Patternless foundation, or negative patterned foundation

[jenkinsbrynmair]

You know where the problem lies HM, I don't think most people mind the odd bit of tomfoolery and even occasional heated argument but certain people constantly attack anyone with a different view to their strict dogma then cries 'foul and pity poor me' (supported by a few on the forum) when other people stand up to him for his sly and nasty ways and next thing world war three breaks out.

 

[pargyle]

You know where the problem lies HM, I don't think most people mind the odd bit of tomfoolery and even occasional heated argument but certain people constantly attack anyone with a different view to their strict dogma then cries 'foul and pity poor me' (supported by a few on the forum) when other people stand up to him for his sly and nasty ways and next thing world war three breaks out.

I totally agree ... I have never minded either correction or suggestions for modification of what I do but there is a single element on here that takes things beyond normal debate :

"I just wonder what magic is in "natural combs". I do not understand. Get a life pargyle!

Oh dear. You know something about beekeeping, do you? Its main idea is to produce honey. I learned those natural combs during my first beekeeping week 51 years ago.

I have seen many kind of combs during my life. And you have balls to teach me what experiences I need in beekeeping."


All I can say is it's a good job I have a thick skin but I can clearly see why some people are reluctant to air views or ideas that are 'alternative' in any way !

 

[ugcheleuce]

Wow... page 11 already. On a thread that I started. My mother will be so proud. ;-)

Added: This sort of thing happens on all forums -- you need to read with a "filter". Personally I often think a good solution would be if the thread poster and/or a few moderators can "hide" posts that they think are not on-topic, but by "hide" I mean the posts are simply "folded in" in such a way that they become folded out if you click on them or hover over them, but so that anyone who visits the thread sees only the on-topic posts unless they interact with the hidden posts. But I'm sure that has been tried and has been shown to "not work".

Ultimately one must take the good with the bad and learn from everyone what you can. And if you don't like to see a specific someone's posts, simply add them to your ignore list. Don't you agree?

 

[FreeFall]

You know where the problem lies HM, I don't think most people mind the odd bit of tomfoolery and even occasional heated argument but certain people constantly attack anyone with a different view to their strict dogma

Ultimately one must take the good with the bad and learn from everyone what you can. And if you don't like to see a specific someone's posts, simply add them to your ignore list. Don't you agree?

 

[Swarm]

You see their post if it's quoted by another. You also see replies to such posts, the ignore button is not an option that I would choose.

Far easier to consider them as 'static' and carry on the discussion.

 

[Tom Bick]

I will start one tonight after a day crawling on my hands and knees fitting an oak floor at Eaton Terrace and after that I will need a long session in the chair as I pour wine into my poor knees.

Sorry but I am going to leave this thread for another day as we have plenty of time before we see our girls again, and its Christmas and I still have half a bottle of pain relief to finish.

Merry Christmas

 

[VEG]

Have sent you a pm tom

 

[jenkinsbrynmair]

Still waiting for a picture of the oak floor eh Veg - do you always get turned on by pictures of naked trees?

 

[VEG]

Any wood is good haha

 

[Finman]

.
This discussion only tells how weak may be the knowledge basis of beekeepers.

It does not become better with banning some members.

It becomes better if you have couple of good beekeeping books and read them.

These foundation things have been known tens of years. They are one Basics of Succesfull Beekeeping.

.

 

[Hivemaker.]

.
It does not become better with banning some members.
.

I think it is just you they have in mind, Finman, and you are not helping yourself by insulting just about everyone on the forum.

 

[pargyle]

.
This discussion only tells how weak may be the knowledge basis of beekeepers.

It does not become better with banning some members.

It becomes better if you have couple of good beekeeping books and read them.

These foundation things have been known tens of years. They are one Basics of Succesfull Beekeeping.

.

I'm not so sure about either of the above ....

 

[Finman]

I think it is just you they have in mind, Finman, and you are not helping yourself by insulting just about everyone on the forum.

Do it then. And who ever can insult me what ever. Those dogs are hanging around all the time.

It is mere relief to be away from this forum. Waste of life to me.

 

[Hivemaker.]

Do it then.

I am just going to delete a few posts for now, i suggest you go and take a chill pill/have a walk, whatever, and hopefully come back with a different attitude.

 

[yeogi75]

Not so messy either I presume


Craig

good to freeze frames a couple of hours to set honey makes nice cleaner cuts'


also would be nice if everyone tackles the thread and not the poster or replies' ,as everyone has there own idea's and ways of doing things. banning is not the answer as it will leave the forum with people of one view, like other sites that have lost there lustre and debates .

 

[ugcheleuce]

These foundation things have been known tens of years. They are one Basics of Succesfull Beekeeping.

The debate about whether to use foundation at all is an endless one, in which one should not post more than two or three replies (if at all). Different beekeepers have had different experiences, and the fact is that there are so many variables involved -- the type of bee, the health of the colony, the climate, the flow, etc. For every video showing how successful foundationless can be, there is another that shows how unsuccessful it can be.

My original question was not about foundationless versus foundational, but about about how one can alter patternless foundation in such a way that it encourages the bees to better follow a pattern.

The research has already been done -- bees will use smooth foundation. Do bees prefer it? Well, let's look at the original PDF that I mentioned:

The study compared how bees would react to thin and smooth foundation, thick and smooth foundation, traditional pattered (embossed) foundation, and starter strips (i.e. "no" foundation).

1. There were no significant differences in cell diameter, cell size and cell angle to the horizontal.
2. No matter how thick the original foundation, the resultant comb had a consistently thin midrib.
3. If you want the most bee-produced wax, then thin smooth foundation is best, followed by thick smooth foundation, followed by patterned foundation.
4. Bees seemed to prefer the thin smooth foundation the best. They seemed to prefer patterned foundation the least.

So as far as the bees' preferences are concerned, the thin smooth foundation wins over the thick smooth foundation, and bees have the least preference for traditional, patterned foundation.

However, using smooth foundation has one disadvantage: cells built on smooth foundation are irregularly arranged.

Mike Bush was quoted as saying that bees dislike smooth foundation, but if you google a bit you'll discover Mike admitting that he is simply repeating something he had heard somewhere and that he hadn't actually tried using smooth foundation himself (except for starter strips).

Do any of you know of any other studies with smooth foundation (versus patterned foundation and/or versus starter strips)?

Samuel

 

[Finman]

Do any of you know of any other studies with smooth foundation (versus patterned foundation and/or versus starter strips)?

Samuel

http://www.beesfordevelopment.org/uploads/Low cost Foundation _21_.pdf

a study was conducted at the University of Wales College
Cardiff, UK, to find out if honey bees will readily accept plain wax sheets as alternatives to embossed wax foundation.

Results: The picture "A frame with drawn comb based on dyed, non-embossed wax sheets."
All cells seems to bee drone cells and quite irregurally drawn.

Compared to normal foundations, what I get 30 cents/sheet from factory, that is really waste of human and bee work. Bees do about week's work that they get ready the comb inside the frame.
With foundations too, bees have a huge work in making ready combs from foundations. To draw them it takes about 6-8 kg honey to make Foundation ready. (Canadian research 1988)

If you need drone brood, you only give them free gap and bees do combs. No drone foundations are needed.

However, using smooth foundation has one disadvantage: cells built on smooth foundation are irregularly arranged.

The author did not noticed that the biggest disadvantage was that they were drone cells.

It was said that "The study indicated few statistical differences between comb built from the experimental
frames. Cell diameter, cell size and angle at which cells are held to the horizontal were
similar for combs developed from the plain non-embossed wax sheets, embossed foundation
and the starter strips.

That is strange when I look the picture, and the right lower corner.

.

.


.

 

[yeogi75]

if bees draw out a lot of coomb with lots of drone cells would that reduce single brood capacity if drawn on flat sheets ?. and if so would it be advisable to use double brood , bottom on normal and upper on plain foundation

 

[ugcheleuce]

A study was conducted at the University of Wales College Cardiff, UK, to find out if honey bees will readily accept plain wax sheets as alternatives to embossed wax foundation.

That is exactly the same study that I'm quoting. In fact, the PDF that you link to is the same one that I link to.

Results: The picture "A frame with drawn comb based on dyed, non-embossed wax sheets." All cells seems to bee drone cells and quite irregurally drawn.

I suspect the picture *looks like* drone comb because we tend to associate irregular comb build with drone comb.

What the picture actually shows is simply "irregular comb", but it is not all drone comb. The description of the study clearly states that the frames were used in both brood nest and honey supers, and that there was no significant variation in cell size. So it looks like drone comb (because it is irregular) but it is in fact ordinary comb.

Compared to normal foundations, what I get 30 cents/sheet from factory, that is really waste of human and bee work.

For large-scale commercial beekeeping, buying foundation is certainly cheaper than making your own, but some hobbyist or small-scale commercial beekeepers want to make their own foundation. And the equipment for making patterned foundation is very expensive or very difficult to make. Smooth foundation, on the other hand, is easy to make with minimal equipment. So, I guess I'm trying to say that my question really relates to hobbyist and small-scale commercial beekeeping who do not want to buy factory-made foundation for whatever reason.

 

[Finman]

That is exactly the same study that I'm quoting. In fact, the PDF that you link to is the same

So, I guess I'm trying to say that my question really relates to hobbyist and small-scale commercial beekeeping who do not want to buy factory-made foundation for whatever reason.

Odd attitude. I cannot say more. I am a hobby beekeeper. Here who ever brings his own wax TO factory, he gets foundations 3 pounds per kilo (10 langstroth sheet)
.