BEE-L Archives

Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology

BEE-L@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Allen Dick <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Date:
Mon, 15 Jul 1996 23:00:43 -0600
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (78 lines)
> With due respect to the rights of plastic foundation  I make the
> following observation. Lasts year I used a combination of prodoucts
> for evaluation and thus had not hives that were 100 one product. I
> used (a) a all wax foundation with support wire, (b)  plastic
> foundation with a coating of bees wax. and (c)some comlete frames
> and foundation of plastsic coated with  beewax.
>
> Last year both  (a) and (b) were well accepted and both brood and
> 6-5.8 inch frames came through the winter well. product(c) was not
> well accepted and it appears that they bees simply moved most sof
> the wax elsewhere and made little or no drawn cells.
 
<etc.>
 
While I had hoped that this might tell us something about specific
products on the market it seems it discusses products identified
only generally by type -- did not appear to work well work in a
specific situation.
 
That is unfortunate inasmuch as the specific products are not named,
and we might tend to draw conclusions based on a small sample of
products in each category.  They appear not to be the well known,
nationally advertised products I have used over the years -- and
which I will name.
 
We read that some unmentioned brand of wax foundation of
unknown cell size seemed to be well accepted, some plastic sheets of
unstated manufacture (there are at least several on the market)
were somewhat accepted and seemed to have problems when later
examined, and some plastic frames with foundation built-in that are
possibly -- in some way -- associated with New Zealand were not
accepted at all -- each under circumstances that are not clear.
 
I want to state specifically that I have used numerous (most North
American) brands of wax foundation -- including some with
considerable paraffin, I suspect. They all worked , but some brands,
on some occasions were brittle and fell apart-- or they were poorly
made and warped.
 
In my experience, wax foundation -- of any brand -- has often been
rejected by my bees due to poor position or bad timing, and has
become useless before the bees got to it again another year.
 
(I have only used the wax foundation  that purported to have worker
size cells and and although I have noticed that they vary somewhat in
cells per inch, I have never been observant enough to decide if the
bees care).
 
As far as plastic goes, I have used Permadent ( and another brand,
the name of which I forget) as well as the Pierco frames with
foundation built in.  In my opinion -- in commercial service --the
bees  draw a larger proportion of useful straight combs on any of
them  with less wastage than on any wax I have used, and I have had
literally tons of wax foundation pass through my hands over the
years.
 
If the plastic is not drawn out the first year, it can be
re-inserted until it is used.  It will not be damaged by being
handled and trucked repeatedly until it is lucky enough to find a
hive that is ready to work on it.  Wax is usually pretty useless if
not drawn the first year, as it will not stand trucking and rough
handling, or storage under some conditions.  It cannot be handled in
cold weather.
 
As far as cross comb is concerned, We really don't find plastic any
worse than natural wax.
 
FWIW, we added 1,000 supers of new Permadent this year and love it.
 
Regards
 
Allen
 
W. Allen Dick, Beekeeper                                         VE6CFK
RR#1, Swalwell, Alberta  Canada T0M 1Y0
Internet:[log in to unmask] & [log in to unmask]
Honey. Bees, & Art <http://www.internode.net/~allend/>

ATOM RSS1 RSS2