I run just enough Foundationless hives to fulfill the market demand for foundationless nucs. I have nearly side-by-side comparison with conventional hives (also being run to draw wax foundation comb). Foundationless frames are an energy sink -- and hives drawing these build up slower and store less honey --- on the order of 2 supers less per hive in side by side testing.

Some Treatment-free beekeepers appear to endorse the notion that if they believe anything fervently enough they can alter the laws of physics. The caloric energy cost of wax is known precisely to the micro-Joule/milligram. The energetic cost of the collection of nectar and its energetic metabolism to wax is known with precision. 

If the colony is tasked with the metabolic conversion of floral nectar to wax, this represents a net energy sink to the colony. It is a "tax" that precludes other competing conversions of plant sugar to brood, swarm or honey storage. This is the thermodynamic rule of the hive, and one that no amount of fairy-belief wishing can change.

Once the wax gland secretions is embodied and stored as comb -- this becomes part of the capital of the hive and the beekeeper. If the beek keeps the colony alive (by avoiding fairy beliefs) that wax "capital" can be used again and again for increase and honey collection.

Here's a great paper on the wax behavior of the tropical forest honeybee, Apis florea. A. florea renews its nest regularly after migrating short distances -- it has two behaviors -- recycling wax from the old nest, and starting its comb building afresh. The paper demonstrates that an energy budget based on the relative cost of nectar collection and hauling payload of old wax explains the behavior differences based on the distance of migration -- https://www.researchgate.net/profil...pis_florea/links/0912f507275c7af3bb000000.pdf


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

JWChesnut said:


> Some Treatment-free beekeepers appear to endorse the notion that if they believe anything fervently enough they can alter the laws of physics.


LOL, your statement is true, but also wins the funniest quip of the new year so far.


----------



## Slow Drone (Apr 19, 2014)

Wouldn't quantum physics be better applied?


----------



## ruthiesbees (Aug 27, 2013)

Default Re: Foundationless honey production 


Quote Originally Posted by Riskybizz View Post 

"I have consistently found that bees will draw comb faster on foundationless frames"..

gee that sounds eerily like what Mike Bush always says...
What are you implying? 


Girl Next Door Honey said:


> What are you implying?


I find it best not to engage in conversation with the grumpy old men on here. It's futile and you have much better things to do, as do I. There is a handy little tool if you go to the person's name and click on it, and select view profile. Then on the left side you can click on the option to "add to ignore list". It's quite helpful in keeping my blood pressure down.


----------



## Girl Next Door Honey (Jan 4, 2016)

Thank you for the tip, Ruthiesbees. I just got on here and have been a little taken aback with how argumentative some people have been with zero provocation!


----------



## Slow Drone (Apr 19, 2014)

Girl Next Door Honey said:


> Thank you for the tip, Ruthiesbees. I just got on here and have been a little taken aback with how argumentative some people have been with zero provocation!


Yes this time off year they get grumpy and overly argumentative not a place for the thin skinned that's for sure. Just a heads up for you Girl Next Door Honey, but there is still a lot of good people on here you'll figure out who they are. Anytime someone uses the term treatment free duck your head because the bullets will start flying. Attacks on TF beekeepers are very common on Beesource.


----------



## clyderoad (Jun 10, 2012)

where is the grumpiness? As RiskyBizz correctly points out it does sound like what MBush says. 
I don't get it. Was the comment perceived as a challenge? If so, argue your point or defend your position.
Don't expect everyone to swallow each POV as a matter of fact.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Girl Next Door Honey said:


> I just got on here and have been a little taken aback with how argumentative some people have been with zero provocation!


Wow ain't that the truth.


----------



## Slow Drone (Apr 19, 2014)

Some people only see what they want to see not what is truly in clear sight.


----------



## Girl Next Door Honey (Jan 4, 2016)

So what if Michael Bush has had the same observation?


----------



## odfrank (May 13, 2002)

>Not sure if the issue is grumpy old men as I didn't see any on this thread.

I am here reading the thread but have not made any comments.


----------



## Slow Drone (Apr 19, 2014)

odfrank said:


> >Not sure if the issue is grumpy old men as I didn't see any on this thread.
> 
> I am here reading the thread but have not made any comments.


Pretty good odfrank!:lpf:


----------



## jadebees (May 9, 2013)

If someone is arguing just to be contrary, you can ( & I do) just not read it. Good discussion and conversation requires more than one viewpoint. Thats not so true with ordinary arguing. I avoid a few arguments a week here, and it is torture for me, as a naturally grumpy old man.😅


----------



## ruthiesbees (Aug 27, 2013)

clyderoad said:


> where is the grumpiness? As RiskyBizz correctly points out it does sound like what MBush says.
> I don't get it. Was the comment perceived as a challenge? If so, argue your point or defend your position.
> Don't expect everyone to swallow each POV as a matter of fact.


The Poster was sharing their own experience with foundationless; and in my opinion, one shouldn't have to "defend" your own experience. If Beesource is not a forum for sharing ideas or experiences, then what is it for? Yes, there are some newbees that spout off things they have read, but if someone shares their personal experience with a bee issue, they shouldn't be ridiculed or made to defend what they shared.


----------



## Fusion_power (Jan 14, 2005)

ruthiesbees said:


> The Poster was sharing their own experience with foundationless; and in my opinion, one shouldn't have to "defend" your own experience. If Beesource is not a forum for sharing ideas or experiences, then what is it for? Yes, there are some newbees that spout off things they have read, but if someone shares their personal experience with a bee issue, they shouldn't be ridiculed or made to defend what they shared.


Those "sharing their own experience" are actually sharing their interpretation of something they observed. If the interpretation is flawed, their post is at best misleading and at worst can cause other beekeepers to make expensive mistakes. I'll first respond to the comments made up to this point by noting that a colony of bees will indeed go industrious when a flow is on and build comb fast. This is the observation that was made and indeed it is true. What was not stated and perhaps was not observed is the cost of building comb. JWChesnut posted that there is a biological cost to building comb. This cost can be quantified at about 8 pounds of honey per pound of wax produced. In addition, the bees that are drawing comb would otherwise have been busy at other tasks in the hive or foraging for honey. This represents an opportunity cost to the hive since they lose the production of those bees busy with comb building. For a direct anecdote, I produce honey mostly in drawn combs from foundation. A friend produces honey using starter strips with no comb carried over from previous years. His honey is superb, light, delicious, of outstanding quality which is to be expected of honey in fresh drawn comb. My honey is also superb, light, delicious, and of outstanding quality because I make a point to produce honey only in combs that have never been used to produce brood. The difference is that he produces 2 or 3 mediums of honey and I produce 4 or more from a similar colony. A medium super contains about 1.5 pounds of wax as drawn by the bees. This represents roughly 12 pounds of honey plus maybe another 12 pounds of opportunity cost. I can sell 24 pounds of honey at $5 per pound retail which is $120. There is indeed a cost to foundationless beekeeping.


To give a better example, I could share the "experience" that I stopped treating my bees for varroa and they are just fine. Beginner beekeepers would read this statement and interpret that they too can stop treating and will have similar results. Do we get beekeepers who are just starting and are intent on going treatment free? Yep, by the dozen. Have they done the due diligence to actually make it work? Nope. So for me to share that I am treatment free for 11 years would also require that I disclose the steps I took to get to this status so other beekeepers won't erroneously assume it is easy and anyone can do it with any old commercial package of bees.

This is why I respectfully disagree that 'one shouldn't have to "defend" your own experience'. I agree that some responses lack tact and are unnecessarily confrontational.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Fusion_power said:


> The difference is that he produces 2 or 3 mediums of honey and I produce 4 or more from a similar colony.


Agree with that finding it roughly equates with my own results (or experience) when using the method. So I no longer use foundationless hives primarily for honey production but they have other uses I still have and produce foundationless comb.

Also I'm not sure why there is so much agro in the thread, nobody is attacking the opening poster because the OP did not express an opinion, merely asked a question. And will no doubt be considering answers from all sides.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Mr. Bush, Are you saying that crush and strain is NOT the way to go?

I'm saying crush and strain will not make as much honey as extracting. Giving a strong colony drawn comb on a flow is the best way to maximize your honey crop. If you only have two or three hives, I would not buy an extractor, I would do crush and strain (and I did for decades). If you want honey that has awesome flavor, crush and strain. If you want a big honey crop and you have enough hives to make it pay, buy an extractor.


----------



## Dan the bee guy (Jun 18, 2015)

ruthiesbees said:


> The Poster was sharing their own experience with foundationless; and in my opinion, one shouldn't have to "defend" your own experience. If Beesource is not a forum for sharing ideas or experiences, then what is it for? Yes, there are some newbees that spout off things they have read, but if someone shares their personal experience with a bee issue, they shouldn't be ridiculed or made to defend what they shared.


The grumpy old man can't see the grumpy old man till he looks in the mirror:shhhh:


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

I think a lot of people who post their own experience get questioned and have to defend it, but hey, that's the internet.

For me, I realise that just about anything I say, there will be a bunch of people who disagree with it. Those with blood pressure issues will find relief once they accept you will not win everyone to your own view, or even experience, others have different experience, often due to small hive numbers, or location.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

Is there a honey production "cost" for bees to produce wax? Certainly, bees will fill a box of drawn comb much more quickly than they will draw out and fill a box of foundation. I do, however, believe that during an intense flow, there seems to be a surplus of wax available that is seen as burr comb on the top bars. I have come to believe that a few sheets (we usually do 3 per box) of foundation per box of drawn comb satisfies that wax building urge and can probably be drawn with little to no cost in honey production.
Oops! Did I just become a grumpy old man?


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

It's not just about the cost of drawing the comb. My own experience is the biggest reason foundationless hives make less is because of what is going on in the broodnest.

So to explain what I mean, when I ran foundationless broodnests for honey hives I did not crush and strain, even when they were given drawn comb in the supers they still produced markedly less honey. That's unless I manipulated the broodnest area so they hardly had any drone comb. My belief is it's the drones that reduce honey crop. And I still see this now in my drone production hives, foundationless hives can have hugely more drones than hives using all foundation, and honey production is noticeably less.

Thing is, a wild hive's main drive is not to produce a huge honey surplus. A natural hive's main drive is to reproduce, same as all other living creatures. It is humans aim that the bees make a huge honey crop and to get that we manipulate certain things away from natural, one of those being the drone population. Running drones at natural levels will reduce our harvestable crop, or at least it does in my hives.


----------



## Dan the bee guy (Jun 18, 2015)

jim lyon said:


> Is there a honey production "cost" for bees to produce wax? Certainly, bees will fill a box of drawn comb much more quickly than they will draw out and fill a box of foundation. I do, however, believe that during an intense flow, there seems to be a surplus of wax available that is seen as burr comb on the top bars. I have come to believe that a few sheets (we usually do 3 per box) of foundation per box of drawn comb satisfies that wax building urge and can probably be drawn with little to no cost in honey production.
> Oops! Did I just become a grumpy old man?


Can you prove that . Or did Michael Bush say it first.:lpf:


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

What. That he's a grumpy old man?


----------



## Dan the bee guy (Jun 18, 2015)

Dan the bee guy said:


> Can you prove that . Or did Michael Bush say it first.:lpf:


This is what a grumpy old man will say.:gh:


----------



## Fusion_power (Jan 14, 2005)

No thats wrong, this is what a grumpy old man will say:

grumble grumble grumble

Which to Zelda fans means you need to feed him the enemy bait.


----------



## Dan the bee guy (Jun 18, 2015)

Fusion_power said:


> No thats wrong, this is what a grumpy old man will say:
> 
> grumble grumble grumble
> 
> Which to Zelda fans means you need to feed him the enemy bait.


O great now I have to find out what Zelda is say a grumpy old man.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

Dan the bee guy said:


> This is what a grumpy old man will say.:gh:


If you find a dead fish in your car I don't know anything about it.


----------



## RichardsonTX (Jul 3, 2011)

Michael Bush said:


> In my experience honey production is a lot less without drawn comb. But foundation has little to do with that. Drawn comb gives them a place to put nectar when there is a flow. Having to draw comb slows down that process while they build somewhere to put the nectar while the flow is happening. If you use foundation and crush and strain and compare it to foundationless doing crush and strain I don't think you'll see a very significant difference. I think the foundationless might even win. It's extracting and reusing drawn comb that changes the numbers significantly.


This is why preserving drawn comb is so VERY important. I learned this the hard way by taking a few years off from active management of my bees. When I recently took stock of what I had left I realized that the biggest loss was my drawn comb which was almost all essentially destroyed by wax moths. What happened is I had a big loss in hives after the first winter that came after an exceptionally good year where almost all of my first bees each had drawn 3 deeps of 10-frame comb. That was about 840 frames of drawn comb. I didn't have as much damage the second year because I used a lot of the drawn comb making splits. The next winter I had a lot of losses again and with my professional job starting to go to 60-70 hr work weeks I stopped managing my hives for the most part. But, I didn't take care of that comb and it sat for a long time without me checking it. As a result I lost what I would consider to be about $4200 worth of comb. I arrived at that amount by figuring the opportunity cost of honey production required to produce the comb along with the cost of the original foundation, labor not included. 

In my opinion, taking care of your equipment and drawn comb is by far the most important part of maintaining the assets of your operation. Unless, you have a strain of bee that you've developed that perfectly fits your needs and it would be costly/difficult to replace that strain. Another lesson I learned in the first year, because I build my bottom boards, hive bodies, and lids, is that taking the time to do quality work and PAINTING (at least two coats plus primer) pays off. I also prefer using all deeps which makes things more interchangeable. 

I will never make the mistaking of wasting the hard work of my bees by letting it be destroyed by the wax moths!


----------



## Bees of SC (Apr 12, 2013)

bamabeedude;;Thank you for starting this post


----------



## JWChesnut (Jul 31, 2013)

Oldtimer said:


> And I still see this now in my drone production hives, foundationless hives can have hugely more drones than hives using all foundation, and honey production is noticeably less.


Thomas Seeley wrote a paper that documents this exact effect. One may downloads his research freely.
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00891902/document

*The effect of drone comb on a honey bee colony’s
production of honey
*
Thomas D. SEELEY
Apidologie 33 (2002) 75–86
DOI: 10.1051/apido: 2001008


Abstract
– This study examined the impact on a colony’s honey production of providing it with a nat-
ural amount (20%) of drone comb. Over 3 summers, for the period mid May to late August, I mea-
sured the weight gains of 10 colonies, 5 with drone comb and 5 without it. Colonies with drone comb
gained only 25.2 ± 16.0 kg whereas those without drone comb gained 48.8 ± 14.8 kg. Colonies with
drone comb also had a higher mean rate of drone flights and a lower incidence of drone comb build-
ing. The lower honey yield of colonies with drone comb apparently arises, at least in part, because
drone comb fosters drone rearing and the rearing and maintenance of drones is costly. I suggest that
providing colonies with drone comb, as part of a program of controlling Varroa destructorwithout
pesticides, may still be desirable since killing drone brood to kill mites may largely eliminate the neg-
ative effect of drone comb on honey yields.


----------



## RichardsonTX (Jul 3, 2011)

Oldtimer said:


> It's not just about the cost of drawing the comb. My own experience is the biggest reason foundationless hives make less is because of what is going on in the broodnest.
> 
> So to explain what I mean, when I ran foundationless broodnests for honey hives I did not crush and strain, even when they were given drawn comb in the supers they still produced markedly less honey. That's unless I manipulated the broodnest area so they hardly had any drone comb. My belief is it's the drones that reduce honey crop. And I still see this now in my drone production hives, foundationless hives can have hugely more drones than hives using all foundation, and honey production is noticeably less.
> 
> Thing is, a wild hive's main drive is not to produce a huge honey surplus. A natural hive's main drive is to reproduce, same as all other living creatures. It is humans aim that the bees make a huge honey crop and to get that we manipulate certain things away from natural, one of those being the drone population. Running drones at natural levels will reduce our harvestable crop, or at least it does in my hives.


Oldtimer, this is good info! I'm getting ready to make some mini mating nucs for queen rearing this year and I want to make make as much effort as possible to spread drones around my mating yard from the breeder queen. I want to not just try and improve the strains of my bees but also the strains of the hives (feral and managed) around me. Should I just use a starter strip to get the comb in the mating nucs drawn so that they tend to draw out more drone comb? My mating nucs will be 4-way deeps that I first use as "supers" over side-by-side nuc hives to try and get the comb drawn out, some brood frames, and some frames with honey. I've bought a couple of R Weaver Buckfast queens and I'll be using some queens cells from another very knowledgeable commercial beekeeper who keeps good stock. My current stock is what I'd consider survivor stock (and thrifty/disease resistant) for the most part because my hive losses have ground down to less than 10% per year for the last couple of years (I hope that is a repeat for this winter too) but they definitely don't have other qualities that I'd like to see in my bees.......good temperament, industriousness, and less swarming tendency. I've also decided to treat (vaporized OA) now rather focus strictly on survivor qualities. 

I want a lot of drone production here at my mating yard since so that the traits of the breeder queens saturate the area by virgin queens mating with them. 

Should I use foundation in the mini mating nuc frames (they'll be approximately 7"x9") or just starter strips? and should I use wire even if I just use starter strips?


----------



## Girl Next Door Honey (Jan 4, 2016)

Okay, I'll just have my lawyer look over my response before I post next time.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>I will never make the mistaking of wasting the hard work of my bees by letting it be destroyed by the wax moths!

Good luck with that. It is certainly worth the effort to try... but I gave up hating wax moths. They are just part of the system. A part I try to avoid, but they still get a share from time to time.


----------



## RichardsonTX (Jul 3, 2011)

Girl Next Door Honey said:


> Okay, I'll just have my lawyer look over my response before I post next time.


Would that be Lawyer Daggett from Dardanelle, AR? ...............Just kidding! And don't take offense to any of the comments around here. Everybody is just trying to give each other thick skin........bee sting protection. Most of these folks you might consider as obtrusive are really good folks with a LOT of good info. And some REALLY do know everything!


----------



## bucksbees (May 19, 2015)

RichardsonTX said:


> Would that be Lawyer Daggett from Dardanelle, AR?


I was thinking the same thing, but did not want to show my age.


----------



## Eduardo Gomes (Nov 10, 2014)

"_I do, however, believe that during an intense flow, there seems to be a surplus of wax available that is seen as burr comb on the top bars. I have come to believe that a few sheets (we usually do 3 per box) of foundation per box of drawn comb satisfies that wax building urge and can probably be drawn with little to no cost in honey production._" 
I think the same!

"_So to explain what I mean, when I ran foundationless broodnests for honey hives I did not crush and strain, even when they were given drawn comb in the supers they still produced markedly less honey. That's unless I manipulated the broodnest area so they hardly had any drone comb. My belief is it's the drones that reduce honey crop. And I still see this now in my drone production hives, foundationless hives can have hugely more drones than hives using all foundation, and honey production is noticeably less._" 
Yes, I saw and see the same in the other part of the world. 

"_Colonies with drone comb gained only 25.2 ± 16.0 kg whereas those without drone comb gained 48.8 ± 14.8 kg._" 
Against facts there are no arguments.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

and this study saw no difference:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00218839.1965.11100114

"Normal colonies of bees given a supply of empty drone combs as required during the active season (Treated group) produced significantly more drone brood than Control colonies in which the amount of drone comb was severely restricted in the spring. A natural limit was fairly soon reached, however, and the maximum amount did not exceed about 2 580 sq. cm. in any colony. (In a previous year Treated colonies given only one drone comb also produced significantly more drone brood than Control colonies with no added drone comb.) Fewer drone cells were built on worker combs in the Treated colonies than in the Controls.

"Worker brood amounts and honey yields were not significantly less in Treated than in Control colonies, nor was there an increased tendency towards queen rearing in the Treated groups. Allowing colonies to rear drones freely would therefore appear to have no detrimental effect on their economic performance, and the need to restrict drone rearing as a beekeeping practice may be questioned."


----------



## Mycroft Jones (Aug 22, 2015)

Michael, I notice that paper is from 1965, before varroa. Thomas Seeley's paper is from 2002, after varroa. Dan Harvey told me his mite levels fluctuate throughout the season, between 2% and 18%. Dan Harvey is using feral bees that survived varroa for 30 years in the cedar forests of the Olympic Peninsula.

Could it be, the extra drone didn't affect honey production in the past, but now there is varroa, extra drone means extra varroa, and this is what is dragging honey production down?


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

RichardsonTX said:


> I'm getting ready to make some mini mating nucs for queen rearing this year and I want to make make as much effort as possible to spread drones around my mating yard from the breeder queen. I want to not just try and improve the strains of my bees but also the strains of the hives (feral and managed) around me. Should I just use a starter strip to get the comb in the mating nucs drawn so that they tend to draw out more drone comb? My mating nucs will be 4-way deeps that I first use as "supers" over side-by-side nuc hives to try and get the comb drawn out, some brood frames, and some frames with honey. I've bought a couple of R Weaver Buckfast queens and I'll be using some queens cells from another very knowledgeable commercial beekeeper who keeps good stock. My current stock is what I'd consider survivor stock (and thrifty/disease resistant) for the most part because my hive losses have ground down to less than 10% per year for the last couple of years (I hope that is a repeat for this winter too) but they definitely don't have other qualities that I'd like to see in my bees.......good temperament, industriousness, and less swarming tendency. I've also decided to treat (vaporized OA) now rather focus strictly on survivor qualities.
> 
> I want a lot of drone production here at my mating yard since so that the traits of the breeder queens saturate the area by virgin queens mating with them.
> 
> Should I use foundation in the mini mating nuc frames (they'll be approximately 7"x9") or just starter strips? and should I use wire even if I just use starter strips?


Well there's quite a few questions in there, so to answer one at a time, you can use foundation or not use foundation, but when I was using mini nucs they were all foundationless using a starter strip, same as you suggest and this worked well. Wire? Certainly strengthens things up, most commercial mini nucs (that I've seen) do not use wire but this is about the time it takes to wire them, if you have the time, wire will prevent the odd comb breakage. Bees building foundationless comb take full advantage of wire if it is there, building it in to the comb as a strengthening device same as they use protrusions in a wild nest. Long as the hive is level they will have the wire run exactly through the centre of the foundation of the comb, just as if embedded foundation had been supplied.

Wether the bees will build drone comb is about how strong the hive is, certainly if you get the frames drawn in a super above another hive that is short on drones, they will build drone comb. There would be some issues in mini nucs with this though, mini nucs realise they are very weak hives and tend not to rear drones the drone comb will be used for honey. They will sometimes rear drones if extremely strong to the point of bearding though, but things usually work better if you do not have the mini nucs excessively strong. Believe it or not these little hives can and will swarm, or supersede, if they are bearding. 

It sounds like you have some great bees, but the other issue with raising drones in the same hives as the queens are being mated in is possible inbreeding which can result in patchy brood. What I do for drone supply is have my mating nucs at or near an apiary of normal hives. The hives I like are given up to 4 drone combs and they will pump out thousands of drones. The hives I like less are given no drone combs, and in that way I try to swing the drone population towards the bees I like. The cells I bring to the mating nucs come from different lines of bees to the ones producing the drones.

Also it wasn't really a question, but just to comment on something you said, at less than 10% losses and TF you are doing exceptionally well so I'm wondering about why you are considering using OA. It would be OK if you simply use it to improve productivity, but not let it lead to the loss of your survivor genetics. If I could be TF and have less than 10% losses I think I would treasure that and not treat with anything.


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

Mycroft Jones said:


> Michael, I notice that paper is from 1965, before varroa. Thomas Seeley's paper is from 2002, after varroa. Dan Harvey told me his mite levels fluctuate throughout the season, between 2% and 18%. Dan Harvey is using feral bees that survived varroa for 30 years in the cedar forests of the Olympic Peninsula.
> 
> Could it be, the extra drone didn't affect honey production in the past, but now there is varroa, extra drone means extra varroa, and this is what is dragging honey production down?


The article is behind a paywall but I see the author is an affiliate of a University in Scotland. We have no idea about the quality of control on the experiments referred to. I wonder, is that all that came up on a search for material supporting the position that free choice raising of drone brood does *not* have a negative impact on honey production?


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Kinda what I was thinking too Crofter. 

I got no use for a dodgy partly disclosed 50 year old study, as my own results, and other better studies, are clear.


----------



## RichardsonTX (Jul 3, 2011)

Oldtimer, ................. when I think about what I've seen over the last 5 years of beekeeping where I've had stock that came from a swarm that was my original hive and stock that I purchased as nucleus colonies, and I read/listen to all this talk about people with hives they don't have to treat, I've come to the conclusion that they have bees containing genetic material from the African bee, Apis mellifera scutellata. The reason I say this is because the swarm/feral hive that was my first hive came from a sprinkler box in the ground (typical of Africanized honey bees), they were aggressive (Africanized honey bees) but not overly aggressive but more aggressive than the Russian strain that came in my nucleus hives. I also purchased several nuc hives when I started keeping bees. Keeping in mind that I did not treat my hives in any way, about 40% or slightly more of the nucleus hives that I purchased (I think it was 28 I purchased) when I started died that winter after really taking off to the point where almost all the hives had mostly drawn out 3 deeps of comb (an exceptionally good year for everyone around here). The hive that came from the swarm lived through the winter. So that spring, using all my hives, I made splits with queen cells from an experienced commercial beekeeper (very knowledgeable) that treats and had my production hive count up to about 30 but not all double deeps and super strong like the winter before. The feral hive was strong, in fact, it produced a monstrous amount of honey for me that year and grew into a very populous hive (not typical of Africanized bees), 2-1/2 deeps of brood, even with me pulling a few frames to make nucs with from it. One of the factors I think that helped it was that it was in my yard here at my home where the city virtually provides a spring like environment all year because of watering, etcetera. Anyhow, that winter probably half of my hives died again but the hives that started with stock from the swarm hive mostly lived. For the last couple of years I've left them alone almost completely and I went into the winter this year with 10 hives. I did give four hives to a friend and one to the nephew of a land owner where I kept some bees the first winter. The original swarm hive died this past spring just coming out of winter. 

Having said that I suspect my survivor stock is heavily influenced with Africanized genetics which has caused my stock to survive without receiving any treatments, and logic tells me that the obvious spread of Africanized honey bees (which aren’t generally managed by choice) are spreading while other apis mellifera subspecies don’t tend to survive without treatment (I’m opening a can of worms with that one), and I have read studies that support the theory that the characteristics of the Apis mellifera scutellata allow it to better co-exist with varroa along with having other disease resistant qualities, that anyone who has stock they don’t treat for varroa has stock heavily influenced with genes from the Apis mellifera scutellata. The issue is that they still pass on dominate genes to their offspring when combined with other Apis mellifera subspecies that cause them to be very defensive, making them hard to manage, and they have strong swarming tendencies. Those two characteristics alone make them hard to keep in what I consider the “practical” category as far as management/economic viability is concerned. That’s led me to the conclusion that I need to abandon that route and starting actively treating my bees at least for varroa mites, with an organic treatment like vaporized oxalic acid or something similar and start breeding other qualities back in to my bees at least to the point that I can better manage them. 

I'm putting together a plan to stick to this year which is to use two existing hives for honey production until the end of spring, and use the other hives to rear queens and make nucleus colonies with. This March I'll split my hives (excluding the two honey production hives) with queen cells, making up as many strong 5-frame nucleus hives as I can make out of them (currently double deeps) and putting the newly built 4-way mating nucs on them so that those strong nucs can generate comb, brood, and some honey in the new 4-ways. In April, I'll use as many bees as I can spare from the 5-frame nucleus hives (that had the original 4-ways on top) to rear queens in all the 4-way nucs I have at that time. At the same time I'll put more newly built 4-way mating nucs back onto the 5-frame nucs so that I can do the same process again in May and then again in June (where I'll also use the two production hives to also create splits after honey harvest) and then again in September. After that, we'll prepare for winter by trying to get all nucs into double 5-frame hive bodies with some 5-frame hive bodies over 4-ways that have part of the dividers out making those essentially 2-ways with 5-frame hive bodies over them. My stock for queen rearing will be the Buckfast queens, and queen cells from a commercial beekeeper I know. Feed will be kept on the bees at all times. Note, this plan is subject to change at any given time. 

What do you think?


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

What do I think? Sounds like an excellent plan and also it's a great pleasure reading a post from someone who understands his bees so well. Your findings re Scutellata and mites are certainly backed by most of the literature. So I understand now the rational behind using OA, and sounds like you are doing this whole thing right and should get excellent results. Just hope there are not too many Scutellata drones out there in the wild that will keep reverting your bees to Scutellata.

One issue you will face doing all this with cells is that they will be mating with some of your Scutellata drones so the female progeny may be 50/50, so you cannot use those queens as future breeders. But the drones they throw will be pure to the mother so if you can requeen everything with them, then do another round of cells they will be mating mostly with the drones of your choice. I faced exactly the same dilemma once when all my bees were carniolan and, due to the whims of the customers, I had to change over to Italian. So the first round of cells resulted in hybrid bees but throwing pure Italian drones, then after that the next round was mating with mostly Italian drones and I was able to get a reasonably pure Italian bee. All up though it took a good couple of seasons to totally rid myself of the less desired bees even though I thought I would get it done in one season.

So I'll follow with interest.


----------



## Eduardo Gomes (Nov 10, 2014)

I leave some quotes from the book _Dadant system of beekeeping_, 1920.

"_There are always some drone-cells, here and there, and, in the very best managed hive, the. bees will probably rear from 200 to 300 drones. But so small a number is not objectionable. It is the rearing of thousands which is expensive and worse than useless.

But alas,the drones are reared at great expense by the bees, at the beginning of the season, at a time when the workers could more profitably nurse other worker-bees. When the drones are hatched and begin to suggest to us the possibility of their usefulness in that way, if a cold spell of weather comes, cutting off the honey supply, the bees begin to drive them away, exterminating them without mercy. With the return of warm weather, they again rear a horde of those useless beings, nursing them and coddling them, until the end of the harvest points to them the necessity of again ridding their home of these "idle gluttons."

Although it is difficult to put in figures the economy in honey secured by preventing the bees of a colony from rearing 2,000 or more drones, the attentive student will readily grasp the advantage of the system. Two thousand drones take as much room in the breeding cells as 3,000workers. Thirty-six drones are raised in a square inch of comb, while the same space will accommodate 55 workers. The amount of food required is similarly larger. But it is after they are hatched as full- fledged insects that the difference in results looms up. The 3,000 workers will be an army of active producers, while the 2,000 gross gluttons, staying home most of the time, get in the way of the workers during the best and most important part of the honey-producing day, from 10 to 4 o'clock.

So it is very clear to us, as it must be to any impartial observer, that the prevention of drone production, in hives from which we do not wish to breed, is in the line of progress. We therefore make it a rule to examine colonies in early spring, and exchange their drone-combs for comb of worker cells.

It is therefore very important, and we urge it upon the beekeeper who wishes to succeed, to remove all drone-comb from every colony except those selected by him as breeders, replacing all this drone-comb at once with worker-combs._"


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

Thanks Eduardo; I suppose if a persons main theme in raising bees is allowing them to do whatever was natural in their ancient natural state, then you should allow them to make all the decisions! My bees and I have a different arrangement that is far from natural; They give me excess honey and entertainment and I make most of the decisions about their surroundings. It seems to allow them to have much, much better survival rate than they would in the wild.


----------

