# Should wax dipping with rosin of equipment be considered a treatment in this forum?



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

Let's discuss it and have an official poll.


----------



## FarmerFrazier (Oct 12, 2010)

*Re: Should wax dipping of equipment be considered a treatment in this forum?*

No. It's just for protecting the wood.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

*Re: Should wax dipping of equipment be considered a treatment in this forum?*

It's a treatment that disinfects the wood of the equipment as well as introduces resin acids from trees into the hive that are not of local origin and have pesticidal properties. Also, it introduces 100's or even thousands of uncharacterized new chemicals formed by heating bee's wax and resin acids together into the hive 

It also involves heating flammable substances in open metal containers over open gas burners and is a very dangerous practice.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

*Re: Should wax dipping of equipment be considered a treatment in this forum?*

How do you come to this conclusion? What makes you think so?

I believe that quite often we live in fear of inconsequential things. I am also aware that the bliss of ignorance exists, especially in me.

"I'm from Missouri. You'll have to show me." What a guy said to me when I was working at Colonial Williamsburg, showing off the newly built 2 door 4 holer Necassary that we had just built.


----------



## AmericasBeekeeper (Jan 24, 2010)

*Re: Should wax dipping of equipment be considered a treatment in this forum?*

The multitude of unknown chemicals we learned about in chemistry - when you mix A and B you get AB, A, B, and BA. If you mix wax (already a multitude of compounds) and rosin (already a mix of compounds) you get a plethora of compounds. The bees have this natural compound made from rosins we call propolis. They coat the inside of the hive at no cost to us. Propolis is food-grade, anti-bacterial, anti-fungal, etc.


----------



## Omie (Nov 10, 2009)

*Re: Should wax dipping of equipment be considered a treatment in this forum?*

What kind of 'wax' ??


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

*Re: Should wax dipping of equipment be considered a treatment in this forum?*

I've said elsewhere, when you heat resin acids from gum rosin, and the organic acids and alcohols found in bee's wax, you get chemical reactions occurring such as esterification and transesterification.

It's not a supposition, it's a rule of organic chemistry.

There's been a failure to disclose the full process for wax dipping hives that could mislead anyone taking this poll into thinking that it is simply a matter of melting some wax in a double boiler and dipping the equipment into it.

This involves many pounds of gum rosen and bee's wax heated to over 250 degrees F. in a large metal tub over an open propane burner. The wooden equipment is immersed into this mixture and 'cooked'.

It's clear that the acid resins in gum rosin protect the trees from which they were derived from insect pests. They're pesticides in their own right. When you use them to create new compounds by heating them with bee's wax and wood, you create new compounds that probably don't belong near food grade products.

There's also the clear violations of OSHA guidelines when heating gallons of flammable substances in an open metal vat over an open propane burner.

Besides, there are far better ways to get propolis into your hive that don't involve the myriad of risks of the above process.

It's a treatment that should be prohibited.


----------



## BeeCurious (Aug 7, 2007)

*Re: Should wax dipping of equipment be considered a treatment in this forum?*

If the poll takers decide that it's a treatment you will be placing M. Bush among those that treat.

I'll miss reading his postings...


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

*Re: Should wax dipping of equipment be considered a treatment in this forum?*

All that Michael Bush has to do is harvest propolis from his own bees and use a safer method to apply it to his hives, or get his bees to propolize the insides of the hives sufficiently to get the same effect.

My issue is this: most treatment free beekeepers can't use 'wax dipping' nor should they. Neither should the gurus.

Why should we resort to artificial propolis (heated bee's wax and rosin), when our bees can make the stuff themselves?


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

*Re: Should wax dipping of equipment be considered a treatment in this forum?*



> Why should we resort to artificial propolis (heated bee's wax and rosin), when our bees can make the stuff themselves?


Time and costs factors.

I vote no until I see something to the affect that what ever chemicals are produced find there way into the honey or the bees. My logic is the same for plastic equipment. If I use plastic frames, boxes or even pour honey in a plastic pail or bottle that isn't a form of treatment in my book. There is even chemicals in foundation so if you use foundation you are treating the hive. That is too much of a stretch.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

*Re: Should wax dipping of equipment be considered a treatment in this forum?*

Acebird:

It's one thing to use plastic equipment with known chemical properties. It's a completely different issue when beekeepers platicize their own equipment by cooking it in resin and bee's wax.

Regardless, I use foundationless frames specifically to avoid contaminants in wax. Why would I cook pesticide contaminatated bee's wax and foreign resin into a treatment-free/pesticide-free hive? Why would any treatment-free beekeeper create their own uncharacterized, organic compounds and then put them into their hive?


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

*Re: Should wax dipping of equipment be considered a treatment in this forum?*

Which chemicals? I'm not about to be afraid of something that might be there. 

Benzene is a chemical, it has properties, toxicities, and solubilities. You've provided nothing of the sort in defense of the idea that wax dipping should not be considered treatment free.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

*Re: Should wax dipping of equipment be considered a treatment in this forum?*

As I've said before, these 'cooks' are off the chart.

They are not following best practices.

Therefore, the burden of proof is always on them.

As for which chemicals are found in acid resins and bee's wax, it's easy to find online. As is the process of esterification/transesterification.

As for the safety issues, I recommend a visit to OSHA.

There Sol, maybe now you can do your own research to answer your own questions.

I'm not going to waste my time teaching organic chemistry to you when you can easily find the answers yourself.

And, thanks for not putting up the recipe for wax dipping at the top of the poll.

But, we both know that that's not the issue here. Don't we?


----------



## Kingfisher Apiaries (Jan 16, 2010)

*Re: Should wax dipping of equipment be considered a treatment in this forum?*



WLC said:


> All that Michael Bush has to do is harvest propolis from his own bees and use a safer method to apply it to his hives, or get his bees to propolize the insides of the hives sufficiently to get the same effect.


Have a good way to do that? Propolis does NOT melt well....We were blasting excluders last night with 175 degree water (glad the osha guy was not there) and did not get it off....



WLC said:


> There's been a failure to disclose the full process for wax dipping hives that could mislead anyone taking this poll into thinking that it is simply a matter of melting some wax in a double boiler and dipping the equipment into it.
> 
> This involves many pounds of gum rosen and bee's wax heated to over 250 degrees F. in a large metal tub over an open propane burner. The wooden equipment is immersed into this mixture and 'cooked'.
> 
> ...


Name em....you have not seen the southern way...Git Er Done! Big deal! OSHA does not regulate home activities...it would just be me and FarmerFrazier dipping PERSONAL boxes....
mike


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

*Re: Should wax dipping of equipment be considered a treatment in this forum?*

Name the chemicals.


----------



## StevenG (Mar 27, 2009)

*Re: Should wax dipping of equipment be considered a treatment in this forum?*

As stated, the poll _is_ biased. The original comment in the "Best Treatment Free Methods" mentioned what is added to the wax in the melting process. No one is going to think that simply dipping hive bodies in melted beeswax is a treatment. But what happens when you add various resins (rosins) as some beeks do? How about various wood preservative chemicals? There is obviously, from comments made on this thread, many different chemicals that beeks add to the wax when preparing it for dipping. Since those chemicals are applied to the _inside_ of the hive, where the bees _live_, as opposed to paint which is applied to outside, yep, dipping is treating. You're introducing chemicals, sometimes caustic ones, into the hives.
Regards,
Steven


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

*Re: Should wax dipping of equipment be considered a treatment in this forum?*

Sol:

They are esters of the resin acids: 

abietic acid- abieta-7,13-dien-18-oic acid,13-isopropylpodocarpa -7,13-dien-15-oic acid, neoabietic acid, dehydroabietic acid, palustric acid,levopimaric acid; pimaric acid-pimara-8(14),15-dien-18-oic acid, isopimaric acids...


and the components of bee's wax: 

palmitate, palmitoleate, hydroxypalmitate[4] and oleate esters of long-chain (30-32 carbons) aliphatic alcohols, with the ratio of triacontanylpalmitate CH3(CH2)29O-CO-(CH2)14CH3 to cerotic acid[5] CH3(CH2)24COOH.

I got that off a wiki just for you.

What occurs is that many of the functional groups switch partners and also form larger molecules as the esters and alcohols react during esterification and transesterification. That's what heating does.

This doesn't include reactions with the components of wood. Nor does this include new products that form as these compounds react with the hot metal at the bottom of the vat.

Kindly do a little research on the topic of esterification/transesterification to get an idea of the huge number of possible new compounds produced.


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

*Re: Should wax dipping of equipment be considered a treatment in this forum?*

So which ones are harmful and what harm do they cause? What effect do they have on the bees or the honey which we eat?

I'm not going to do the research to prove to myself that you are right, that's your job.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

*Re: Should wax dipping of equipment be considered a treatment in this forum?*



> I'm not going to waste my time teaching organic chemistry to you when you can easily find the answers yourself.


I think you are going to have to give a refresher course on some of the chemistry because most of us are not deans of the chemistry department. I know there is a gamut of nasty chemical in plastic and I know it leaches out over time. I don't know what they are but I know they are there. What I don't know is how well wax seals in these harmful chemicals that you speak of so as not to create a problem for the bees AND whether you can call it a treatment. If everything is sealed by the wax who cares. Mummies were sealed very effectively by wax.

If you are that smart, I would like to pick your brain.


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

*Re: Should wax dipping of equipment be considered a treatment in this forum?*

Due to popular opinion, I changed the title to include the word 'rosin' to clarify the position.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

*Re: Should wax dipping of equipment be considered a treatment in this forum?*

Kingfisher:

Spivak has disolved propolis in alcohol and applied it to hives. Mineral spirits will dissolve propolis (I think it works on bee's wax as well) so that you can apply it that way. Another beekeeper 'roughed up' his hive with his hive toll (do you remember that?).

So, there are other ways of doing it that don't require heat or risks.

Up here, we say 'do it right'. 

If your goal is to keep your equipment in good condition, I understand the issue.

However, don't think that cooking hives isn't a treatment. Unfortunately, no one really knows what gum rosin, bee's wax, and wood make when you cook em up together.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Well, if you don't understand that you are making hundreds, or perhaps even thousands, of new compounds when you heat gum rosin, bee's wax, and wood together at high temperatures...

Sol, the burden of proof still remains with the 'cooks'.

They're already doing something dangerous. it's up to them to prove they aren't producing any 'forbidden' chemicals.

Let's put it this way, the pesticides we use are tested for use for specific applications. Nobody really knows what is produced in this instance.

We all know that trees produce resins to protect themselves against pests. So yes, resins are treatments. When they are combined in new ways...

...it's unknown.

As for what happens as these new compounds breakdown...

...it's unknown.


Acebird,

Don't assume that it's still bee's wax. It's far more likely that the wood has been plasticized by these newly formed esters.

Plastics that we normally use are made with known reactants of known purity and composition under controlled conditions. We know which ones are the good ones (I prefer Polypropylene for home and lab use).

I don't know what kind of plastic these guys are cooking up. No one does.

Do you see the issue now?


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

*Re: Should wax dipping of equipment be considered a treatment in this forum?*



> However, don't think that cooking hives isn't a treatment.


So far that is your opinion. I need more information to be swayed to your way of thinking. It could very well be the very best thing you can do to a hive. I admit, I don't know at this point.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

*Re: Should wax dipping of equipment be considered a treatment in this forum?*

Acebird:

It's not an opinion to say that when you apply tree resin to a hive that you are treating it. We already know that tree resin has pesticidal properties. That's why trees make it in the first place. They protect themselves against insects, fungi, etc. with it, and it's one of their main defenses against pests. Can you agree with that at least?

The bees aren't applying this to the hive in the case of dipping. Beekeepers are, and they are doing it with heat. It's a treatment. no question.

Unfortunately, gum rosin can come from many different sources and have many different compositions. So, it isn't standardized. You can't really be sure about the composition of the resin acids in the gum rosin, or, how active it is against the pests you may be dealing with.

Look at it this way:

Why on earth would I want to kill off all of the micro/midi flora and fauna on a hive when I've spent time and energy to get the 'good stuff' growing on it in the first place? When you cook equipment at that temperature, that's the result.

It's goes against my own views on how to keep a hive healthy without excessive treatments.

Anyway you look at it, it's overkill.

By the way, if you want a plastic hive, why would you buy wooden equipment and then plasticize it? Just start with plastic equipment and save the bother.


----------



## Omie (Nov 10, 2009)

*Re: Should wax dipping of equipment be considered a treatment in this forum?*

Is this wax/rosin dipping applied as a way of preserving the woodenware, or is it applied as a means to control/repel parasites or disease?


----------



## NasalSponge (Jul 22, 2008)

*Re: Should wax dipping of equipment be considered a treatment in this forum?*

preserving the woodenware


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

*Re: Should wax dipping of equipment be considered a treatment in this forum?*

The high temperatures and the wax/rosin also kill off and seal spores and other pathogens/pests.

That's one of the benefits of using this method.

It doesn't just preserve the wood and make it smell good!


----------



## FarmerFrazier (Oct 12, 2010)

I thought bees make propolis from rosin, and other stuff, but mostly rosin. Do you have any proof of the wax and rosin interacting? I could care less about coating the inside of the hive, it will be easier to dunk the whole box though.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

The pleasant odors, that weren't there before, are the giveaway that new esters have formed.


----------



## BeeCurious (Aug 7, 2007)

Not that it matters, but does everyone in this conversation have honey bees living in boxes?

A strong opinion and a lot of bees/experience influences my vote...


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Yes. I do. 

There is a difference between dipping hives into a mixture of paraffin/microcrystalline wax, and dipping hives into rosin/bee's wax.

The rosin/bee's wax mixture is far more complex than the paraffin/microcrystalline mixture because rosin/bee's wax are from varied, natural sources whereas paraffin/microcrystalline wax are refined.

In one, case you should get more intense and varied esters formed (odors). In the other case, it should be less intense. If anyone has tries both methods, I would like to know.

Regardless, I've read reports where equipment can last for decades when wax dipped.

I've also read reports where it's used to keep down AFB.

Tis a treatment either way.


----------



## NasalSponge (Jul 22, 2008)

Interesting you bring that up because most posts I have read in regard to dipping they are using paraffin and rosin, not bees wax.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

First off, not worth voting in the poll it's too ambiguous.
Although Sol says he's changed the wording, all I can see is "Is wax dipping a 'treatment'?"



Too simplistic. Wax dipping in parafin wax can be, and is, used, as a treatment for AFB.


Contaminated woodware can be dipped in parafin wax, which encapsulates the spores, and renders the woodware safe. So, it's a treatment, the answer to the current poll would have to be yes. 
So, what treatment are we talking about. Mites, AFB, timber presrvation, what? 


I suspect this ambiguous poll was set up deliberately to try to prove a point.


The other consideration, is, if we are talking about a treatment for mites, dipping in beeswax mixed with propolis is not going to cure a hive of mites. 
However, the fact is, that some of these toxic chemicals created during the heating process, could end up in the honey. 
Does this influence wether we call it a treatment.


The last and to me most important thing, is that I see posts written to the effect that a particular guru does it, therefore it must be OK. 
I see this argument used to support a number of practises, some of which have no proven efficacy other than that a particular guru does it. To go against the guru is heresy.


Totally wrong in my opinion. It's actually not that hard to promote yourself as a guru, if you want to. While we can add, or subtract weight from something that's said, depending on who said it and their experience level, and more importantly their successful results level, I don't think anyone can be elevated to a "Godlike" status, where everything they say or do is unquestionable gospel truth.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

*Re: Should wax dipping of equipment be considered a treatment in this forum?*



WLC said:


> Why should we resort to artificial propolis (heated bee's wax and rosin), when our bees can make the stuff themselves?


No one is saying we should. MB does. Take it up with him. Please don't repeat yourself again.

This thread borders on loony-tunes. It's all based on assumptions. I wouldn't vote on something where little to nothing is known about the poll question. WLC needs to do a study of it and then I'll look at the data and draw a conclusion. Until then, it's all "could", "maybe", "potential" "might", "chance." How did this get to 4 pages?!


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

*Re: Should wax dipping of equipment be considered a treatment in this forum?*

Barry:

All I ask is that Sol puts 'wax dipping of hives' as a treatment on the sticky for this forum.

Is that such a difficult thing to do?


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

*Re: Should wax dipping of equipment be considered a treatment in this forum?*

Yes, because there is no evidence that it has any affect on the bees.


----------



## wdcrkapry205 (Feb 11, 2010)

*Re: Should wax dipping of equipment be considered a treatment in this forum?*



Barry said:


> No one is saying we should. MB does. Take it up with him. Please don't repeat yourself again.


Thank You!

The Poll Question is: Is wax dipping a treatment?
O.K., for what? Everthing is a treatment for something. Is wax dipping a treatment for wood rot and decay or treatment for disease and parasites. If you're going to ask the question, we need to know what for.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

*Re: Should wax dipping of equipment be considered a treatment in this forum?*



Barry said:


> Yes, because there is no evidence that it has any affect on the bees.



And there goes the Housel Theory!


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

*Re: Should wax dipping of equipment be considered a treatment in this forum?*

 Hey, I'll be the first to add dipping on the treatment list if it can be shown to have any negative, or positive effect on bees. It's one thing to raise the issue and possible concern, but to keep beating this drum gets irritating pretty quickly. Since MB spends time researching most things, maybe he will chime in here and share what he knows about dipping and exactly what he uses and at what temperature, etc.


----------



## BeeCurious (Aug 7, 2007)

*Re: Should wax dipping of equipment be considered a treatment in this forum?*



Oldtimer said:


> And there goes the Housel Theory!


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

*Re: Should wax dipping of equipment be considered a treatment in this forum?*


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

*Re: Should wax dipping of equipment be considered a treatment in this forum?*

It's treatment free beekeeping. Not treatment free bees (but not the equipment because I say so).

The Aussies do it for AFB.

http://www.culturaapicola.com.ar/apuntes/sanidad/117_esterilizacion_colmenas_loque.pdf

http://www.agric.wa.gov.au/objtwr/i..._the_spread_of_american_foulbrood_disease.pdf

You can't have it both ways. You may not believe in the basic principles of organic chemistry, but how can anyone argue with AFB and the Australians?

Not me mate.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

*Re: Should wax dipping of equipment be considered a treatment in this forum?*

There has to be a line somewhere, or it gets into the absurd. Not saying dipping is the absurd. We don't include feeding sugar water a treatment for this reason. Dipping is not done to treat bees. It's done to preserve wood. Why do you keep at this? Unless there is some halfway solid data that shows what is emitted from the sealant and at what levels, it's just an interesting observation you make, but can't really go much beyond that. I (we) have nothing to base any decision on that has any weight.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

*Re: Should wax dipping of equipment be considered a treatment in this forum?*

:scratch:


----------



## MCI (Mar 11, 2011)

*Re: Should wax dipping of equipment be considered a treatment in this forum?*

The way I see it dipping the woodenware in beeswax, parrifin, rosin or any combination thereof for preservation of the wood is not a treatment. It's tantamount to painting or varnishing the wood.


----------



## StevenG (Mar 27, 2009)

*Re: Should wax dipping of equipment be considered a treatment in this forum?*

:scratch: uh, folks, aren't we missing something here? 
We're all concerned about the impact the mite treatment chemicals have on our hives, and if left in too long, on our honey crop. That's a chemical that's applied inside the hive, right?
Sooooo, seems like the initial concern of the poster is that when you dip the entire hive body into a chemical composition of hot wax and rosin, and whatever else beekeepers put into the dip (I know one person in particular who uses a wood preservative in his dip), you're putting a chemical _inside_ the hive. And as concerned as we are about the chemical contamination of the wax foundation, seems like the original posting was concerned about the chemical contamination of the wood. 

The relevance is the addition of another chemical or mixture of chemicals _inside_ the hive that _might_ have a deleterious effect on the honeybees. Some folks maintain there is a chemical reaction that is not good for the bees. Others maintain it doesn't make any difference. But it seems like that is the discussion. 

It would be interesting to do a chemical analysis of the inside of a hive immediately following dipping, again in a month, again in 6 months, to see what is found, and how things change over time. Such a study is way beyond me, and probably would never be done. Would be interesting if someone could/would do an analytical study of dipped hives though.

Personally, I'll keep painting, and let others fight this one out. opcorn:
Regards,
Steven


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

*Re: Should wax dipping of equipment be considered a treatment in this forum?*



StevenG said:


> We're all concerned about the impact the mite treatment chemicals have on our hives, and if left in too long, on our honey crop. That's a chemical that's applied inside the hive, right?


Perhaps, but what chemical, what are its effects, and is it a treatment? Personally, I consider chilling drone brood to be a treatment, but others don't, so it's not in the definition. I believe that keeping bees treatment free is the best thing for them because they are allowed to evolve and develop to maintain their own health. However, dipping hives is not a treatment to maintain the health of the bees. Dipping a hive will do nothing for a foulbrood outbreak within the colony. Dipping a hive will not prevent a foulbrood outbreak with any guarantee in any hive in which the technique is applied. It _may_ serve to sterilize the wood, but that is irrespective of the bees in the most basic sense.



StevenG said:


> And as concerned as we are about the chemical contamination of the wax foundation, seems like the original posting was concerned about the chemical contamination of the wood.


 True, but as yet, we are unaware of any deleterious chemical exposed to the wood.



StevenG said:


> The relevance is the addition of another chemical or mixture of chemicals _inside_ the hive that _might_ have a deleterious effect on the honeybees. Some folks maintain there is a chemical reaction that is not good for the bees. Others maintain it doesn't make any difference. But it seems like that is the discussion.





StevenG said:


> It would be interesting to do a chemical analysis of the inside of a hive immediately following dipping, again in a month, again in 6 months, to see what is found, and how things change over time. Such a study is way beyond me, and probably would never be done. Would be interesting if someone could/would do an analytical study of dipped hives though.


 You are absolutely correct, and if we had such evidence, this would be a different discussion entirely. However, despite years and years of this application, there has been no demonstrated effect, deleterious or otherwise, to honeybee colonies contained within wax and rosin treated boxes. There are treatments we are well aware of and of which we know the effects. We do know of fungicides, acaricides, essential oils, and broad spectrum anti-biotics. However, we do not know of a chemical shown conclusively to be released when wood boxes are dipped in hot wax mixtures nor do we know of an effect on the bees or humans due to the creation of such a chemical.

Therefore, at this point, I am forced to conclude that until such research is presented and the forum votes in the affirmative, that the definition of a treatment in this forum shall not be changed in this regard.


----------



## Omie (Nov 10, 2009)

*Re: Should wax dipping of equipment be considered a treatment in this forum?*



StevenG said:


> We're all concerned about the impact the mite treatment chemicals have on our hives, and if left in too long, on our honey crop. That's a chemical that's applied inside the hive, right?
> Sooooo, seems like the initial concern of the poster is that when you dip the entire hive body into a chemical composition of hot wax and rosin, and whatever else beekeepers put into the dip (I know one person in particular who uses a wood preservative in his dip), you're putting a chemical _inside_ the hive.


Ah, but according to the forum consensus on the definition of treatment:
_Treatment: A substance introduced by the beekeeper into the hive with the intent of killing, repelling, or inhibiting a pest or disease within the hive or afflicting the bees.
_
If treatment merely meant 'putting a chemical in the hive', then sugar feeding and plastic frames, etc would be treatments as well. Which they are not, _according to the forum definition we are using here_.
So treating/dipping/painting hive boxes with varnish, paint, wax, oil, shellac, etc...in order to preserve the wood, but _not_ in order to kill, suppress or eliminate pests and diseases, would then not be considered a 'treatment' on this forum.


----------



## NasalSponge (Jul 22, 2008)

*Re: Should wax dipping of equipment be considered a treatment in this forum?*

Very good point Omie!! I can see both side of this coin which is why I have not participated in the poll, but this is an excellent point!!


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

*Re: Should wax dipping of equipment be considered a treatment in this forum?*

Her wisdom surpasses my own. 

I want to be like her when I grow up.


----------



## Omie (Nov 10, 2009)

*Re: Should wax dipping of equipment be considered a treatment in this forum?*

Shucks, yous guys.










Gonna finish my pie and then it's off to bed, me and my guy off for a morning bike ride tomorrow!


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

*Re: Should wax dipping of equipment be considered a treatment in this forum?*



> ...according to the forum definition we are using here. So treating/dipping/painting hive boxes with varnish, paint, wax, oil, shellac, etc...in order to preserve the wood, but _not_ in order to kill, suppress or eliminate pests and diseases, would then not be considered a 'treatment' on this forum.


The Aussies are very clear that wax dipping is a treatment for American Foulbrood.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

*Re: Should wax dipping of equipment be considered a treatment in this forum?*

Mine are all dipped in beeswax and rosin. I considered paraffin and even bought it but couldn't bring myself to use it. I was not treating for anything it was new equipment. Rosin is a natural substance that the bees would (and do when I'm dipping) gather for propolis. I would not consider it a treatment of any kind.

On the other hand adding copper napthenate to it, I would consider an unnatural chemical.

But we are back to the issue of paint. Is it unnatural to paint your hives?


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

*Re: Should wax dipping of equipment be considered a treatment in this forum?*

Yes, paint is not natural.

But nor is anything else we do to our hives and bees so that's what these treatment free folks are doing, trying to find somewhere to "draw the line", so they can call themselves "natural", or "treatment free". 
And convince the public to pay more for their honey than honey from other beekeepers hives, that they tell the public are "chemical".


----------



## BeeCurious (Aug 7, 2007)

*Re: Should wax dipping of equipment be considered a treatment in this forum?*



Oldtimer said:


> snip
> And convince the public to pay more for their honey than honey from other beekeepers hives, that they tell the public are "chemical".


Regardless of what may or may not be said by "these treatment free folks", isn't it a fact that the BULK of the world's commercial honey is produced with the aid of medications and chemicals?

YES or NO?

Some honey consumers are lucky to have the choice because for the most part they don't.

http://www.EnvironmentalHealthNews.org/


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

*Re: Should wax dipping of equipment be considered a treatment in this forum?*

My guess would be yes, for obvious reasons.

Negative advertising might help one sector of an industry short term, but will generally long term, hurt an industry as a whole.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

*Re: Should wax dipping of equipment be considered a treatment in this forum?*

Bee curious: I will go even farther than that to say that virtually all honey marketed in the world is (including the honey that is produced by folks who are diligently trying to be treatment free) produced from plants which have been grown with the aid of chemicals and/or genetic modification. I'm not saying that is necessarily a good thing just that it's a fact of life.


----------



## lakebilly (Aug 3, 2009)

*Re: Should wax dipping of equipment be considered a treatment in this forum?*

There's also the clear violations of OSHA guidelines when heating gallons of flammable substances in an open metal vat over an open propane burner.

Sir, I would strongly consider your recommendations for alternative solutions. I have watched this process on YouTube & thought that this COULD be a very dangerous practise to any persons void of common sense (open burner, excellerants, no fire extinguisher!!).
I have been affected by the overeaching bureacratic cluster fudging, special interest promoting, taxpayer funded, nightmare of lamebrain code enforcers that is OSHA, and feel that citing them & their guidelines, severley detracts from your obvious expertise. Respectfully, Lb


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

*Re: Should wax dipping of equipment be considered a treatment in this forum?*

LB: Good point on the whole dipping process. And on OSHA: come on tell us what you really think, just let it out, your among friends.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

*Re: Should wax dipping of equipment be considered a treatment in this forum?*

Is this really something to argue about?
Are we going to see people labeling their jars, "No equipment used in the production of this Honey was ever painted or Hot Dipped"?


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

*Re: Should wax dipping of equipment be considered a treatment in this forum?*



Michael Bush said:


> Is it unnatural to paint your hives?


Perhaps, but this forum isn't called 'natural' beekeeping. To me, 'natural' is kinda like 'organic'. It's hard enough to define treatment free. So the question is, is it a treatment to paint your hives. I would say no. Dipping, no, but if we were able to prove that dipping has a direct negative impact on the bees, then this would need to be reconsidered.


----------



## lakebilly (Aug 3, 2009)

*Re: Should wax dipping of equipment be considered a treatment in this forum?*

jl, Having a Yosemite Sam moment....;-)


Maybe da Furor can appoint a commision w/ a BeekCzar to appoint a bunch of knucklehead, tax funded, regulating tax cheats, to inspect your apiaries, take your re-election donations to give you a [bogus] Organic treatment free A+ rating & carbon credits. 

I think the guru mentioned (never self ascribed) is a well researched, consciencious truthseeker that is worthy of the benefit of a doubt & would be the first person to post his research & concerns with the well being of the culture @ heart. He is has been a great model of objectivity in an otherwise opinionated enviroment. 

....gonna shutup now...


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

> Can you agree with that at least?


If I did I would have to say you couldn't use a wooden hive in the first place.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

So far, the only 'best practice' use of hot wax dipping equipment that I have found is as an alternative to burning or gamma irradiating AFB infected equipment.

That's a last ditch, desperate measure for Australian beekeepers, and the recommendations are accompanied by hazard warnings.

I feel that some of you are confusing the intent with the actual effect, and how that relates to the treatment free consensus definition.

For example, I could say that I am mixing grease patties (sugar/crisco/soy) with lemongrass oil and peppermint oil because I hear that it keeps alot longer. I simply want to keep my bees fed since I will be out of town, and the suger syrup is bound to run out in my absence.

I am still treatment free because of my intent? 

I hope that you see why the position of those who argue that wax dipping isn't a treatment is one that's based on their stated intent, but it ignores the facts.

Wax dippers don't just do this once to protect new equipment. Wax dipped equipment has been reported to last 10 to 20 years.

They wax dip, and sterilize, their equipment (both new and in use, even painted) much more frequently than that.

Some of the arguments I've read here for wax dipping don't hold up under scrutiny.

I've provided more than enough evidence to show that it is a treatment.

Intent is one thing, but it's the effect that counts in the end.

I can smell the fragrance of the new esters from here. Mmmm.


----------



## lakebilly (Aug 3, 2009)

WLC,
I may have missed it. Are you saying that after the wax dipping procedure, there is a detrimental affect of continual gassing? I am assuming this or you would have posted a curing time that illiminates your opposition to the dipping. thx. Lb


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

lb:

The esters formed will continuosly outgas. That's why you get the fragrance/odor.

If the products of this outgassing are bioactive is unknown. New products will also be formed over the lifetime of the equipment as compounds degrade.

There is a spectrum of possible products depending on the materials involved. I have not seen any data proving that the products created by 'cooking hives' are safe. No one has done an analysis as far as I can research. In short, due dilligence is absent.


----------



## lakebilly (Aug 3, 2009)

I don't recall a post, has Penn State, Cornell, UMinn or anyone ever done tests for this procedure?
I paint/stain the exteriors of my boxes, & try to keep my equipment in new shape (clean, durable eq. is happy eq.). I torchscorch supers when storing. I have seen this procedure and thought that it was better than what I was doing. I like the idea of impregnating the would to preserve & the sealing of harmful spores. (can AFB spores adhere to outer layer of wax?) I would certainly welcome any info pertaining to this concern of yours or lack of on theirs(Dippers). I 'll do my best till I know better. thx. Lb


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

If I were to wax dip equipment (for arguments sake), I would first make sure that the open flame problem was addressed. Secondly, I would use only microcrystalline wax and paraffin wax (refined, branched and strait chain alkanes only, no organic acids or alcohols). Finally, I would use it on new woodenware only (unless I had to combat a confirmed case of AFB).

However, I wouldn't consider it to be treatment free since I still don't know what's being cooked up in the wooden equipment. No one does.


----------



## KQ6AR (May 13, 2008)

In my opinion, if wax dipping isn't a treatment BT shouldn't be either. They seam equally invasive.
Don't know whether to vote yes, or no on this one.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

lakebilly said:


> I torchscorch supers when storing. I have seen this procedure and thought that it was better than what I was doing.


You scorch your supers w/ a torch before you store them? Every year? I must not understand something. What had you been doing before?


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Hi Lakebilly, torchscorching the supers yearly is not really needed. To do it to the extent needed to wipe all AFB spores is a reasonable scorch, and wouldn't be too many years before the box was getting worn out. But a light scorch yearly, I guess would do no harm, if it makes you feel better.

Yes, nothing to prevent AFB spores sitting on top of the parafin wax, if the hive got an AFB infection AFTER the wax treatment was done. But parafin wax dipping is commonly done in my country as an AFB treatment AFTER the hive had AFB, and is considered 100% effective, long as the correct dipping procedures are followed. BTW drugs for bees are illegal in my country, the only permitted treatment for AFB is burning the hive. But boxes can legally be saved by parafin wax dipping.

Some beekeepers also dip brand new boxes in parafin wax, as a timber preservative.


----------



## Roland (Dec 14, 2008)

From Wikipedia:

A wood-decay fungus is a variety of fungus that digests wood, causing it to rot. Some wood-decay fungi attack dead wood, such as dry rot—and some, such as Armillaria (Honey fungus), are parasitic and colonize living trees. Fungi that not only grow on wood but actually cause it to decay, are called lignicolous fungi. They do not necessarily need to decay lignin in the wood to be termed lignicolous.

Wood-decay fungi can be classified according to the type of decay that they cause: brown rot, soft rot, and white rot.[1][2]

Dipping is done for the express purpose of inhibiting the fungal attacks on the wood. Therefore, as it is a chemical added to the hive to control a microbe, it full fills your definition of treatment.

Roland


----------



## lakebilly (Aug 3, 2009)

hey Oldtimer, love reading your replies. I don't scorch yearly just on some used equipment (even when I know who used it). I am always looking to take strokes off my game, & a longterm, healthy for the bees durable boxes remedy got my attention. I have so many beekeeping aspects to learn, I try to keep an open mind. not to mention diversifying my very small farm all part time. I am a remodeler by trade. Thx for the reply. Lb


----------



## lakebilly (Aug 3, 2009)

Mark, I don't scorch only used eq. that I bought from beeks I didn't know bout 40 deeps. The procedure I saw was hot dipping on youtube. sorry I usually proofread my posts.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

That's reasurring. I was afraid you were needlessly burning up equipment a little at a time.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

*Re: Should wax dipping of equipment be considered a treatment in this forum?*

>Why should we resort to artificial propolis (heated bee's wax and rosin), when our bees can make the stuff themselves?

I've gone through 200 pounds of gum rosin in the past four years. I did not have the time, energy, nor do I think the amount of bees I have would make that much propolis in that time, let alone in the time I needed it. If I had 200 pounds of propolis laying around, I certainly would have used it. 

But it wasn't the INSIDE of the hive I was trying to protect (where the bees will take care of it anyway) it was the OUTSIDE I was trying to protect from weather, not disease. If you want to go all the way to only keeping bees in unpainted, unwaxed, "untreated" equipment qualifying as your definition of "untreated" I think you will lose 95% of all of the "treatment free" people. Beeswax and rosin seem much more natural than paint to me, but I certainly don't want to throw out all the people who paint their hives and say they are "treating" their bees.

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


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Michael:

I've already pointed out the difference between intent and effect.

We already know that the Australians recommend wax dipping as a way to sterilize AFB infected equipment. The other alternatives are gamma irradiating or burning the hives.

Also, we know that the painting of hives is acceptable for honey production. It's not going to be construed as a treatment by anyone. The MSDS (material safety data sheet) for the paints are available.

I've also described other ways that propolis can be applied to equipment.

Personally, I've feel that ponderosa pine equipment is both fragrant, and durable enough.

I think that my 'skin' is worth so much more than the cost of acquiring new equipment every few years, that taking the kind of risks involved in 'cooking' equipment (notice I didn't say dipping, I abhor euphemisms) is absurd.

Besides, it's impossible for me to follow your methodology for obvious reasons (just like I can't get africanized stock).

WLC.


----------



## Kingfisher Apiaries (Jan 16, 2010)

WLC...don't keep bickering...its really not worth it....OK maybe it is a treatment...maybe it is not...why don't YOU do a study and a chemical analysis on it and report back here. 
I will give both sides- Yes its a treatment- it kills microbes that love to eat wood
- it allegedly kills AFB
No it is not a treatment-
it only is for the protection of the wood.
Bottom line- Its a treatment for the home and not for the occupants. Paint on a house does not make us healthier.....
mike


----------



## BeeCurious (Aug 7, 2007)

WLC,

You beat this horse last year:

http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?242464-Dipped-boxes-Q-amp-A&p=545732

It's a fun read...


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Beecurious:

Yes I did. But, I didn't start the poll, Sol did.

Kingfisher:

It's a good way to disinfect and preserve equipment (with qualifications).

However, I consider the the flora/fauna (microbes and other little critters) of the entire hive to be a key issue in treatment free beekeeping.

Someone we know has made the same argument against the use of essential oils because of how it affects those very things (you know who you are). 

I use foundationless frames to get pesticide free, natural comb working for the whole hive. I certainly don't want someone elses beeswax in their.

Sterilizing equiment by 'wax dipping' wipes out the friendly biota that healthy bees are supposed to have in a hive.

That's not consistent with the philosophy of tratment-free/chemical-free/natural beekeeping.

I think that I'm not alone when I characterize 'wax dipping' as an extreme measure in treatment free beekeeping. Things have to be really bad for that to be done.


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

WLC, you're making me want to try it now. If Mr. Bush does it, it must be a pretty good idea. I've never known him to steer me or anyone else in the wrong direction.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Sol:

It's effective, but risky.

All that I've asked you to do is to include 'wax dipping' on your 'treatment free beekeeping' sticky as a treatment.

Since it's obviously an extreme measure, and it doesn't look like you're going to put it on your sticky, then you should remove the less extreme measures like sugar dusting, essential oils, etc. from the sticky as treatments.

You can't have it both ways without appearing to be inconsistent.


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

The definition was voted upon by the users of this forum. The results were definitive as are the results of this poll.

If you seek to change that, by all means, start a new poll worded in the way you see fit.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

I'd love to see you put 'wax dipping' on your sticky as a non treatment.

As for your sticky being definitive after you do it. I would call it amusing.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

I am not trying to, nor do I want to disinfect anything at all. I want to preserve the wood. There is no microbial culture in my new hives that I'm dipping. If there were and if I just painted it with propolis, It would kill it everything living on the wood.

>Someone we know has made the same argument against the use of essential oils because of how it affects those very things (you know who you are). 

Yes. As do Tylosin (for long periods of time) and Fumidil and TM (for shorter periods of time) and even sugar syrup (for even shorter periods of time and less broad spectrum). But those are being put in a living colony where that ecology of microbes, bees, insects, mites etc live. I'm dipping new wood which has none of the microbes of the hive living in it.

>Sterilizing equiment by 'wax dipping' wipes out the friendly biota that healthy bees are supposed to have in a hive.

I am not sterilizing equipment. I've never had any desire to nor motivation to sterilize equipment. The bees will bring their flora with them.

>I think that I'm not alone when I characterize 'wax dipping' as an extreme measure in treatment free beekeeping. Things have to be really bad for that to be done. 

I think you are alone. I don't understand this statement at all. What is extreme about preserving wood? Things are not bad at all. New wood is a resource that I would like to get a few more years out of in a way that is as natural as I can come up with. Beeswax and rosin are naturally in a bee hive anyway, I'm just trying to get it permeating the wood enough to protect the outside. 

I really can't wrap my head around how you are viewing this at all. Extreme measures? Sterilizing? Africanized Honey Bees? I don't see any connection between these and preserving wooden ware.


----------



## summer1052 (Oct 21, 2007)

But nobody has asked the questions I pondered when I began reading this thread.

Does dipping hives in wax/rosin/resin composites vs. painting the OUTSIDE of hives positively, negatively, or not affect the bees in the hive?

Of more specific interest to me:
Does this compound help lower the presence of SHB in the hive? Or even more, does this wax/rosin combo affect the presence of wax moths in the hive? How about Fire ants? Those are my issues.

We are 'straining at gnats, and swallowing camels.'

As for some of the other comments . . . 
I read comments on the use of microcrystalline (petrochemical) wax vs. beeswax. Or dissolving propolis (bee made sticky from trees and bee enzymes) and mineral spirits (refined petrochemicals plus Other Stuff).

Some of us who are striving towards "treatment" and "chemical" reduced hives have concerns about more complicated compounds like mineral spirits and paraffin wax vs. propolis and beeswax. Yes, I understand that the COMBINATION of the chemicals is what makes this interesting. *Rhetorically speaking*, doesn't the use of more 'natural', less 'refined' substances like beeswax and propolis imply safer compounds than those made of 'refined' paraffin and mineral spirits?

Being fair, I also recognize that *far more details in beekeeping are dependent on localized conditions* than many of us give credence to. MY main issues are SHB, AHB, Fire ants, and wax moths. BeeWeaver apiaries, less than 100 miles from me have different issues, although some overlap. Hambone's are somewhat different. And so on.

Not all of us were fortunate enough to have chemistry, organic chemistry, or physics in school. My math scores precluded me from those classes, although I aced AP English and History. Please do not assume ( 'Makes an Ass of U + Me' ) that those of us who did not take these classes are either uneducated or stupid. I won't hold grammar and spelling mistakes against the Sci Guys, if you won't hold my chemistry ignorance against me, an English Major. 

Solomon did a good job initiating the discussion. Thank you. Barry also makes good points about the side roads and tangents this thread has traveled. Thank you.

Courtesy, Wisdom, Excellence, Humility.

Summer


----------



## HONEYDEW (Mar 9, 2007)

OK based on WLC's points on this thread I am now convinced that anybodies bees that leave the hive to forage can no longer be treatment free based Solely on the unknown substances that the bees fly trough....


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

MB:

Many dippers do rotate equipment for redipping every few years as a method of disease control and equipment maintenance. You're not the only dipper out there.

Standard dipping practice for AFB control in Australia is 50:50 paraffin/microcrystalline wax.

When you use gum rosin, a substance that does have pesticidal properties, and then mix it and heat it with beeswax (in a metal vat over propane burners, no less), you will get new and uncharacterized compounds formed. That's a treatment. And yes, the burden of proof rests with the dipper.

I would like to see a poll on the use of africanized stock as a non treatment after this one is over! My point is this: gurus advocate practices that we can't reasonably do. 

Finally, I would love to see wax dipping of equipment put up as a non treatment right next to items listed as treatments (like powdered sugar dusting) in the sticky. It would make for a striking contrast: dangerous vs benign.


----------



## MARBIS (Jun 10, 2010)

When you use gum rosin, a substance that does have pesticidal properties, and then mix it and heat it with beeswax, you will get new and uncharacterized compounds formed. That's a treatment.

No doubt about it


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>When you use gum rosin, a substance that does have pesticidal properties, and then mix it and heat it with beeswax (in a metal vat over propane burners, no less), you will get new and uncharacterized compounds formed. That's a treatment. And yes, the burden of proof rests with the dipper.

I have nothing to prove. Besswax is a pretty stable substance as is gum rosin. I have no reason to expect anything new to be formed. These are not high temperatures. Just temperatures high enough to melt the wax and rosin and boil water.

>Many dippers do rotate equipment for redipping every few years as a method of disease control and equipment maintenance. You're not the only dipper out there.

I know nothing of this. I have heard of doing it on used equipment for AFB spores. I don't actually know anyone doing it for that. The people I know who are doing it are doing it to protect equipment. Everyone I talk to loves it because it's a one time deal.

>Standard dipping practice for AFB control in Australia is 50:50 paraffin/microcrystalline wax.

You keep bringing up AFB control. I'm not doing AFB control. I never had any AFB to control.

>I would like to see a poll on the use of africanized stock as a non treatment after this one is over!

I know of no one who is purposefully using AHB for non treatment. I'm not sure what you would expect.

> My point is this: gurus advocate practices that we can't reasonably do. 

I know of no "guru" advocating AHB, and I'm not advocating dipping. I've been advocating not painting for years but when I expanded to 200 hives I had a bigger investment and wanted to make sure the equipment life was maximized. I tell people what I do. I'm not trying to tell people they have to do it.

>Finally, I would love to see wax dipping of equipment put up as a non treatment right next to items listed as treatments (like powdered sugar dusting) in the sticky. It would make for a striking contrast: dangerous vs benign. 

I am constantly baffled by your characterization of dipping as "dangerous" vs benign. I fry french fries. I make fry bread. All of these involve much higher temperatures than I am using to dip boxes. Frying food involves very hot oil right at the flash point. I am well below the flash point when dipping boxes.

Frying french fries is a very hazardous undertaking compared to dipping boxes. What's more it usually takes place IN your house.


----------



## MCI (Mar 11, 2011)

WLC said:


> Many dippers do rotate equipment for redipping every few years as a method of disease control and equipment maintenance. You're not the only dipper out there.


How many of these dippers with the continuously diseased hives are saying they are treatment free? If they don't claim to be treatment free then what in the world are you trying to prove? Dipping a hive to protect the wood is a completely different from disease control.



WLC said:


> Standard dipping practice for AFB control in Australia is 50:50 paraffin/microcrystalline wax.


Seriously why are you so hung up on what they are allowed to do in Australia? 



WLC said:


> When you use gum rosin, a substance that does have pesticidal properties, and then mix it and heat it with beeswax (in a metal vat over propane burners, no less), you will get new and uncharacterized compounds formed. That's a treatment. And yes, the burden of proof rests with the dipper.


Gum rosin = pine sap. Yes I know that is an over simplification. Would you also have any hives with with some fat lighter or included pitch a sticky treatment? What is wrong with heating in a vat using propane? Personally I'd use wood to heat the kettle, but if you prefer to use propane more power to you.



WLC said:


> I would like to see a poll on the use of africanized stock as a non treatment after this one is over!


 
This looks like some more of your pouting.



WLC said:


> My point is this: gurus advocate practices that we can't reasonably do.


 
What guru is advocating something others can't reasonably do? With very little trouble I could dip my hives.



WLC said:


> Finally, I would love to see wax dipping of equipment put up as a non treatment right next to items listed as treatments (like powdered sugar dusting) in the sticky. It would make for a striking contrast: dangerous vs benign.


Maybe if you hold your breath long enough or repeat yourself time and time again until we all get tired of hearing it, everyone will change their minds and start agreeing with you.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

WLC,
You seem to think because some people use dipping to kill AFB that makes it a treatment even when the purpose is simply to preserve new equipment. Some people feed honey to clear up Nosema (feeding honey syrup tends to clear it up but honey seems to work better). Does that mean when you feed honey because they are low on stores, you are treating? If I think a hive has too much drone comb and I pull it out to try to get more worker comb (which I don't do btw but some people do) am a treating? Even if I didn't intend to remove some capped drone and kill some Varroa, I did.

I notice we are up to 4 people who say dipping is a treatment. I would love to hear what their reasons are.

>When you use gum rosin, a substance that does have pesticidal properties, and then mix it and heat it with beeswax, you will get new and uncharacterized compounds formed.

When you take propolis, a substance known to have pesticidal and antimicrobial properties (for the same reason and from the same source as the rosin) and mix it with ethonal, a fairly reactive chemical, you may get new and uncharacterized compounds formed. Then again it may be the ethonal will just evaporate.

On the other hand when you take a fairly stable compound like beeswax and a fairly stable compound like rosin and never heat it very much above the boiling point of water, I think it's pretty doubtful that you will form any new compounds. In order to create new compounds you would at least have to crowd the flash point if not a "crack" point for the hydrocarbons. At just 250 F what you create is an amalgam of two substances which is almost identical to what the bees use in the hive so much so in fact that they gather it on a regular basis from my gloves when I'm dipping:

http://www.bushfarms.com/images/RosinWaxAsPropolis.jpg


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Michael:

I know what your stated purposes are.

However, wax dipping also 'plasticizes' wooden equipment so that organisms, both benefitial and harmful to the hive, are excluded. That's not very naturalistic.

What disturbs me even more is the attitude of dippers. They make such statements about how they find it easy to do, and it's just like cooking french fries.

They may be able to cut and weld steel into a vat and set up propane burners, but it will never be UL listed or OSHA approved. It's nothing like cooking french fries.

"When you take propolis, a substance known to have pesticidal and antimicrobial properties (for the same reason and from the same source as the rosin) and mix it with ethonal, a fairly reactive chemical, you may get new and uncharacterized compounds formed. Then again it may be the ethonal will just evaporate."

That's would make sense if you mixed it up in a steel vat and heated it up to over 250 degrees F (with much higher temperatures over hot spots over the burners).

I've always thought of gum rosin as an industrial byproduct from milling/pulping operations (like the ones deforesting the amazon). But, that's just me.

I also wonder about how easily it is to secure pesticide free beeswax in the quantities one would need to carry out wax dipping. 

Regardless, looks like the poll will define wax dipping as a non treatment in the treatment be forum sticky.

Nice going.


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

We don't have painting listed, so in my humble view, I don't see why it needs to be listed at all.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>However, wax dipping also 'plasticizes' wooden equipment so that organisms, both benefitial and harmful to the hive, are excluded. That's not very naturalistic.

Exactly what the bees do to the inside with practically the same substance, propolis. No change.

>What disturbs me even more is the attitude of dippers. They make such statements about how they find it easy to do, and it's just like cooking french fries.

The only hard part is getting a container bit enough. Otherwise it is. It's just not nearly as hot.

>They may be able to cut and weld steel into a vat and set up propane burners, but it will never be UL listed or OSHA approved. It's nothing like cooking french fries.

You are correct. It is not nearly as hot or as likely to catch fire.


>I also wonder about how easily it is to secure pesticide free beeswax in the quantities one would need to carry out wax dipping.

Not at all easy unless you have a lot untreated hives and lot of friends with untreated hives. No one is trying to convince you to hot dip hives.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Sol:

As you've stated yourself, "It's definitive." You created a poll, now follow your own rules.


----------



## BeeCurious (Aug 7, 2007)

In regards to there being any applicable OSHA regulations, it seems that most rules concern tanks over 150 gallons in capacity.

I would think that there would be much less risk in dipping hive bodies as compared to deep frying a turkey.

Devices sold as turkey fryers are not UL certified ...


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

> it allegedly kills AFB


It is the heat that kills AFB. If you boiled the equipment in oil it would do the same thing. Once the equipment is sterilized it is the wax that prevents the bugs from returning.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

> Some of us who are striving towards "treatment" and "chemical" reduced hives have concerns about more complicated compounds like mineral spirits and paraffin wax vs. propolis and beeswax. Yes, I understand that the COMBINATION of the chemicals is what makes this interesting. Rhetorically speaking, doesn't the use of more 'natural', less 'refined' substances like beeswax and propolis imply safer compounds than those made of 'refined' paraffin and mineral spirits?


There are many complex compounds and paraffins in plastic equipment.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Acebird said:


> it is the wax that prevents the bugs from returning.


Bugs? What bugs?


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

WLC said:


> As you've stated yourself, "It's definitive." You created a poll, now follow your own rules.


Which rule specifically?
Unlike with the definition, there seems to be only one person pushing this.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

WLC said:


> Since it's obviously an extreme measure, and it doesn't look like you're going to put it on your sticky, then you should remove the less extreme measures like sugar dusting, essential oils, etc. from the sticky as treatments.
> 
> You can't have it both ways without appearing to be inconsistent.


WLC-

Sol isn't making unilateral decisions about the definition of treatment free. It came about by everyone weighing in on the subject. You made your feelings quite clear on this one matter. I don't see anyone else sharing your same feelings. We have treatment free defined for how the term is used here in this forum. Fair or not, that's how it is now. You came late to the party, sorry.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

summer1052 said:


> Does dipping hives in wax/rosin/resin composites vs. painting the OUTSIDE of hives positively, negatively, or not affect the bees in the hive?


Summer -

I doubt any of us know. That is why to a great degree, this thread has nowhere to go. The concern has been raised. Duly noted. If and when more data comes forward to prove one way or another, we can readdress this issue. Until then . . .


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Barry:

At least we had a chance to air out the issues for this year. But, I am not alone as I've discovered.

Now if we can hear from treatment free beekeepers who use propolis (the real stuff) back on the best practices thread...


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

sqkcrk said:


> Bugs? What bugs?


Parasites, viruses, bacteria and germs in general are considered bugs in the medical industry.


----------



## KQ6AR (May 13, 2008)

The difference I see is people don't paint the inside of the hive.
Still can't decide which way to vote on this one.



Solomon Parker said:


> We don't have painting listed, so in my humble view, I don't see why it needs to be listed at all.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

WLC said:


> Barry:
> 
> At least we had a chance to air out the issues for this year. But, I am not alone as I've discovered.
> 
> Now if we can hear from treatment free beekeepers who use propolis (the real stuff) back on the best practices thread...


I have to ask, how do you use it without introducing another harmful chemical.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Acebird said:


> Parasites, viruses, bacteria and germs in general are considered bugs in the medical industry.


And you believe that hot dipping or boiling in oil will keep those things from recurring? Something isn't right here. I'm sure I'm missing some semantic understanding.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

KQ6AR said:


> The difference I see is people don't paint the inside of the hive.
> Still can't decide which way to vote on this one.


But people do, so what's your point?


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Acebird said:


> I have to ask, how do you use it without introducing another harmful chemical.


Which harmful chemical is that? Which I guess is why this Thread has such legs.

This method of wood preservation has been used for ages w/out any apparently detrimental effect to the colonies housed in the equipment?


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

> And you believe that hot dipping or boiling in oil will keep those things from recurring?


Hot dipping will because it seals the wood with wax so no oxygen and water can enter the fibers. Boiling in oil will sterilize but will not prevent the bugs from returning over time.



> Which harmful chemical is that?


I don't know. I am asking what chemical / thinner you are going to use to disolve the propolis so you can paint it on the wood.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>The difference I see is people don't paint the inside of the hive.
Still can't decide which way to vote on this one.

Barry paints the inside of his... and I'm sure he's not alone.

If you don't want tree sap and beeswax inside of a hive, I suggest you keep the bees out...


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Acebird said:


> I don't know. I am asking what chemical / thinner you are going to use to disolve the propolis so you can paint it on the wood.


I don't do this and I don't spend any time worrying about it. It's a non-issue. Be concerned about more important things.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Spivak uses ethanol. Propolis should dissolve in mineral spirits, as should gum rosin and beeswax.

The impact of propolis on honeybee health is an area of research that she has worked on.

If someone like Spivak, who won the $500000 MacArthur 'Genius' Grant, says it's an issue, then it is.

Also, other researchers have shown that Argentinian propolis has pesticidal properties (90% against varroa for example).

I do keep an eye on important topics in Honeybee research by reviewing the literature.

That's where the determination of what is 'relevant' is often made.


----------



## KQ6AR (May 13, 2008)

Hi Mark,
Didn't realize anyone painted the inside. Most beginer books say not too.
This might call for another poll, on how many paint the inside. Just for curiosity sake.
We can drag this out like the gov. trying to write a budget.



sqkcrk said:


> But people do, so what's your point?


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Spivak did apply propolis in alcohol to the inside of hives.

Yes, I would consider this a treatment especially in light of the findings.

" Exposure to extracts from two sources of honey bee propolis (a mixture of resins and wax) led to a significantly lowered expression of two honey bee immune-related genes (hymenoptaecin and AmEater in Brazilian and Minnesota propolis, respectively)"

"RESIN COLLECTION AND SOCIAL IMMUNITY IN HONEY BEES
Michael Simone1,2, Jay D. Evans3, Marla Spivak4" 2009.

One could argue that wax dipping of equipment into an artificial propolis like substance, like gum rosin and beeswax, could have the same effect on honeybee immunity as does applying propolis and alcohol to the inside of a hive.

Just one more argument for considering this to be a treatment. A change in Honeybee immunity. (plus it ties in Spivak w/ Michael Bush's method).

WLC.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

KQ6AR said:


> Hi Mark,
> Didn't realize anyone painted the inside. Most beginer books say not too.
> This might call for another poll, on how many paint the inside. Just for curiosity sake.
> We can drag this out like the gov. trying to write a budget.


I don't hardly ever see the point of Polls. Knock yourself out.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

> I don't hardly ever see the point of Polls. Knock yourself out.


No? It stimulates discussion and gives the readers an idea of what people do and think. I think they have a lot of merit.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

If people w/ little knowl;edge or experience have the same weight as those w/ vastly more knowledge and experience, what value does a poll present, othher than documenting what those who vote have opinion on?


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

Seeing who votes for what shows more than how many.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

What does seeing who doesn't vote show? Viewers but not voters.


----------



## BeeCurious (Aug 7, 2007)

Mark, I couldn't agree with you more.

It takes time, and a lot of reading to realize who's who and to weigh their remarks accordingly. 

I'm a Three Winter hobbyist and I've spent a lot of time reading. Reading books, postings and attending the occasional meeting or conference. The Beesource archives are full of nuggets and I would suggest that newbies spend more time reading... do searches and read. 

As for the polls, they could be marked with a disclaimer: "Warning, this poll is for entertainment purposes only."

Joe


----------



## Apiator (Apr 8, 2011)

WLC said:


> They may be able to cut and weld steel into a vat and set up propane burners, but it will never be UL listed or OSHA approved. It's nothing like cooking french fries.



Oh, gosh darn those people who can cut and weld steel... those crazy loony people who know how to work with their hands and use tools. How dare they! 


You should realize that there are people out there who can and do do things for themselves. They roll up their sleeves and do what needs to be done, and phooey on the regulators and the lawyers. 

As for OSHA... being from the construction industry, I can say that some of their rules are helpful and do prevent some accidents. The rest of what I have to say about them would earn me several infractions on this forum. Let's just say there's a huge gap between common sense safety precautions, and 90% of the OSHA rule books.

Furthermore, we're not talking about companies asking paid employees to hot-dip bee equipment. We're talking about independent beeks risking their own necks, on their own property, with their own equipment, on their own time. OSHA does not apply anyway. Though keeping a fire extinguisher handy would be wise, methinks.... 


Onward to the chemical compound issue. You seem to be the most advanced organic chemist in this thread so far. Perhaps you could cook up a small (SAFE!! ) test batch and have it tested? My knowledge is pretty much high school level on it, but I don't remember that a lot happens at the low temperatures we're discussing (250F) without some sort of catalyst. I'd be interested in your results, and if you find something ugly, I bet you'd pretty quickly gain some converts. I don't think anyone wants to poison their bees.

Which ties back to deep fat frying. Those fryers in restaurants are running at what, 350F+? With oils that are flammable? We also know that vegetable oils are not stable at high temperatures, which is where we get the new "trans-fat" problem... which I think is what you were getting at, so there may be something there. However, old-fashioned lard_ is_ stable at fryer temps, and that's why we didn't _used to have_ a trans fat problem. So I guess the whole argument really boils down to the stability of beeswax and rosin.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Apiator:

I don't think that anyone who dips is poisoning their bees or we would have heard about it. I also don't think that anyone is going to be harmed by honey produced from dipped equipment or we would have heard about that as well.

As for creating new compounds. You can smell them. That's the esters I've been referring to. There probably isn't a single dipper out there who doesn't like the smell of their equipment after it has been dipped.

You refer to temperatures and catalysts. While the molten liquid may be at 250 F, the same cannot be said for the hot spots that occur where the flames heat the metal. That can get significantly hotter than 250 degrees F. Yes, hot metal is a catalyst.

No, we don't have an analysis of what new compounds are being produced.

However, we do know from Spivak et al. that hives (equipment) treated with a propolis/alcohol mix did affect Honeybee immunity in a measurable way. This may involve less than 10 grams of propolis, at most, per hive body.

When you wax dip hive bodies (deeps) into gum rosin and beeswax, you are putting about 30 grams of artificial propolis into each hive deep.

It very likely does have an effect (a positive one) on Honeybee immunity, no matter what your intentions were.


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

WLC said:


> Yes, hot metal is a catalyst.


No. 

This is a gross simplification and a serious miscarriage of the facts. *Some* metals are catalysts in *some* situations concerning *some *chemical reactions. Stainless steel appears to be a catalyst in a microbial fuel cell technology, but applying it here is simply ridiculous.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

I've seen the photos posted up of the vats that wax dippers have constructed. Most of them aren't stainless steel (nor are they glass lined stainless steel). They're steel plate.

Don't ignore the fact that we are talking about hot spots in the metal above the burner.

Those hot spots aren't a mere 250 degrees F.

Hot metal is a catalyst for esterification and transesterification (nucleophillic reactions). This isn't debatable.

Not one of you has addressed the Spivak findings. Propolis, when applied to the inside of hive bodies, affects Honeybee immunity.

Michael Bush has described that the bees readily take up the gum rosin/beeswax produced in his wax dipping process as if it was propolis.

Any takers?


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

WLC said:


> Hot metal is a catalyst for esterification and transesterification (nucleophillic reactions).


No.

Unless you specify the exact metal, the exact temperature, and the exact chemicals involved, the answer is no. It is fundamentally untenable to make this kind of assertion without direct evidence.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Sol:

Do you mean 'due dilligence'? The burden is on the dippers to prove that this isn't happening.

They're the ones reporting that esters are being formed. They're the ones reporting that molten gum rosin and bees wax form seperate phases and won't 'mix' until a higher temperature is reached. They've reported the new smells (esters).

Taken together, these reports indicate that the gum rosin and beeswax are reacting, not dissolving. If the gum rosin could dissolve in beeswax, it would have occurred once they were both molten. That's not what's been reported.

What about Spivak's findings?

If you define a treatment as something affecting Honeybees directly (like their immunity), then the burden of proof remains with the dippers to show that they aren't affecting Honeybee immunity.

One could say that safety isn't the only thing being denied here. Some very basic chemistry and biology is also being denied.

[]


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

WLC said:


> Not one of you has addressed the Spivak findings. Propolis, when applied to the inside of hive bodies, affects Honeybee immunity.


I have. I said the award goes to the bees, as they have been applying it to the inside of hives since they were created. I fail to see the news flash. Propolis has been studied and it's properties are well known.


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

This is the definition of treatment elected by this forum.

_"Treatment: A substance introduced by the beekeeper into the hive with the intent of killing, repelling, or inhibiting a pest or disease within the hive or afflicting the bees."_

Let's be certain exactly what it is. There is no need to 'if' anything.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Barry/Sol:

If Michael Bush is applying artificial propolis to the inside of hives, with the intent of preserving wood, are you saying that that isn't a treatment because of intent, regardless of Spivak's methodology/findings (and everything else)?

So, I can mix up grease patties with essential oils (lemon grass and peppermint) if I state that my intent is to preserve the sugar and soy. But, I'm still treatment free because of intent? That's how I read the definition.

So, anyone can sidestep the items listed on the sticky as treatments, simply by stating that their intent wasn't treatment, regardless of effect?

That's marvelous.


----------



## Solomon Parker (Dec 21, 2002)

WLC said:


> So, I can mix up grease patties with essential oils (lemon grass and peppermint) if I state that my intent is to preserve the sugar and soy. But, I'm still treatment free because of intent?


I think you're missing something huge here. This definition applies only to this forum, and its purpose is to end discussions about what is or isn't treatment free. The whole idea of someone trying to twist the intent of the definition to suit their own preferences is a complete missing of the point. This definition only applies to this forum. You can call yourself whatever you want on your own, in your own home, selling your own honey. None of us care.

It really doesn't matter how you read the definition. It's not going to fly with real treatment-free beekeepers, and on this forum, if you advocate using the substances on the list, the posts will be off topic.

If you're intention with this whole 'dipper' charade is to get your own practices deemed 'treatment-free' just remember, it's just a forum. It's only a forum.:shhhh:


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Yes. I get it now.

I was looking at this all wrong.

Just a forum.

The definition of treatment-free is subjective as it is.

Why would anyone even say, 'real, treatment-free beekeepers.'

Wouldn't you need another poll for that one?


----------



## Apiator (Apr 8, 2011)

WLC said:


> Apiator:
> 
> I don't think that anyone who dips is poisoning their bees or we would have heard about it. I also don't think that anyone is going to be harmed by honey produced from dipped equipment or we would have heard about that as well.


Well then... what's your beef?




WLC said:


> As for creating new compounds. You can smell them. That's the esters I've been referring to. There probably isn't a single dipper out there who doesn't like the smell of their equipment after it has been dipped.


I'm new at this. I've no intention of dipping anything in beeswax until I've a supply built up from the ol' crush&strain... and I expect that might take a couple years. I don't know yet what I'd smell. And I'd gather, since you deem this an unsafe practice, you don't know what you'd be smelling either. 

Where do you get the idea that one would be smelling anything new or different, if you don't follow this practice?




WLC said:


> You refer to temperatures and catalysts. While the molten liquid may be at 250 F, the same cannot be said for the hot spots that occur where the flames heat the metal. That can get significantly hotter than 250 degrees F. Yes, hot metal is a catalyst.


For some chemical reactions, yes. For others, no. It depends entirely on the compounds and/or elements in question. Plate steel isn't a catalyst just because it's plate steel, or just because it can oxidize. Iron oxide is a catalyst for a few certain reactions, but by no means any and all that it might come in contact with. I'm beginning to question your knowledge of organic chemistry if you're going to insist that hot plate steel might be a catalyst for every possible hot thing contained in it. Iron oxide does not react with everything it comes in contact with, and I think you know better. At least, I should hope so.




WLC said:


> No, we don't have an analysis of what new compounds are being produced.


That's what I'm hoping you're going to provide for us... but I'm afraid you missed that part of my post. 

Look... my somewhat limited knowledge of chemistry ( admittedly ) inclines me to believe that you are on to something re new compounds being formed. But by the same token, the experiments of Mr. Bush, and the like, do not seem to show any harm. I point you again in the direction of what we know as nutritional fact, that deep frying food in lard was healthier than deep frying in vegetable oil -- that is to say, that some natural compounds, even when heated to extreme temperatures, demonstrate no ill effects. Since we are talking about two natural compounds (beeswax and tree sap) I see no reason to place the burden of proof on those using it, at least not entirely.

It seems to me that if you are indeed qualified as a researcher in this area, it should be no great burden on your part to provide some proof via empirical testing that you are correct. I guessed by your prior posts that you are qualified to provide such, and I eagerly await your results.

As I said, I have no interest personally here, as I have not the resources to use this process. I would like to know before I start. These guys hot dipping bee equipment don't seem to have the resources to test, but by the sound of it, you do. Please enlighten us. And I'm not being sarcastic here. (For once... lol)

Believe me, WLC, I am the last human on Earth to buy in to junk science. I just want the facts.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Apiator:

Fair enough. But, we don't need organic chemistry to objectively examine why this might be considered a treatment. But, just so you know, hot steel makes a good reducing agent. That's why beer's made in glass lined, stainless steel tanks (or it will taste funny).

My most favorite point that I've made so far revolves around Michael Bush's description of the heated gum rosin and beeswax as an artificial propolis. "The bees readily lap it up."

If that didn't hit you as an interesting observation, then we come from different planets.

Here's why that's important: Spivak has already shown that propolis coated hives have a positive effect on Honeybee immunity. She was very specific about which substances were affected if you take the time to read the above reference.

So, why would I accept MB's claim that's it's just a wood treatment. Propolis has already been proven to affect Honeybee immunity, so does his 'artificially propolized' treatmend equipment.

I would characterize Spivaks method as a treatment if I were to apply it. I would have to do the same for MB's wax dipping method as well.

Puhlease stop trying to say that it's just a 'wood preservative'.

PS-esters have distinct aromas, the dippers are reporting that they are making 'new compounds', not me.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

WLC said:


> That's why beer's made in glass lined, stainless steel tanks (or it will taste funny).


While these are made, I don't know of any craft brewer who uses any glass lined tank, and I'm quite confident that most beer is not brewed or fermented in glass lined tanks. t:


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Car boys are glass Barry.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

True, I should have stopped at "brewing."  After all, the point here is stuff being heated.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Funny thing about beer and bees. I've had to use a product used by brewers, polyclar-10, to develop a non-toxic method for the extraction of nucleic acids from honey.

I've even formed esters acidentally when trying to do an isopropanol extraction from honey using heat. You don't want me to go into the polyphenol contamination issues I've had to deal with. Danged PCR inhibitors. Thank goodeness for polyclar (PVPP).

Molecular biologists already know that when it comes to Honeybees, you might as well use techiques that are used for resinous plants.

But, we are talking about dipping hives into artificial propolis here.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

WLC said:


> a non-toxic method for the extraction of nucleic acids from honey.


Why?


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Trizol is a 30+ year old technology that is way too toxic for my blood. A drop on your skin will send you to the emergency room. It's a systemic toxin that I refuse to expose my students to.

I've found that the way around polyphenol inhibitors in RNA/DNA extracts, especially when one prefers spin columns, is to use PVPP so that you can avoid Trizol.

The polyphenols just kept showing up on the nanodrop-1000 spectra.

I simply 'did my thing'.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

WHAT!! I have no idea what you just posted. Can you say that in less technical language?

Like: "There is stuff in honey that is too toxic for my blood, so I remove it." Is that what you mean?


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

No sqrcrk:

The most common techique for extracting nucleic acids from honey, beeswax, propolis, and bees is Trizol extraction. It's the Trizol that's toxic. When a young professor says, 'it's not so bad.' I realize that it's an old dog, like me, that has to embrace the philospophy and take out the 'magic bag of tricks'.

I'm a treatment-free beeker (objectively, I'm a food-grade, treatment beekeeper.), so, I also do everything possible to apply non-toxic, non-destructive, research techniques as well.

Don't be so surprised. It's the students who want things done this way. I say more power to em.

A new way, for a new day.

Regardless: this doesn't address the issue of why 'wax dipping' should be considered a treatment.


----------

