Robin Dartington "waxed poetic":

> Respect for nature, as it has evolved...
> Bees never met plastic within their brood
> nest in 34 million years.

They also never met square hives, removable frames, or equipment
designed to present "bee space".  All would appear to be
"bigger" changes than mere foundation.

> So the question is, how will they respond and will that be
> beneficial?

If one were to argue that bees need to "adapt" to plastic
foundation, one would be forced to admit that ANY foundation
would be more of an unexpected change and a "challenge" to
the bees' adaptive ability than the type of foundation.

Perhaps the argument would be better framed as "why use
foundation at all"?  As for me, I'll keep framing foundation,
rather than framing philosophical questions about issues that
have been settled by centuries of study and practical experience
among beekeepers.  I think that several centuries of use are
enough of a (ahem) "foundation" for a consensus that foundation
is a good idea.

But if one's goal is to "keep bees naturally", and "respect
nature", then perhaps one should NOT keep bees, and simply
observe them in their "native habitat", the honey tree.

> If they can learn a new trick, all is well and bees will be
> on the way to developing a new instinct.

I don't see the reasoning here.  If provided with an empty
frame, bees will drawn comb.  Perhaps not nice straight comb,
and perhaps drone comb rather than worker-sized comb, so we
"encourage" them to draw better comb by providing foundation
of one sort or another.  What would a bee have to "learn" to
utilize any type of foundation, given that the foundation simply
takes advantage of well-understood existing bee behavior?

> If the jump is too much, they will be disorientated, demoralised...
> ... and stressed

But again, if one is going to speculate about wax-coated plastic
foundation, mustn't one first admit that the "big surprise" would
be ANY foundation, regardless of type?

> Observations of response to plastic have been mixed.

Observations of any aspect of beekeeping "have been mixed".
You can't blame the gear for the actions of the beekeeper.

Beekeepers are often wrong, but seldom uncertain.
Beekeepers are also seldom in agreement.

This inherently leads to "mixed reviews" of everything and
anything.  This has no effect on the bees, which have proven
to be able to thrive through it all under conditions that we
now know to have been misguided, and, in many cases, clearly
detrimental to the bees.

> Well, honeybee nest architecture is a natural miracle.

A miracle that was studied and understood, thus resulting in
the modern beehive, bee space, foundation, etc.

>(does the plastic emit a foreign smell as it decays, which all
> plastics seem to do?).

No, and no.

If you lean a sheet of plastic foundation outside against the wall
of your house, it would outlast you, and might outlast your house.
Check the accelerated life-cycle testing data.  Archeologists are
sure to find plastic foundation when excavating the ruins of my
farm in the year 4670.

> Virgin queens also pipe to send vibrations thru the combs

True.

> bees do not hear air-borne sound.

Absolutely False.
Bees can and do hear airborne sound, as has been shown by
carefully-crafted experiments.  The organ is named the
"Johnston's organ".  It is at the base of the antenna.
Many insects have highly similar hardware.  To understand
bees, it helps to know their basic anatomy and physiology.

> Do we know if it induces stress, by creating conditions the
> bees are unable to bring back to normal

If colony stress resulted, beekeepers would notice.
They haven't, so it doesn't.

> Are we simply exploiters, enslavers, of the bee

Nope, they can (and do) leave anytime they want to!  :)

> - or carers, interested in and admiring the natural order within the nest?

Any comparison between a hybrid bee in a man-made nest and a "natural"
bee in its native habitat is useless.  The mere use of hybrid queens
and the act of requeening invalidates any comparison.

> The main argument in favour of plastic foundation seems to be that it saves
> the beekeeper's time.

There are many better reasons to use modern materials.  The biggest single
reason is that it eliminates the build-up of ever-more concentrated toxic
compounds that are slowing building up in foundation as beekeepers continue
to recycle wax that has been exposed to miticides, medications, and PDB.

> Jim Fischer seemed unable to distinguish between plastic foundation and
> " metal hive tools, nylon bee brushes, plastic queen excluders..."
> I am still hoping these other items are not routinely left within brood nests.

Queen excluders don't work so well unless they are IN the hive, do they?
I can go on... plastic frames, plastic hives, plastic feeders, plastic
press-in queen introduction cages, plastic feeder buckets...

> Jim's estimate of time for working with wax foundation has no relevance
> to either hobbyist or professional.

Well, it takes me 5 seconds to snap a sheet of plastic foundation into a
frame.  The only question is how much longer any other approach requires,
as they all require more time and effort.  Time and effort are clearly
important to both the hobbyist and the professional, since many hobbyists
have a "real world life", and must do other things than keep bees, and
the professional needs to reduce labor costs to stay competitive with
imported honey.  Sounds very relevant to me.


                        jim

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/BEE-L for rules, FAQ and  other info ---
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::