# wax rotation



## Orion7 (Jun 3, 2015)

I understand the need to change out old wax. Can some of you give me ideas on how you do it?


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

You would do that by rotating out old frames and replacing them with new foundation. If you don't do this on a regular basis you run the risk your frames could start looking old. Don't let this happen to you! Some day they could even end up looking like this frame which I know to be at least 60 years old.


----------



## The Honey Householder (Nov 14, 2008)

Jim why would you keep nice old frames like that. We use a lot of frame saver in our operation just to see if we can get a 100 years of them.:thumbsup:


----------



## Kenww (Apr 14, 2013)

Jim,does that mean you don't believe in rotating at all?


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

Kenww said:


> Jim,does that mean you don't believe in rotating at all?


I throw out plenty of combs each year but only if they have structural issues or more than about 10% drone comb. Also anything with signs of AFB but, thankfully its been a good number of years since we've seen any of that.


----------



## snl (Nov 20, 2009)

Since all the frames I now have, have only been exposed to OA and BT, I'll not rotate them out. They are here to stay unless broken or have lots of drone comb.


----------



## cgybees (Apr 20, 2015)

snl said:


> Since all the frames I now have, have only been exposed to OA and BT, I'll not rotate them out. They are here to stay unless broken or have lots of drone comb.


Most people quote concerns about the buildup of pesticides and other contaminants coming in, not necessarily from treatments you apply, in brood wax over time as a reason to rotate. What are your thoughts?


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

jim lyon said:


> Some day they could even end up looking like this frame which I know to be at least 60 years old.


So you are on a 61 year comb rotation? hahaha


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

cgybees said:


> Most people quote concerns about the buildup of pesticides and other contaminants coming in, not necessarily from treatments you apply, in brood wax over time as a reason to rotate. What are your thoughts?


If you don't rid yourself of all of the combs in a hive, by inserting new foundation into your hive, after a while everything balances out and the new combs become just as contaminated as the old combs. So what's the point?


----------



## Orion7 (Jun 3, 2015)

I learned this hobby from my grandfather 30 some years ago. He never touched the bottom to boxes. But I understand things have changed since those days. I would love to keep bees the way he did. He put honey supers on in the spring, and took them off in summer. We went to the hive about 3 times a year. Seemed pretty simple back then.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>I understand the need to change out old wax

I don't...


----------



## Orion7 (Jun 3, 2015)

I thought I heard a talk you gave teaching clean wax. I'm confused. I thought you would have to rotate out the old to keep it clean. Can you explain?


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

If you are using chemicals in the hive you never have clean wax. If you are using wax foundation, you didn't start with clean wax and if you are still using foundation, you will replace it with contaminated wax. I'm all for wax with no chemicals in it, yes. If by "clean" you mean white and not dark, I'd say bees winter better on old dark comb, not new white wax. But dark does not equate to contaminated unless you are putting contamination in there...


----------



## jbeshearse (Oct 7, 2009)

Michael Bush said:


> If you are using chemicals in the hive you never have clean wax. If you are using wax foundation, you didn't start with clean wax and if you are still using foundation, you will replace it with contaminated wax. I'm all for wax with no chemicals in it, yes. If by "clean" you mean white and not dark, I'd say bees winter better on old dark comb, not new white wax. But dark does not equate to contaminated unless you are putting contamination in there...


So does that mean that after a while, you should not need to add any treatments because your wax already is "pretreated". Wonder if all that bad chemical buildup is high enough to prohibit mites and foul brood. Sounds like a lazy beekeeping method to me.


----------



## Orion7 (Jun 3, 2015)

I'm not using chemicals. I have Russians and screened bottom boards all year. I hoping the bees can keep the mites at bay on there on. I believe I heard someone say, and it may have been you, if we would quit treating these mites wouldn't be a problem in a few years. I need to rethink the wax now.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

I am a beekeeper with very little experience but I think it is healthier for the hive to let the young bees draw comb be it foundation or foundationless. If you are not crushing and straining you will come to a point where you can't let the bees draw comb so why not rotate?


----------



## ChuckReburn (Dec 17, 2013)

cgybees said:


> Most people quote concerns about the buildup of pesticides and other contaminants coming in, not necessarily from treatments you apply, in brood wax over time as a reason to rotate. What are your thoughts?


The last studies I saw indicated that by far, the highest levels of contaminates found in comb were from miticides and treatments applied by beekeepers. Many of the miticides are proven to cause queen and drone issues. Constant low dosage exposure to miticides leads to resistance in the mites. Pesticide and chemical buildup would need to be discussed in context of a specific LD50 and half-life - Is there a specific one in mind? 



jbeshearse said:


> So does that mean that after a while, you should not need to add any treatments because your wax already is "pretreated". Wonder if all that bad chemical buildup is high enough to prohibit mites and foul brood. Sounds like a lazy beekeeping method to me.


No, no, and no.


----------



## Dave A. (Mar 13, 2015)

Do non-managed bee colonies replace their comb when it gets old?


----------



## jbeshearse (Oct 7, 2009)

ChuckReburn said:


> The last studies I saw indicated that by far, the highest levels of contaminates found in comb were from miticides and treatments applied by beekeepers. Many of the miticides are proven to cause queen and drone issues. Constant low dosage exposure to miticides leads to resistance in the mites. Pesticide and chemical buildup would need to be discussed in context of a specific LD50 and half-life - Is there a specific one in mind?
> 
> 
> 
> No, no, and no.


My reply was tounge in cheek, but lets do look at is seriously. 

Per your response, most of the chemicals found in wax are from beekeeper applied mitacide. 

Is it your contention that subleathal doses of mitacide is more detrimental to bees than it is to mites? As the lethal dosage is lethal to mites and not to bees, I find the argument difficult to believe. If the argument is that subleathal doses lead to resistance and all foundation is contaminated, then to avoid resistance buildup due to subleathal dosage, everyone should be insuring to treat to lethal dosages. Also if the mites are building resistance, then the bees will be building resistance quicker, as more are surviving. However, less genome lines of bees see the dosages because of the reproduction stratagies of bees verses mites. 

The treatment free, anti chemical proponents are quick to point out potential problems the chemical could possibly cause and very slow or outright deny the possible benefits. They have embraced that retained chemicals in wax are bad for the bees and humans with no scientific basis for that stance. Conversely, they deny that the buildup could be beneficial, once again with no scientific basis. 

You have many commercial long term beekeepers with comb inventories stretching back decades. It could very well be that these combs are supplying more than just quick brood and honey storage and their benefits could extend to better bee health. 

Maybe the wax may contains all those good antibiotic compounds that so many attribute to bees and honey. But wait, I forgot, wax only retains the bad stuff and nothing good.


----------



## Harley Craig (Sep 18, 2012)

Dave A. said:


> Do non-managed bee colonies replace their comb when it gets old?


 nope wax moth take care of it for them when they die


----------



## AHudd (Mar 5, 2015)

Harley Craig said:


> nope wax moth take care of it for them when they die


 Your statement made me start wondering about something. I keep reading over and over, there are no truly feral colonies surviving more than two or three years in the same space, rather successive escaped swarms from managed colonies. Do wax moths get in these cavities and do their damage while they are vacant? Do bees move in and clean the moths out or wait until the moths are gone before reoccupying the space?
I have only been on one bee removal and that was out of the side of a hill, so I have no knowledge of whether or not moths are a problem in remote locations.
I hope you or someone speak to this, or it might be a good question to post on the cut-out forum.

Alex


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

jbeshearse said:


> So does that mean that after a while, you should not need to add any treatments because your wax already is "pretreated". Wonder if all that bad chemical buildup is high enough to prohibit mites and foul brood. Sounds like a lazy beekeeping method to me.


If you aren't being sarcastic, the answer is No.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Orion7 said:


> if we would quit treating these mites wouldn't be a problem in a few years.


If you quit treating then mites won't be a problem for you much sooner than a few years. Six months more likely. Cause your bees will be dead and so will your mites.


----------



## jbeshearse (Oct 7, 2009)

sqkcrk said:


> If you aren't being sarcastic, the answer is No.


Yep, sarcasm doesn't come across very well on forums.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Tell me about it.

Also I should read the whole Thread before replying to Posts.


----------



## GaryG74 (Apr 9, 2014)

Question by AHudd about moths cleaning up dead feral colonies: There was an article in American Bee Journal or Bee Culture at the beginning of the year I believe, about a study of feral hives that died. The folks conducting the study found the feral hives were generally to far apart for wax moths to find and destroy. I think the study was done in New York state but I can't locate it.
I know the moths have not completely destroyed the wax from a dead swarm located in a nesting box for wood ducks on my property. The swarm, the second to occupy it in four or five years, died last winter but the comb can still be seen through the 4" opening.


----------



## AHudd (Mar 5, 2015)

Thanks for the reply, Gary. So, an abandoned feral hive would be very attractive to a swarm. All the mites would die off and the comb would be ready for eggs.

Thanks
Alex


----------



## ChuckReburn (Dec 17, 2013)

jbeshearse said:


> My reply was tounge in cheek, but lets do look at is seriously.
> 
> Per your response, most of the chemicals found in wax are from beekeeper applied mitacide.
> 
> ...


The scientific community has documented the sublethal effects of fluvalinate and coumaphos on queen honey bees for more than a decade, and the effect on drones for a slightly shorter period of time. And they are thought to be a constant stressor on the colony by many. 

Dr. Maryann Frasier (2008), after analyzing colonies suffering from CCD, found that “The most significant difference in pesticide levels relative to bee health was that fluvalinate residues tended to be higher in pollen, wax and brood of weak, dead and recovering colonies relative to strong colonies. Highest levels of pesticides were found in the wax, followed by the pollen and brood, but levels in wax were much more variable than in pollen or brood. The fluvalinate levels found in brood are within a lethal range for honey bees.”

It's not a "treatment-free thing" to take issue with the use of synthetic miticides or consider rotating comb in hives here they have been used. It may be a "treatment-free thing" to suggest that rotation is unnecessary lacing the use of these and a number of other beekeeper introduced chemicals.


----------



## snapper1d (Apr 8, 2011)

I quit worrying about chemicals in foundation because the bees build new comb on it not with its wax.As far as changing out old comb I only do it when it becomes wonky,full of drone comb,SHB damaged,when the become really black or something like that.I will then spray them with Bt and use them in swarm traps.


----------



## jbeshearse (Oct 7, 2009)

ChuckReburn said:


> The scientific community has documented the sublethal effects of fluvalinate and coumaphos on queen honey bees for more than a decade, and the effect on drones for a slightly shorter period of time. And they are thought to be a constant stressor on the colony by many.
> 
> Dr. Maryann Frasier (2008), after analyzing colonies suffering from CCD, found that “The most significant difference in pesticide levels relative to bee health was that fluvalinate residues tended to be higher in pollen, wax and brood of weak, dead and recovering colonies relative to strong colonies. Highest levels of pesticides were found in the wax, followed by the pollen and brood, but levels in wax were much more variable than in pollen or brood. The fluvalinate levels found in brood are within a lethal range for honey bees.”
> 
> It's not a "treatment-free thing" to take issue with the use of synthetic miticides or consider rotating comb in hives here they have been used. It may be a "treatment-free thing" to suggest that rotation is unnecessary lacing the use of these and a number of other beekeeper introduced chemicals.


Okay, so for those unfamiliar, the two highlighted mitacides are Apistan (fluvilanate) and Checkmite+(coumaphos). While there is still no definitive answer to what causes CCD, I think most would agree it is probably a combination of things which include pesticides, nosema cerana, and other stressors. Each building on the other. I do not mean to debate CCD here, greater minds than mine can do that. 

i have used checkmite+ once to try and save failing hives. While it saved about half the ones that were failing due to mites and SHB, the balance had queen failures. So yes, coumaphos does have its problems. The label says not to use it in colonies that are requeening or being used for queen rearing. So that is pretty definitive. I have never used it again. Apistan became ineffective and It has fallen out of favor. (I have never used it). 

Also the use of words like "highly variable" and "tended" are nice ways of saying inconclusive. I have not read the paper cited but have read others. There has been no proven link between purchased foundation and lethal or negative sublethal levels of mitacides. If the levels of fluvilanate were above the lethal range in the brood, I think it severely unlikely to have come from the foundation but more likely poor treatment practice by beekeeper. The reasoning is simple. At lethal levels, it would have been lethal during the initial application. There could also be other reasons the levels measured high in the weak hives. The first that comes to mind is less brooding and less housekeeping by the free bees in the hive, etc. 

If objection to the use of synthetic mitacide is not a treatment free thing, what is it? And I am not against TF. I just tire of unfounded claims.


----------



## jbeshearse (Oct 7, 2009)

At one point in my beekeeping I ascribed to comb rotation and destruction. But on further research at the urging of more experienced beekeepers I came to the conclusion that not only was it unnecessary but detrimental.

The benefits to the colony of established comb, to me outweigh any unfounded claims of sublethal levels of chemicals not purposefully introduced into my hives. Also, the chemical accumulations have not seemed to slow wax moths down at all.


----------



## Harley Craig (Sep 18, 2012)

jbeshearse said:


> Yep, sarcasm doesn't come across very well on forums.


That is why I advocate the use of purple text when being sarcastic


----------



## Harley Craig (Sep 18, 2012)

GaryG74 said:


> Question by AHudd about moths cleaning up dead feral colonies: There was an article in American Bee Journal or Bee Culture at the beginning of the year I believe, about a study of feral hives that died. The folks conducting the study found the feral hives were generally to far apart for wax moths to find and destroy. I think the study was done in New York state but I can't locate it.
> I know the moths have not completely destroyed the wax from a dead swarm located in a nesting box for wood ducks on my property. The swarm, the second to occupy it in four or five years, died last winter but the comb can still be seen through the 4" opening.


 I did a cutout last yr that had wax moth in it with a thriving colony of bees and no known apiaries for miles. Most of the moth worms and webbing were on comb that had collapsed and not on active comb being patrolled granted one instance is anticdotal evidence at best


----------



## biggraham610 (Jun 26, 2013)

sqkcrk said:


> If you quit treating then mites won't be a problem for you much sooner than a few years. Six months more likely. Cause your bees will be dead and so will your mites.


:lpf:.........................:applause:

I got a few on their third year Mark........:scratch:


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

So what?


----------



## ChuckReburn (Dec 17, 2013)

jbeshearse said:


> If objection to the use of synthetic mitacide is not a treatment free thing, what is it? And I am not against TF. I just tire of unfounded claims.


Lets for a moment discount commercial foundation due to the halflife of the synthetic miticides and the low volume by weight it makes up in a frame (in short - there ain't a lot in there) and focus on drawn comb 5 or more years old.

And again lets focus on the 2 most commonly used synthetic miticide for years: Apistan (fluvilanate) and Checkmite+ (coumaphos). Both still on the market and being routinely used. Apistan having fallen out of favor due to resistance in mites (but used for a LONG time and <shaking my head> still being purchased and used. And Checkmite+ (coumaphos) which we (as well as the scientific community and queen breeders) seem to agree causes issues with queens. 

At some point I'm breeding queens and most beekeepers are (intentionally or not). The queens raised in my apiary and open mated work well. I've got a lot riding on the fact my queens and the purchased ones do well (and most of my queens come from a treatment free queen breeder).

We use some soft treatments coupled with genetics to get by with minimal treatments and am able to run some colonies TF. 

Drawn comb represents a huge investment, allowing for me to greatly increase my honey harvest and build splits much faster than foundation alone. 

One community suggests rotating comb out on a 3-5 year schedule and if synthetic miticides have been routinely used, antibiotics dumped in, combs over wintered with moth flakes (or moth balls <shaking my head>), a large group agrees and supports that decision. Another community (TF and many who've migrated to softer treatments) believe that lacking the addition of those beekeeper chemicals, comb rotation is unnecessary.

Maybe there's a small group that is arguing 20+ year old comb treated with these miticides (and a few others), treated annually with antibiotics and moth flakes (or moth balls) doesn't need to be rotated out - was that the point ?<slight sarcasm intended>


----------



## jbeshearse (Oct 7, 2009)

ChuckReburn said:


> Maybe there's a small group that is arguing 20+ year old comb treated with these miticides (and a few others), treated annually with antibiotics and moth flakes (or moth balls) doesn't need to be rotated out - was that the point ?<slight sarcasm intended>


I can see your point and understand your case for saying that comb rotation/destruction is not necessarily a treatment free subject. In the past, and I think still today the majority of those that practice comb rotation/destruction come from a treatment free/low treatment/soft treatment perspective. I also think they are following the practice from poor advice with little to no scientific basis. 

While you can say a small group is aurguing that 20+ year old chemical exposed comb does not need to be to rotated out you are ignoring the larger body that is busy managing bees and not discussing thier methods. The vast body of commercial beekeepers do not practice wax rotation/comb destruction. They "speak" with their actions. If comb rotation/destruction showed the purported benefits, they would certainly practice it. 

I have done soft treatments (apiguard), sugar dusting, brood breaks, SBB. Apiguard I found to be to brutal to work with and the bees really did not like it. Sugar dusting was time consuming and ineffective. Brood breaks require pretty exacting timing and cost you bees and honey. SBB (screened bottom boards) I found allowed easier access for SHB while decreasing the hives ability to control the hives interior environment. In effect, I have tried many of the "in fashion" soft and non treatments with unsatisfactory results. I also went complete treatment free one year (mainly due to having too many other priorities). That year I went from 28 hives all the way down to 2. Starting last year I had two yards, one started with 10 hives and the other with 7. The one with 7 I left treatment free with the exception of SHB full bottom board traps with DE in them. The other I used SHB traps and Amitraz (apivar) in. Pretty much all my comb is less than three years old, because the year I lost all my hives, the wax moths recycled the comb for me. 

Of of those two yards, one currently has 32 hives and the other has 1. You can easily guess which is which. As a side note, all genetics in my bees are from swarmed bees, cutouts, or queens cast or grafted from these. (I have not purchased bees since 2009, and have only ever bought 6 queens (and that was three years ago). I was not happy with their genetics, they were avid robbers. 

I guess at the end of the day, I have found that the methods practiced by the majority of the commercial keepers work better in small scale beekeeping than the hyped fads. That should not have been a surprise to me and I hope that through these types of threads, it is not to others. If someone wants to utilize these techniques, they should do so with knowledge, not hearsay.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Show me a commercial beekeeper who can afford to rotate out a sizable amount of comb annually. Enough comb to make a difference. I can see how one might brand wooden frames with the date they were put into use. But otherwise, how would you know how old your combs were after say five years of use?

I know no one who rotates the amount of combs that we are talking about. Enough to make a difference to their hives.


----------



## dsegrest (May 15, 2014)

I haven't been keeping bees long enough to need to rotate my comb, but I am using my oldest empty brood comb to make swarm boxes. 2 frames per box.


----------



## Orion7 (Jun 3, 2015)

Well I really do appreciate every ones input. A lot that I don't understand, but one thing that was said is; The bees over winter better in old comb. If this is true I'm wondering why.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>So does that mean that after a while, you should not need to add any treatments because your wax already is "pretreated". Wonder if all that bad chemical buildup is high enough to prohibit mites and foul brood. Sounds like a lazy beekeeping method to me.

It has not happened. Sublethal doses have not worked out well.

>Is it your contention that subleathal doses of mitacide is more detrimental to bees than it is to mites? 

Yes. There is plenty of research to show that it causes resistance to the chemicals in the mites and leads to short lived queens and short lived drones. A paper soon to be published shows that it also shortens the lvies of the workers.

>If the argument is that subleathal doses lead to resistance and all foundation is contaminated, then to avoid resistance buildup due to subleathal dosage, everyone should be insuring to treat to lethal dosages.

But with the wax contaminated there is a constant sub-lethal dose.

> Also if the mites are building resistance, then the bees will be building resistance quicker, as more are surviving.

There is no "if". The mites have already built resistance. The bees have not. Cumaphos and Fluvalinate affect the fertility of the drones, the fertility of the queens, the longevity of the queens, the longevity of the drones and the longevity of the workers.

>The treatment free, anti chemical proponents are quick to point out potential problems the chemical could possibly cause and very slow or outright deny the possible benefits.

This is not a "potential problem". There are many studies on the topic. Far too many to list. Go do a search on "fluvalinate" or "cumaphos" and "fertility" and "bees". Here are just two. There are dozens more if you want to go search for them.

http://jee.oxfordjournals.org/content/101/4/1081.abstract
https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/handle/10919/34584


>They have embraced that retained chemicals in wax are bad for the bees and humans with no scientific basis for that stance. 

Simply not true. See the above two studies as well as many others.

>Conversely, they deny that the buildup could be beneficial, once again with no scientific basis. 

Simply not true. It's not beneficial as the studies have shown.

>Maybe the wax may contains all those good antibiotic compounds that so many attribute to bees and honey. But wait, I forgot, wax only retains the bad stuff and nothing good.

You assume antibiotics would be good... I think not... but no, they don't build up in wax because they are not lipophilic like amitraz, fluvalinate and cumaphos are, they are water soluble.


----------



## jbeshearse (Oct 7, 2009)

My first response is that there are several scientific studies that say small cell is of no value, yet you disagree. So let's pick only the ones that support our stance. 

But it I will go to the links provided and review, then comment on a hopefully from a more informed position. I am always open to alternate methods when they have proven benefits. Heck i have been open to unproven ones, many times to my detriment.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

I know the supply house still sell Checkmite and Apistan, but does anyone who knows anything about anything that has gone on since 1986 still buy either of those two products? Other than perhaps someone treating for SHBs?

I haven't used Checkmites since 1996, but it showed up in a pollen sample taken from my hive two years ago. Chumophos and chumophas oxon. In the cell stored pollen. Did that come into the pollen from the wax comb or was it tainted when the pollen was brought in by the bees? No one who might aught to know can tell me.


----------



## jbeshearse (Oct 7, 2009)

The first quoted article states "contrasts between control verses fluvalinate and Apife VAR, and fluvalinate verses Apilife VAR did not show significant differences". It should ask be noted that this study was looking at sublethal dosage being drones treated per mitacide label, and not as a function of mitacide held by wax. It did of course find that checkmite+ had a severe negative effect at applied dosage (sublethal to bees), which is well known and part of the checkmite+ labeling. The results were much the same in the sister study by the same author as to effects in queens. (The second article listed)

The study referenced for this post is "survival of honey bee(Hymenoptera:apidae) spermatozoa incubated at room temperature from drones exposed to miticides

It did not address residual chemicals held in wax at all


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Orion7 said:


> The bees over winter better in old comb. If this is true I'm wondering why.


just saying I have some old comb and I notice the diameter of the cells is way small (large wall built up). I know the standard procedure is to measure ten cells center to center and get an average but that system is flawed greatly when looking at old comb.


----------



## ChuckReburn (Dec 17, 2013)

sqkcrk said:


> I know the supply house still sell Checkmite and Apistan, but does anyone who knows anything about anything that has gone on since 1986 still buy either of those two products? Other than perhaps someone treating for SHBs?
> 
> I haven't used Checkmites since 1996, but it showed up in a pollen sample taken from my hive two years ago. Chumophos and chumophas oxon. In the cell stored pollen. Did that come into the pollen from the wax comb or was it tainted when the pollen was brought in by the bees? No one who might aught to know can tell me.


I think there are plenty of hobbyists who don't know "anything about anything" buying these products. We check out the local retailers attempting to stock beekeeping supplies (I say "attempting" because they have no idea what is or is not needed without a little guidance) - One had Checkmite as the only treatment available. Over and over again, beginners tell me they used Api-"something-or-other" on their bees and have no idea what the active ingredient was.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

All the Api choices make things confusing.


----------



## jbeshearse (Oct 7, 2009)

From: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0009754
"High levels of miticides and agrochemicals in North American apiaries: implications for honey bee health"

This comprehensive study found that the 90% of comb tested had part per million concentrations lower than:

Fluvalinate: 16 ppm
Coumaphos: 7 ppm
Amitraz: 2 ppm

A separate study looking at only coumaphos, the most detrimental of the three.
"Effects of coumaphos on queen rearing in the honey bee, Apis mellifera, Pettis et at"

This study that recommends rotating out old comb to eliminate chemical impregnated wax found that concentrations of coumaphos at concentrations below 10ppm showed no significant negative implications to queens of queen rearing. 

Also in a study from Fries et al 1998, it was found that most female Varroa destructor mites died in worker cells produced on foundation containing 100 ppm and that the cocoon produced within the wax cell offers some level of protection for mites and presumably bees against wax residues. 

So based on these studies, I see no case for comb rotation/destruction


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>...The first quoted article states...

There are dozens of studies on the topic. I just grabbed the first two. Feel free to either read a lot of them or take the one that you think agrees with your current view...


----------



## Kenww (Apr 14, 2013)

In treatment free hives is there any reason to rotate old comb out?


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Kenww said:


> In treatment free hives is there any reason to rotate old comb out?


As I said in post #16 to give the wax producing bees a place to do their thing. I find it interesting that the old beekeepers say there is no need to rotate it out. Aren't they the ones that are consuming most of the foundation that is sold?


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Aren't you assuming something well beyond your scope of knowledge?


----------



## Vance G (Jan 6, 2011)

Those wintering bees in cold climates should be slow to rotate out dark comb as the bees seem to winter a lot better on it. I wish that we had irradiation equipment like the Canadians to treat our deadouts. The electron beam treatment gets rid of the disease and I think that is more important than any chemical buildup. Now if I lived in the chemical swamp east of the Mississippi my feelings might be different.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>In treatment free hives is there any reason to rotate old comb out?

I see no significant reason to and several not to. The only argument in favor really is chemicals being brought in by the bees building up, but I don't think there is that significant of an amount. Most of the chemicals in most beehives came from the beekeepers.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

sqkcrk said:


> Aren't you assuming something well beyond your scope of knowledge?


Yes, I could be. I also could be right.


----------



## jwcarlson (Feb 14, 2014)

Acebird said:


> Yes, I could be. I also could be right.


Good grief. And I could be the King of England.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Michael Bush said:


> >In treatment free hives is there any reason to rotate old comb out?
> 
> I see no significant reason to and several not to. The only argument in favor really is chemicals being brought in by the bees building up, but I don't think there is that significant of an amount. Most of the chemicals in most beehives came from the beekeepers.


Ever had pollen, honey, or wax from your hives tested?


----------



## jbeshearse (Oct 7, 2009)

Here is a tidbit: 

New wax is secreted for queen cellproduction, and thus a higher chance for coumaphos incorporation. Workers, onthe other hand, are reared repeatedly in the same cell with little to no newwax added. Their results indicated that the probable death of larvae reared inqueen cells is due to higher concentrations of coumaphos incorporated into newwax. LBurly (2007) , master of ScienceThesis


----------



## gnor (Jun 3, 2015)

So, I've read the discussion, and there is a great deal of variety here. It's proven science that chemicals do build up in the wax, they do have a synergistic effect in sub-lethal doses, and the older the wax, the more chemicals they will gather. Maybe it's an individual thing. How close are you to agriculture? What treatment methods do you use? What do your bees forage on?
Myself, I wouldn't allow my kids and pets grow up in a house with lead based paint, or UFFI foam, so why would I allow my bees to be exposed to stuff that could harm them? The only question for me is not yes or no, but how often.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

jwcarlson said:


> Good grief. And I could be the King of England.


Nope can't happen.


----------



## clyderoad (Jun 10, 2012)

Vance G said:


> Those wintering bees in cold climates should be slow to rotate out dark comb as the bees seem to winter a lot better on it. I wish that we had irradiation equipment like the Canadians to treat our deadouts. The electron beam treatment gets rid of the disease and I think that is more important than any chemical buildup. Now if I lived in the chemical swamp east of the Mississippi my feelings might be different.


yup, Montana is a pristine environmental paradise! Clean as a whistle.

Take a look : There are eighteen Federal Superfund sites in Montana. The Montana DEQ also has 7 sites that the bureau handles that are not on the National Priority list. http://www.deq.mt.gov/FedSuperfund/default.mcpx


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Guys, the world has been polluted since the days of Adam and Eve. The do gooders, blasted liberals have stopped most of the real nasties in the US so what we want is made in third world countries and we blindly believe it doesn't affect us. The topic is wax rotation. Some believe it shouldn't and some believe is should. Makes a beekeeper feel right at home.


----------



## jbeshearse (Oct 7, 2009)

gnor said:


> So, I've read the discussion, and there is a great deal of variety here. It's proven science that chemicals do build up in the wax, they do have a synergistic effect in sub-lethal doses, and the older the wax, the more chemicals they will gather. Maybe it's an individual thing. How close are you to agriculture? What treatment methods do you use? What do your bees forage on?
> Myself, I wouldn't allow my kids and pets grow up in a house with lead based paint, or UFFI foam, so why would I allow my bees to be exposed to stuff that could harm them? The only question for me is not yes or no, but how often.


That is too bad, because you should not be rotating it out at all. A hive that has Apistan strips left in it continuously, fluvalinate tops out at between 40 to 60 ppm in the comb. If the strips are changed out each month, the levels actually top out lower. (s. Bogdanov 1999)

And these levels have not been shown to be a problem for queen rearing or brood.

The built up cocoons insulate the bees from the wax. Fresh wax that has had treatments appiled is actually worse for the bees than older brood comb. (review Fries etal, 1998)

"Fries et al. (1998) also showed that the cocoon produced within the wax cell offers some level of protection for mites and presumably bees against wax residues."


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

Let me understand this, if you used to use Fluvalinate or Coumaphous say 20 plus years ago but continue to produce strong healthy hives on those same combs then I'm supposed to rotate out all those old combs because somebody somewhere is recommending it? I just think it's one of those issues that has been repeated often enough that it has become an accepted fact. 
I guess the argument is that these chemicals (which in most settings have a pretty short half life) get sealed in the wax and don't break down. but then isn't it a bit of a dichotomy to argue that they don't leach out yet still affect hive health?


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

But Jim, how else will foundation makers stay in business?


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

sqkcrk said:


> But Jim, how else will foundation makers stay in business?


Yes, it is an interesting question. With every hive capable of drawing more frames then they need and the number of hives not increasing why do you need foundation? If you need it then comb is being replaced either intentionally or not. The percentage could be easily calculated knowing how many frames exist and how much foundation is produced.


----------



## odfrank (May 13, 2002)

Acebird said:


> The do gooders, blasted liberals have stopped most of the real nasties in the US.


Oh I know!!! Those horrid people!!! They have helped clean up our country!!! Our children will live in a healthier place!!! What were they thinking??? Off with their heads!!!! BRING BACK THE POISONS AND POLLUTANTS!!!!


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Acebird said:


> With every hive capable of drawing more frames then they need and the number of hives not increasing why do you need foundation?


Assumption Junction arrived at. Besides, you have left out replacement of old/damaged comb, new hives being built, and simply, in the case of commercial operators, always building new equipment and new comb to counteract attrition.

Beekeepers do replace comb, Brian. Maybe not at the rate that intentional rotation would exhibit. But we do. I have put a couple hundred sheets of foundation into my hives this year myself. I have a friend who sells a couple thousand nucs annually and he makes them with new frames and foundation. Randy Oliver had, and may still have, things set up to sell half of his equipment every year when he sold splits or nucs. Yet maintained the same number he had before selling half.

So things are quite complex when it comes to any one component of beehives. More so than you or I might fully understand. But bet your bottom dollar the equipment suppliers study this sort of thing and prepare for the future needs of beekeepers. "how else will foundation makers stay in business"?


----------



## wild-b (Apr 23, 2014)

AH lets don't start getting political on this thread. 

So is Oxalic Acid considered an unhealthy treatment and something that will harm bees in the long run? 

Jim Lyon and Michael Bush would you ever use OAV in your colonies for mite control ?

I'm surprized by the idea of not rotating out old comb and since I'm only a 2nd year beekeep it gives me new thought on how to run my operation. I took or am taking several classes on beekeeping and had the understanding that comb would build up over time and would be to thick for the bees to use.. :scratch: interesting


----------



## AHudd (Mar 5, 2015)

gnor said:


> So, I've read the discussion, and there is a great deal of variety here. It's proven science that chemicals do build up in the wax, they do have a synergistic effect in sub-lethal doses, and the older the wax, the more chemicals they will gather. Maybe it's an individual thing. How close are you to agriculture? What treatment methods do you use? What do your bees forage on?


Which begs the question; Do the chemicals used to treat mites become inert after they are absorbed by the wax or are the mites and bees becoming resistant to the chemicals?

Alex


----------



## gnor (Jun 3, 2015)

> This is not a "potential problem". There are many studies on the topic. Far too many to list. Go do a search on "fluvalinate" or "cumaphos" and "fertility" and "bees". Here are just two. There are dozens more if you want to go search for them.
> http://jee.oxfordjournals.org/conten.../1081.abstract
> https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/handle/10919/34584


I have also read studies that document the synergistic effects of chemical treatments, agricultural chemicals, and whatever else gets into the wax.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

wild-b said:


> So is Oxalic Acid considered an unhealthy treatment and something that will harm bees in the long run?
> 
> I took or am taking several classes on beekeeping and had the understanding that comb would build up over time and would be to thick for the bees to use.. :scratch: interesting


I don't know if OA residue accumulates in wax, I suspect not.

If someone actually taught you that comb would build up over time, I assume you mean the interior cell walls, and would be too thick for the bees to use, be suspicious about anything else they tell you. But, more likely you misunderstood something and got that idea all on your own. Happens.

I can tell you, that doesn't happen. Otherwise we would all be running small cell bees and we aren't.


----------



## wild-b (Apr 23, 2014)

WOW ! I'm glad I started reading this thread this AM I had a bunch of foundation that I was going to replace that was black and looked like it was really old. Guess I'm going to find a place for it. I had inherited some hives also and thought I would replace the old stuff with new. The previous owner lost a bunch of his help when his kids went off to school so has been down sizing his operation. I know him and he has always had a pretty clean low treatment operation. 

Great thread


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

sqkcrk said:


> Assumption Junction arrived at. Besides, you have left out replacement of old/damaged comb, new hives being built, and simply, in the case of commercial operators, always building new equipment and new comb to counteract attrition.


No I didn't. This is exactly my point. Old comb is being replaced. The rate may not be known.


----------



## gnor (Jun 3, 2015)

OK, here's my take:

Years ago, there weren't the number or variety of chemicals in our environment that there are today, and they can't help but be absorbed into the hive.
As the chemical resistance of agricultural pests grows, new and more lethal poisons will be developed to combat them. They will always become more, not less, lethal.
I have read a study that documents the synergistic effect of chemicals in the hive that promote the growth of Nosema. Since bees in my area can go 4 months without a cleansing flight, this is a concern.
IMHO, the reasons for rotating comb will always increase, never abate. Therefore, my management strategy will include some method for rotating comb every few years. It can't hurt.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Acebird said:


> No I didn't. This is exactly my point. Old comb is being replaced. The rate may not be known.


For those who it matters, they have a good enough idea.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

gnor said:


> Therefore, my management strategy will include some method for rotating comb every few years. It can't hurt.


What will that strategy be? If you were shown that comb rotation did nothing beneficial, would you still do it?


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

sqkcrk said:


> I don't know if OA residue accumulates in wax, I suspect not.
> 
> If someone actually taught you that comb would build up over time, I assume you mean the interior cell walls, and would be too thick for the bees to use, be suspicious about anything else they tell you.


These are frames that are not 60 years old (they are plastic) and some of the cell walls measure .052 inch and the id of the cell measures as low as 4.2mm if this isn't build up what is it?
http://i697.photobucket.com/albums/vv333/acebird1/DSCF7283_zpsa5xtkmst.jpg
http://i697.photobucket.com/albums/vv333/acebird1/DSCF7284_zps7roejksv.jpg
http://i697.photobucket.com/albums/vv333/acebird1/DSCF7285_zps0ifcnxqs.jpg


----------



## odfrank (May 13, 2002)

sqkcrk said:


> What will that strategy be? If you were shown that comb rotation did nothing beneficial, would you still do it?



I do comb rotation because I love wiring and embedding. For 45 years it has been my Zen meditation. 

I do comb rotation because I conduct beekeeping and gardening and other facets of life based on the Mantra:
"Do onto other things as you would want them done onto yourself." 

Over the years I get new cloths, new trucks, rebuild my house, prune my trees and bushes, renew my lawns, replace them when they get old and worn out, I replace rotten bee woodenware as it deteriorates, I change the sheets on my bed, wash my toilet, and clean the house. I change wives every few decades or they usually change me. 

I do not doubt that re-using old comb is fine. I catch bait swarms on my old pile of combs/frames awaiting renewal every year, and we all know that old comb is the essential lure for bait hives. Bees surly do not hate old comb, they love it. I think it was Michael Palmer that recently said queens prefer to lay on old combs. Some say that bees show renewed vigor on new comb.

That all being said, it makes sense to me to renew old combs but not an essential practice. 

Videos of swarms being attracted to old combs and old steamed frames:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvR0ybmcs1A

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0r0TSFBVeOc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpEH61fSbWI


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>So is Oxalic Acid considered an unhealthy treatment and something that will harm bees in the long run? 

It will disrupt the microbes and when dribbled it is know to damage their malpighian tubules. It's hard to say what damage it does vaporized, but it appears to be less as several treatments can be given without shortening their lives noticably. It won't build up in the wax if that's what you mean. Bees have very short lives and the "long run" is hard to define in terms of the life of a bee. Better to look at it in terms of the "long run" of the colony.

>Jim Lyon and Michael Bush would you ever use OAV in your colonies for mite control ?

I did on some of my hives back in 2003. I have not used it since.

>I don't know if OA residue accumulates in wax, I suspect not.

It does not. It is water soluable and not fat soluable.

>and the id of the cell measures as low as 4.2mm if this isn't build up what is it?

Grout's research showed that it would build up and the cells would decrease in size to some lower threshold after which the bees would chew them out. The thickness of the buildup would be greater in large cells as it seems to be a lower threshold of diameter that triggers them to be chewed out.


----------



## biggraham610 (Jun 26, 2013)

wild-b said:


> WOW ! I'm glad I started reading this thread this AM I had a bunch of foundation that I was going to replace that was black and looked like it was really old. Guess I'm going to find a place for it. I had inherited some hives also and thought I would replace the old stuff with new. The previous owner lost a bunch of his help when his kids went off to school so has been down sizing his operation. I know him and he has always had a pretty clean low treatment operation.
> 
> Great thread


Drawn comb is gold. If you want to get rid of it send it to me I like old dark comb. G


----------



## jwcarlson (Feb 14, 2014)

Acebird said:


> These are frames that are not 60 years old (they are plastic) and some of the cell walls measure .052 inch and the id of the cell measures as low as 4.2mm if this isn't build up what is it?
> http://i697.photobucket.com/albums/vv333/acebird1/DSCF7283_zpsa5xtkmst.jpg
> http://i697.photobucket.com/albums/vv333/acebird1/DSCF7284_zps7roejksv.jpg
> http://i697.photobucket.com/albums/vv333/acebird1/DSCF7285_zps0ifcnxqs.jpg


Honestly, if i had to bet I'd say operator error.


----------



## ttb_62 (May 25, 2014)

jim lyon said:


> You would do that by rotating out old frames and replacing them with new foundation. If you don't do this on a regular basis you run the risk your frames could start looking old. Don't let this happen to you! Some day they could even end up looking like this frame which I know to be at least 60 years old.


I have to know what kind of foundation does this 60 year old comb have? I have plastic foundation. But they stop drawing some of the frames (last season still not drawn). I used wax/plastic and no foundation on the swarm May 25 2015 and By June 18 2015 they had 10 frames drawn out, brood, added 10 more wax/plastic and looked today and they are starting to draw the new 10. The remaining hive seem to be using the brood draw plastic foundation. But slow, still not drawing remain frames. (20 frames 75% more honey) Thinking about rotating foundation. Just use both now that I see it in text.


----------



## Kenww (Apr 14, 2013)

I was wondering about 60 year-old foundation and also how the frames held together that long. Pretty sure they didn't have TiteBond.


----------



## beedeetee (Nov 27, 2004)

I don't have 60 year old foundation, but I still have 100+ sheets of unwired wax foundation that was my Dad's from the early 1960's. It's a little warped and some corners are broken. I never used it because it needed embedding and buying wired wax or plastic foundation was just easier. I did use some of it.

I had an electric train set in the 1950's. In the late 50's Dad came to me and said that he was going to use my train controller to made something for the bees. I still have the embedder that he made. I used it for the first years that I had my own bees. It works great.


----------



## rwurster (Oct 30, 2010)

A commercial near me gave me a box of 60 year old foundation to use. I cut it into starter strips for my deeps and used it extensively in my honey boxes. They drew it out no sweat. There was even a rickety old advertizement for the ABJ from the 50's. Cool beans man! 

I can't wait until I have 40 year old drawn comb!


----------



## AHudd (Mar 5, 2015)

sqkcrk said:


> So, Brian, is it your contention that the glue doesn't add to the integrity of the bond between the pieces of wood?
> 
> Do an experiment some time. Nail or staple a frame together. And then glue another frame together. Leave them set for a couple days. Then, manually, try to pull them apart. I think you might change your mind.


True.
The glue also fills the joints, requiring less time and effort from the bees to propolise. I also make sure the corner joints in the boxes are full of glue. I don't want anywhere for beetles to lay eggs until the bees can take care of joints. It may not make a difference, but I sleep better at night.

Alex


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

I agree with Brian, glue does make beekeepers happy. 
The origin of the foundation on 60+ year old frames? Good question. They are virtually all crimp wired. Someone with someone historical knowledge of frames could no doubt tell you who made the frame based on how the wood was cut. My first guess would probably be Dadant or Root though Kelly is a possibility as well. 
I can't really say the exact age of these frames with much certainty but we have 10's of thousands of them still in use and most were purchased by my father and uncle used from the late 40's through the early 70's. I remember thinking that they were old when I first started working bees as a young boy back in the 60's. You really do need to take care in separating the frames before attempting to remove them when they are stuck together as many of the joints are primarily being held together by the strength of the comb itself. 60+years is an educated guess, some are certainly much older and I wouldn't be surprised at all if some actually were 100 years old.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Kenww said:


> I was wondering about 60 year-old foundation and also how the frames held together that long. Pretty sure they didn't have TiteBond.


Titebond is a brand name. So is Elmer's. Elmer's wood glue has been around since 1947. There have been wood glues around for decades. I would be somewhat surprised if LLLangstroth didn't use glue when assembling his first hive bodies.

Glued joints are stronger than the wood around them.


----------



## snl (Nov 20, 2009)

sqkcrk said:


> I have seen furniture whose joints are held together by nothing but glue. Held together for hundreds of years.


In all honesty Mark, I believe it was the type of joint used 100 years ago that kept furniture together as the glue back in those "good old days " was not anywhere as good as the glue we now have.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

I don't know about that Larry. Hide glue is some pretty darned strong stuff. Mr.s Hepplewithe and Chippendale might disagree with you.


----------



## snl (Nov 20, 2009)

If the glue was that good back then, why are we still not using it? Not debating, questioning.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

snl said:


> In all honesty Mark, I believe it was the type of joint used 100 years ago that kept furniture together as the glue back in those "good old days " was not anywhere as good as the glue we now have.


It was both.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

snl said:


> If the glue was that good back then, why are we still not using it? Not debating, questioning.


Larry, I don't know enough about glue to know whether hide glue is as good or better than modern glues, but a wooden joined piece of furniture without glue will not stay together.

Hide glue had to be kept warm to use. Modern glues are an improvement in convenience since they don't have to be kept warm. I don't know if they are better, simply easier to use. I do know that some fine furniture builders use hide glue. So it must still fit their way of working.

I have made dovetail joints in the construction of a tool box and in the building of drawers, way back more than a quarter a century ago. I used glue to keep those joints joined. What can I say?

If you could only use one type of fastener to hold beehive frames together, would you use nails or glue? If you could use both, would you? Why? Why not?


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

snl said:


> ... was not anywhere as good as the glue we now have.


Knowledge or assumption?


----------



## gnor (Jun 3, 2015)

sqkcrk said:


> I don't see how you can say that. I have seen furniture whose joints are held together by nothing but glue. Held together for hundreds of years. Where is my shaking head icon?


Actually, that's wrong. There are bacteria that will eventually eat the old animal glue they used to use, unless the climate is unusually dry. Last year, I rebuilt a panel door and re-glued it. It came apart in my hands, and there wasn't a trace of the old glue left.
That being said, I still glue my woodenware together with Titebond III, and if the frames come apart after a period of time, I will deal with it then.


----------



## wild-b (Apr 23, 2014)

How did this thread go from WAX ROTATION to glue. Surprised the moderators have let it go this far off topict:


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

wild-b said:


> Surprised the moderators have let it go this far off topict:


Some of us were doing other things on Father's Day.


----------



## wild-b (Apr 23, 2014)

AH ! yes and I hope you had a great one.


----------



## gnor (Jun 3, 2015)

Michael Bush said:


> But dark does not equate to contaminated unless you are putting contamination in there...


Careful chemical analysis has revealed almost every agricultural chemical known to man in comb. We don't have to put it there. The bees do a good enough job themselves. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00128-015-1511-y


----------



## blamb61 (Apr 24, 2014)

I've read a reason to rotate comb was that old comb could be a vector for disease like AFB. What say ye old heads?


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>Careful chemical analysis has revealed almost every agricultural chemical known to man in comb. 

Yes, but in what amounts? The percentages are that most of the contamination comes from beekeepers putting them there.


----------



## dsegrest (May 15, 2014)

Michael Bush said:


> >Careful chemical analysis has revealed almost every agricultural chemical known to man in comb.
> 
> Yes, but in what amounts? The percentages are that most of the contamination comes from beekeepers putting them there.


Jennifer Berry said that the foundation one buys is as contaminated as the wax in the hives. If one doesn't use plastic or go foundationless, what is the point of changing the comb.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

The amount of wax in foundation is far less then in the whole comb. Once the comb is built the bees have very little contact with the foundation. They do have contact with the rest of the comb and that continues to attract contaminates. Melting the wax helps remove some of the impurities.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

:s

If melting the foundation wax removed pesticide residue to any significant degree, why is it that foundation wax is still pesticide contaminated? After all, *all *foundation wax has been melted _at least_ twice, and most of it likely melted many more times than that.


----------



## D Coates (Jan 6, 2006)

Rader Sidetrack said:


> :s
> 
> If melting the foundation wax removed pesticide residue to any significant degree, why is it that foundation wax is still pesticide contaminated? After all, *all *foundation wax has been melted _at least_ twice, and most of it likely melted many more times than that.


Agreed. The principle of cleaning water via evaporation to remove impurities appears to have gotten confused here. Wax is a fat and thus follows a set of completely different rules. Anything bonded within the fat isn't coming out without and unbonding agent no mater how many times it's melted. If it was as easy as melting to reduce and eventually remove pesticides if done enough there would be no contaminated wax being sold/used anywhere.

Back to the original question. Nope, I don't do wax rotation. No need in my eyes. I've only been beekeeping 9 years but I'm still using the original 40 deep, and 40 super frames along the +/-600 deep and +/-800 super frames I've added at various times since then. I roll frames out when they get wonky or woodenware breaks but that's 5-10 a year. They end up in swarm catchers. If it's just woodenware I'll remove the foundation with drawn comb, carefully minimizing any damage, and then build a fresh frame around it. I actually works really well and the bees make repairs on the edges quickly.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Rader Sidetrack said:


> why is it that foundation wax is still pesticide contaminated?


Because people continue to put chemicals into their hives. If they did not do this the additional wax, mostly cappings, would dilute what pesticide was in any foundation material used for making more foundation. Someone who makes their own foundation realizes this immediately. I am not a chemist but I am absolutely sure that pesticide chemicals will break down over time or we would already be dead by now.
I said melting wax removes SOME of the impurities. Mainly a lot of dirt. One only needs to melt wax once and see the junk that comes out.

I have blocks of wax that were melted from the first hive I had. It was yellow at the time and now it is white. What happened? It is stored in my basement and never saw sun light. Something is breaking down.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

Acebird said:


> I said melting wax removes SOME of the impurities. Mainly a lot of dirt. One only needs to melt wax once and see the junk that comes out.


Yes, melting wax allows the separation (and subsequent removal) of debris such as dirt. But that pesky _pesticide contamination_ is still in the wax, even after melting.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>These are frames that are not 60 years old (they are plastic) and some of the cell walls measure .052 inch and the id of the cell measures as low as 4.2mm if this isn't build up what is it?

The mouth of the cells is widened to stiffen it. This is obvious when you uncap and extract. The cells are quite weak without that lip. They quickly rebuild it. When lengthening a cell they remove it before they lengthen it and replace it after. The thickness of the lip is not indicative of the thickness of the wall.

"The edge is removed when changing the depth.
"This law which obliges the bees to partly demolish the cells on the edges before giving them additional length, deserved more profound investigation than we are able to give it"--Francis Huber, New Observations on Bees


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

Funny you should link this jb..... Here is a picture I took a few days ago not because there is anything very remarkable about it, it's probably about par in our outfit for age and frame quality. The only reason I took the photo was because it was written on the top bar that it was a foundation put into service in 1980 and no doubt has been in continuous use since then. It will remain in use as long as it is structurally sound and dosent have more than 10% drone comb.


----------



## diymom (Apr 8, 2016)

Ok, read this whole thing, what I am taking away from it is....
For those who don't live in a agricultural area, are not surrounded by industry or chemical interference, don't treat or just use OA, those who are not near a commercial apiary, those who don't source new wax foundation and perhaps are foundationless should by all means keep their old comb forever? In these circumstances it will not effect bee size as the hive still hones cell size, it has possible beneficial effects upon overwintering brood and is preferred by bees for brood...
For everyone else, comb rotation may be a good consideration based upon the level of potential toxins the environment and/or beekeeper is introducing... testing enables a more accurate understanding of wax contamination individually.
Glue creates stronger wood frames and new glue is the way to go since the hide glues are largely unavailable, rare, and there have been no tests to determine superiority... glueing joints reduces need for propolis in joints and prevents shb from utilising these areas for eggs.

There are a lot of deleted posts in this thread...

And my opinion on the off topic questions that remained after post deletions...
I believe the reason we use new glues vs animal based glues is because we have a massive chemical industry that likes to replace common, organically based products (like hemp rope with nylon in 1938 or whale oil with kerosene like products) with patented, lucrative commodities, because they need to make money and people tend to believe and trust companies who claim wonderful advantages, advertise and make things easily available. That and people don't like relying upon some animal products as much anymore...think of all the protesters who fight to save horses from going to Canada to be used in glue making and the fact it's not a legal harvesting method in the US (I don't think).

Thank you for this very informative topic, I understand much more now. I was initially told to rotate combs, now I have more to consider before I make a choice.


----------



## Vance G (Jan 6, 2011)

jim lyon said:


> Funny you should link this jb..... Here is a picture I took a few days ago not because there is anything very remarkable about it, it's probably about par in our outfit for age and frame quality. The only reason I took the photo was because it was written on the top bar that it was a foundation put into service in 1980 and no doubt has been in continuous use since then. It will remain in use as long as it is structurally sound and dosent have more than 10% drone comb.


I wish I had all the perfectly good comb the beginners who need it most are stampeded into destroying. A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. I don't want someone elses old comb full of brood diseases but i treasure mine because I know the history.


----------



## jbeshearse (Oct 7, 2009)

Vance G said:


> I wish I had all the perfectly good comb the beginners who need it most are stampeded into destroying. A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. I don't want someone elses old comb full of brood diseases but i treasure mine because I know the history.


I always try and link this thread when the topic comes up. It is one of my favorites as it shows the fallacy of what has become a de-facto recommended practice.


----------



## diymom (Apr 8, 2016)

Yes, it really sheds some light on something quite interesting that not many beekeepers explain. I love having lots of information before making a choice...maybe too much information.
I'm going to find out more about my old comb I received, now I hope to keep most of it for my hives.
I know where I can get treatment free old comb too! Woohoo! I love everything vintage and antique...I didn't expect that to extend to wax bee comb.
Depending upon your viewpoint, that could be another source of income from a hive...selling old combs from a GOOD SOURCE, especially for new beekeepers in colder climates.


----------



## enjambres (Jun 30, 2013)

DIYMom:



> Depending upon your viewpoint, that could be another source of income from a hive...selling old combs from a GOOD SOURCE, especially for new beekeepers in colder climates.


I'm not sure see this as a viable, or desirable, source of hive-product income. I wouldn't buy any because of the disease risk it would entail. And there would be no way, short of very expensive testing done on each frame for it to be warrant-ably free from disease. One's bees will make their own, if you just have patience, and feed them well to start out.

The climate difference (cold vs warm) makes no difference, the much-longer summer foraging days during our flows easily make up for the few number of days, at least as far the potential for any colony to be wax self-sufficient.

Right now there is socially-enforced restraint on trade in drawn combs because beekeepers are often strongly warned against the disease-transmission dangers involved. This lack of market creates a natural protection factor. If that changed and it became common for drawn combs to be sold, then there will inevitably be increased foul-brood dispersion. At the point when pre-drawn wax combs become easily marketable, even desirable, a very harmful genie will be out of a very unpleasant bottle. That would be too bad, IMO.

In the midst of the overblown "bee-collapse crisis", the _least useful_ thing would be one more instance when humans move bees, colonies, and hive products around the country at Interstate highway speeds, further homogenizing all of the bee-pathogens, pests and problems. All in service of the almighty buck.

Enj.


----------



## jwcarlson (Feb 14, 2014)

I think it is pretty common for drawn comb to be sold.
Nucs, starter hives, drawn supers...

This stuff if readily available.


----------



## jbeshearse (Oct 7, 2009)

:thumbsup:


jwcarlson said:


> I think it is pretty common for drawn comb to be sold.
> Nucs, starter hives, drawn supers...
> 
> This stuff if readily available.



:thumbsup::thumbsup:


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

jwcarlson said:


> I think it is pretty common for drawn comb to be sold.
> Nucs, starter hives, drawn supers...
> 
> This stuff if readily available.


Ha ha, yes buying and selling bees on comb whether they be established hives or nucs is as old as the business of beekeeping. It's actually replaced much of the package business as forklifts, better trucks and interstate highways have evolved. Frames of brood and bees were selling in the $20 range in Texas recently. 
I suppose it's a business decision if it's your livelihood and "chasing the almighty buck" if it's someone else's.


----------



## clyderoad (Jun 10, 2012)

diymom said:


> I believe the reason we use new glues vs animal based glues is because we have a massive chemical industry


fwiw-
new glues are better than the old hide clues. hide glue is soluble in water, 200 years after setting up. In fact, antique furniture made with the old animal glues is routinely removed with water and/or steam to do repairs, and high humidity climates are notorious
for degrading animal glues very quickly compared to dry climates.
I don't think a animal based glue would hold up under hive conditions for very long at all given the heat and humid conditions in the hive. 
be glad there are new glues to use.


----------



## clyderoad (Jun 10, 2012)

enjambres said:


> I'm not sure see this as a viable, or desirable, source of hive-product income. .........


This is Ridiculous!


----------



## diymom (Apr 8, 2016)

clyderoad said:


> This is Ridiculous!


I think he has a point that poor quality comb-the result of lots of chemical treatment, commercial pollination and possible infectious diseases resulting from these-would be sold by unscrupolulous beekeepers to the uninformed and good intentioned beginners... capitalism in its ugly form.
However, like others mentioned, this is already a business in the way of nucs and starter hives etc...

I was thinking on individual sales of dormant comb. I certainly would have purchased older drawn comb if there had been a source selling it. I couldn't get any nucs and lucked out with the starter hive I was given. For those beginning with foundationless-something which appears to be gaining popularity- the use of a well drawn, older comb would be quite beneficial to structuring the new combs and encourage such installments of packaged bees or swarms to remain in the hive. Selling established comb to new hobbyists may be worthwhile to the small, well managed apiary operation and prove more profitable than melting combs for wax.

Sourcing the best quality combs would then be the aspiring beekeepers job. Just like the acquisition of healthy food over junk food, or new wine vs old, comparison shopping would educate and better serve the discerning individual.
Buyer beware attitudes should be ever present.


I of course offer these thoughts from an inexperienced point of view. I am thinking in theory.

Also, on the glue topic, I didn't realize before just how humid everything in a hive can be, so I would imagine whichever glue best retains hints binding qualities in these conditions while remaining inert would be best. Furniture glue may have completely different characteristics to be weighed and considered. Personally, I have come across furniture from current times side by side with mid century and antiques, all which used glues and had remained in an extremely arid climate for about a decade coming from a more humid climate before. The newer pieces had wood pulling away from the glue bonds and falling apart rendering them useless or dangerous (collapsing chairs are no fun), the older pieces had few observable changes in their joints and functionality..this could just reflect the method of journey and qualities of the wood...this is a rather difficult topic to fully discuss without extreme amounts of anecdotal evidence and testing and so on............and on...
I have newer formulated glues and I use them...they work satisfactorily. I like screws better than nails for joining anything too.


----------



## jadebees (May 9, 2013)

Also, on the glue topic, I didn't realize before just how humid everything in a hive can be, so I would imagine whichever glue best retains hints binding qualities in these conditions while remaining inert would be best. Furniture glue may have completely different characteristics to be weighed and considered. Personally, I have come across furniture from current times side by side with mid century and antiques, all which used glues and had remained in an extremely arid climate for about a decade coming from a more humid climate before. The newer pieces had wood pulling away from the glue bonds and falling apart rendering them useless or dangerous (collapsing chairs are no fun), the older pieces had few observable changes in their joints and functionality..this could just reflect the method of journey and qualities of the wood...this is a rather difficult topic to fully discuss without extreme amounts of anecdotal evidence and testing and so on............and on...
I have newer formulated glues and I use them...they work satisfactorily. I like screws better than nails for joining anything too.[/QUOTE]


I use PL plus 300. Its a construction adhesive. Slo dry, goopy, extremely strong. It costs twice as much as liquid nails, and those types. But... it cures into a plastic similar to polyethelene. (5 gal. bucket plastic.) It is so waterproof it can be used in wooden boat construction. I do boxes and frames with it, absolutely nothing has released in the 5 years I've been using it. Inside, out, unpainted boxes out in the rain a couple years. It doesnt matter, it performs.


----------



## clyderoad (Jun 10, 2012)

diymom said:


> I think ........


The comb topic has been discussed here many times, one would be hard pressed to add anything new.
Most agree good comb is 'gold' to a beekeeper- therefore the demand for it.

Glue (all glue?) has been tested in controlled environments and the specifications of strength/limits/usefulness under different conditions is available for those who desire/require it. There is plenty of empirical data if one is interested. No need to rely on
anecdotal evidence.


----------



## enjambres (Jun 30, 2013)

Oh come on, of course I realize comb with live bees on it is sold every day, and that's not what I thought we were discussing. 

I interpreted the the OPs question about offering drawn combs for sale as being for a stand-alone product, without bees. And that's where I see an issue. Bees, by themselves act as a low-level testing-agent since healthy brood is visible. But comb w/o bees is much harder to assess.

And I do realize that some commercial operators may buy and sell whole outfits with drawn, empty combs included. Some of those same large-scale operators may find it advisable, or necessary, to hit their hives with antibiotics on a regular basis, too.

My own drawn combs are gold to me, because I know their history. Since I don't routinely treat for brood disease, nor do I want to, clean, disease-free comb is essential to my apiary. And the best way to get that is to "grow my own". 

People who wish to have foundationless apiaries may find that an intermediate step of getting drawn comb made on foundation as a guide for future foundationless frames is tedious. It may, or may not, be needed - after all TBH people start right out w/foundationless. But it seems to me that the temporary delay, and use of plastic foundation as a means of getting a supply of high-quality, self-sourced foundationless comb is a beneficial trade-off. A year, or two, growing out and fully transitioning to 100% foundationless (if that's what floats your boat) doesn't seem like a big deal. In the meantime your bees will be well-housed, on clean comb of their own making. Colonies are, or certainly ought to be, perennial not annual so a year's delay is inconsequential.

Hide glues are still readily available from library and book-conservator suppliers: Talas and Brodart are two sources I am familiar with. I expect they are also available from the type of woodworking suppliers that sell fine veneers, though I don't buy that sort of thing so I am not certain.

Enj.


----------



## clyderoad (Jun 10, 2012)

It's apparent that there are markets out there, and uses for different products, that you are unfamiliar with.


----------



## diymom (Apr 8, 2016)

Enjambres, Now I'm actually interested in hide glues and will probably look into them more just to understand them better.
Thanks for the sources, talas has so many types of animal glues, even sturgeon bladder glue...shocking! I'm noticing most of these glues are noted to dissolve in steam or water... solubility is obviously not a beneficial characteristic for glues within humid hives.

I found a Tf guy at the local farmers market and I grilled him for half an hour...then I told him I would pay him for a split...he has never rotated comb and has had an isolated TF apiary in the foothills for 18 years, the bees are feral, the nectar is from native plants....I think it's comb worth getting a hold of and genetics worth building from. I think I'll call him weekly and be a squeaky wheel. I can't believe I've found two beekeepers doing the same low maintenance, simple, TF things in isolated areas....pretty neat!


----------



## enjambres (Jun 30, 2013)

Sturgeon bladder glue? Don't want to think about that collection process! And yes, the main thing in book conservation work is reversibility, so those hide glues will be water soluble. 

But do you really need a permanent glue for your boxes, even though it's normally used? I know some people who have nailed-together boxes, well covered with paint to protect the joints, that have been in service for a long time. In a drier climate like SoCal, you might not need it at all. 

So, have you given up on your first bees that you were worried about? I wouldn't move more bees to your site until that was sorted out.

I would also ask to visit the feral-bee apiary with only native plants for forage before getting too excited about it. Most beekeepers love to show off their bees. However I have found that there is sometimes an, er, mismatch between people's descriptions and the reality of their bees and apiary surroundings. Even some beekeepers have no idea how far afield bees will go, especially in times of drought stress, for nectar. I'll give you a personal example of a TF apiary that I once visited. When I was just a new beekeeper (even before I actually had bees in my boxes) I visited a nearby apiary. It was all new and very interesting to me. I asked what the beekeeper did about those mites I had heard about. The beekeeper said he didn't do anything at all and was never troubled by them and he was completely "treatment-free". I was very leased to hear that as I thought it predicted that I could do so, as well. And yet, through the entire visit I kept perceiving a strong smell that distracted my attention. My professional training is in horticulture so I was disconcerted by the smell of thyme, which at that season, in my climate, would not have even begun to green up, let alone blossom. I would have recognized it if it had been growing on site, yet I saw none. But I had no bee-context for reference so I didn't understand that at the least I was smelling the use of essential oils, and more likely, a thymol-based mite treatment of some kind. Now, I better understand that TF descriptions have a lot of elasticity.

You know what I think about transferring comb, especially since your bees are already busy building what they need. For me the risk/benefit of it is too steep, but YMMV. As for the feral genetics, you can capture that known queen's line by bringing a queen cell and finishing it where you are with a small mating nuc-sized split from your own bees. You could also get a mated queen from that apiary, but the genetics of the drones she mated with will only be revealed over time. Or you could learn to do instrumental insemination..... All interesting possibilities for the future.

Have I mentioned that I think bees are a never-ending blast?

Enj.


----------

