# was offered free bee equipment....



## tommysnare (Jan 30, 2013)

....soo yeah....i went out and picked it up hahaha. cost me about $15 in gas because im in a rental/loaner until insurance is done getting my truck handled. or, i wouldnt have seen the reasoning to drive to pick it all up.

they ended up giving me 2 deeps,2 supers,4 inners,4 outers,2 bottoms and 2 wood top feeders. all 10 frame equipment with most of the frames. im always down to pick up un wanted equipment. can never have enough right? time to start scrubbin and get these frames in the freezer.


Hope everyone is having a good day.


----------



## 22DPac (Jun 24, 2012)

*Re: waa offered free bee equipment....*

Congrats on your free equipment!!


----------



## FlowerPlanter (Aug 3, 2011)

*Re: waa offered free bee equipment....*

I would scrape clean and scorch boxes, covers, bottoms. Remove any wax from frames and bleach everything.
A little time and effort can't hurt. A case of AFB is the last thing you want.

http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?294096-How-about-bleach

>time to start scrubbin and get these frames in the freezer.
How long have they been stored and where? Outside?


----------



## warmbees (Mar 4, 2014)

*Re: waa offered free bee equipment....*

I tried something different with some old acquired equipment, and so far so good.

I put some 4x4 boards on the ground to form a raised platform, placed an electric frying pan down in it half full of water, then stacked the new boxes with frames above it with the inner and lid on, and steamed the lot. Was able to get temps around 130 to 140 all the way through. Left it for about and hour. For the last 15 minutes, I dumped a half bottle of rubbing alcohol in the fry pan and let it alcohol vapor the bunch to further sterilize. Have not seen any problems from using this old equipment. I figured steam and alcohol vapor were quick and temporary and would not leave any toxic residues....


----------



## tommysnare (Jan 30, 2013)

*Re: waa offered free bee equipment....*



warmbees said:


> I tried something different with some old acquired equipment, and so far so good.
> 
> I put some 4x4 boards on the ground to form a raised platform, placed an electric frying pan down in it half full of water, then stacked the new boxes with frames above it with the inner and lid on, and steamed the lot. Was able to get temps around 130 to 140 all the way through. Left it for about and hour. For the last 15 minutes, I dumped a half bottle of rubbing alcohol in the fry pan and let it alcohol vapor the bunch to further sterilize. Have not seen any problems from using this old equipment. I figured steam and alcohol vapor were quick and temporary and would not leave any toxic residues....



great idea !!!!!!

that will be done this week or next as i dont need to use them yet soo no hurry. but ill definitely be doing that


----------



## warmbees (Mar 4, 2014)

*Re: waa offered free bee equipment....*

I placed the short 4x4's in a square configuration to be similar to a bottom board so that I had a basic sealed chamber for the frying pan. I then stacked the deeps 4 high above it like a normal hive with a top vent. It was obviously a little hotter down lower than high, so after about a half hour I swapped the high boxes for the low ones to get the higher temps on all boxes and frames. I also placed the bottom board on top in place of the lid, after a bit, so that I could steam it also. I don't know how hot it needs to get to kill some of the diseases out there, but 15 minutes in 120-140 deg alcohol vapor seemed like a little kick in the pants to make up for not getting hotter than 120-140.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

*Re: waa offered free bee equipment....*

I don't want to hurt your feeling but those temperatures are useless for killing bacteria. Plain only bleach would be more effective.


----------



## warmbees (Mar 4, 2014)

Feelings not hurt, in fact I agree. Autoclaves use 300 deg temps which require pressure to achieve. That is why I used alcohol as a vapor also. My entire thought process was moving in the direction of an autoclave or at least a steam environment, because it seems such a waste to have to destroy hives after some of these diseases. So I was experimenting to see what else might could be done.


----------



## Leather Jim (Jun 30, 2013)

Get the pieces wax dipped.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

warmbees said:


> Autoclaves use 300 deg temps which require pressure to achieve.


It is also a closed chamber so the parts being sterilized hit 300 degrees.


----------



## bluegrass (Aug 30, 2006)

AFB is a Spore forming bacteria... The Spore is pretty indestructible which is why it is generally recommended that used equipment not get used and known infected hives are burned... There are ways to destroy it, but nothing that is easily available to the common consumer. Steam treating under pressure at 250 f for 30 minutes will destroy it, but you will need a pretty big pressure cooker... The alcohol vapor I don't know about as far as effectiveness goes. I cannot think of any application where alcohol vapor is used to sanitize. 

As mentioned above hot wax dipping with a bleach solution is effective against it... The wax keeps the bleach in contact with it long enough to destroy it. 

If it was me I would use the equipment and not worry about it.


----------



## warmbees (Mar 4, 2014)

My thought process was that anything short of a spore based disease, might be taken care of by alcohol. I did not know that AFB was spore based, but I figure that killing all non spore based with alcohol vapor was better than nothing. I chose vapor since it would penetrate porous wood as well as cracks and holes where bubbles could prevent other liquid applications from penetrating. Again, also to prevent potential residues that might be harmful long term.

I had not heard of using bleach or wax, so that's something I learned. But hey if being inventive, you gotta start somewhere. I just didn't feel quite right about placing used equipment into service without at least something done. Especially since the equipment had a colony that died without an official investigative resolution, in my case. I've not been a member of this forum long, so had not heard other methods before I tried the vapor method. I was hoping for higher temps than I achieved in the attempt, and so used the alcohol. In my case, the equipment in question has been in place for over a year with, as yet, no sign of anything exotic. Not conclusive, but not a failure either.

Any biology professionals out there that can answer as to the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of alcohol vapor or even bleach with regard to spores? In the case of bleach, my question would be any residue that we should be concerned with? I believe it is understood that conventional methods of heat sterilization with temps around 300 F are effective. The challenge would be delivery on wooden bee equipment.

Another thought I had, is regarding possible radiation methods... While I'm not thinking about a backyard method of irradiating old equipment, it would not be that implausible to construct a microwave chamber with a retrofit from an old microwave oven, that could possibly do the job...?

Now mind you, I don't have any known infected equipment, but with a hopelessly wandering/inquiring mind... Not necessarily challenging conventional wisdom, as Bluegrass would say, but in the spirit of invention and creative thinking, perhaps seeking to add-to or further the possibilities. I could see something like a microwave chamber existing in regional clubs and associations, to be made available to beeks as needed, which might help with disease control and eradication. Beekeepers can't always afford to burn and replace equipment, and may be reluctant to do so, but if an alternate method were available and affordable, more beeks might take advantage and stay in the game responsibly. But I'm also a consumate idealist. Further thoughts?


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

A microwave used on equipment with wax and propolise could end up a bomb. Personally, quarantine is the best practice for the average beekeeper. Use the equipment in a remote area and check for disease. If none is found then assume it is good. If you buy brand new equipment and use it you are not guaranteed that the colony won't develop a disease.


----------



## bluegrass (Aug 30, 2006)

I have seen the inside of many microwave ovens and I am not convinced that if we did a swab of the inside of one, that I could not grow something.


----------



## warmbees (Mar 4, 2014)

That's the question. The wavelength of the microwaves used in ovens, is specifically set to resonate with the water molecule. Since I believe water molecules exist within bacteria, it stands to reason that it might be sterilized. The spores on the other hand probably do not have water molecules inside and therefore may not take on the energy from microwaves. Hence the question. Of course once sterile, a food medium would be immediately vulnerable to re introduction etc. So your point is valid. Just wondered if anyone had any experience with biologic elements and microwaves other than cooking. Its just a thought experiment until it becomes an idea...


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

warmbees said:


> Just wondered if anyone had any experience with biologic elements and microwaves other than cooking.


That is how the microwave would sterilize. It cooks. The water, wax and propolise would get very hot. controlling that temperature so as not to explode would be the secrete.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

If your intent is to actually _*sterilize*_, it seem unlikely that a microwave oven would work to sterilize. Since microwave action heats the water in the object, that water will boil off at around 212 degrees F.

Steam sterilization requires holding at _*higher *_temperatures than can be achieved without _*pressurizing *_steam. More here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterilization_(microbiology)


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

We are fantasizing about something specific for bee equipment. Autoclave is under pressure so water would boil at a much higher temperature. I am not saying microwave is the answer but it is a quick energy source to get things up to temp. Microwave on its own would not kill spores. Any sterilization method would cost a large percentage of what the equipment is worth. This fact is one of the reasons the medical industry has gone to products that you use once and throw away.

I have already said that the best practice that I can think of for the OP is to quarantine the equipment, use it and verify that the bees are healthy before combining it with his apiary.


----------



## kbfarms (Jan 28, 2010)

Radiation. Several companies offer that service or used to at $5 a box with frames.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

*Re: waa offered free bee equipment....*



warmbees said:


> I tried something different with some old acquired equipment, and so far so good.
> 
> I put some 4x4 boards on the ground to form a raised platform, placed an electric frying pan down in it half full of water, then stacked the new boxes with frames above it with the inner and lid on, and steamed the lot. Was able to get temps around 130 to 140 all the way through. Left it for about and hour. For the last 15 minutes, I dumped a half bottle of rubbing alcohol in the fry pan and let it alcohol vapor the bunch to further sterilize. Have not seen any problems from using this old equipment. I figured steam and alcohol vapor were quick and temporary and would not leave any toxic residues....


If you had done this w/ half of the equipment and not w/ the other half chances are you would have the same results. I doubt that you actually did anything effective to destroy any AFB, which is all one really needs to be concerned w/ in this case.

If you had done this experiment w/ equipment which actually had AFB spores/scale present and you had the results you have, that would be something. Otherwise, sorry to say, you are concluding something not necessarily evident.

And now you have inspired someone else to do what you did. Though doing so shouldn't be dangerous, just possibly misleading and unnecessary.


----------



## bluegrass (Aug 30, 2006)

Sanitize sure, but destroy and endospore without a combination of pressure and heat is pretty unlikely. https://micro.cornell.edu/research/epulopiscium/bacterial-endospores

There was a case in New Hampshire last year where a patient had neuro surgery, but passed away. the equipment was used on several other surgeries and then the original patients autopsy came back pos for a spore forming prion. Standard hospital autoclaves can't destroy this prion and several other patients had been exposed though the equipment. 

My advice is use the equipment, but keep a close eye out for AFB and EFB. Burn the hives if you see signs.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

kbfarms said:


> Radiation. Several companies offer that service or used to at $5 a box with frames.


And then there is shipping both ways.


----------



## BeeCurious (Aug 7, 2007)

kbfarms said:


> Radiation. Several companies offer that service or used to at $5 a box with frames.


A few years ago I looked into having used Honey Super Cell frames radiated. The price of the service was prohibitively expensive... and of course there would have been the shipping costs.


----------



## warmbees (Mar 4, 2014)

So I'm not the only one that has had thoughts along these lines. Thanks BeeCurious. Nice name by the way.

I did an experiment today and nuked a recently extracted frame that had honey, propolis, wax, and plastic foundation. As I expected, anywhere there was honey, it got hot. I only did it for 20 seconds, but that was enough to heat any honey to the point of being able to melt plastic. No explosion, but then only 20 seconds. But the vein of thought here is that any organism or pocket with any water molecules, would be heated in that much time or less, and be destroyed. Now I'm curious enough to consider finding some petri dishes and experimenting.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

A plastic frame I assume?


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

If it were a plastic frame you could just boil it in lye, no?


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

And end up w/ a pieced of useless junk.

Whereas, if you put a wooden frames of comb into a microwave oven you would be putting metal, nails and wire, into a microwave oven. Something we are told not to because it is dangerous to do so.


----------



## warmbees (Mar 4, 2014)

sqkcrk said:


> A plastic frame I assume?


No, wood frame with metal staples, plastic foundation and coated with honey, propolis etc. I then placed just some burr comb in the oven and nuked for 20 seconds. Zero heat. so no H20 of any kind, but I expected that. Microwave would not act on the wood, nor the plastic, nor the wax, since all are electrical insulators. For those concerned about metal in the oven, that is a complex issue that may or may not be a problem. I'd have to bone up on a chapter or two, but I know that to simply say all metal will react is not true. Metal that is in the form of a closed loop is in the highest category for shorting out in a microwave evironment. Staples, nails, spoons, and etc. typically won't react in a microwave. But put a metalized CD in there, tinfoil, or other conductive media inside and you may have a problem.

I didn't notice what happened to the proplis.


----------



## virginiawolf (Feb 18, 2011)

There is a product video for this. I saw beekeepers using it on their boxes on line. I assume that this kills AFB so would be good for torching second hand boxes and metal excluders. I would be reluctant taking second hand frames although I started out with some. With this torch The wood cooks and the propolis boils. Bee careful if you get one. It is a serious tool safety Glasses and heat protectant gloves are a must with this giant flame. Also be careful to not start a fire.

http://www.harborfreight.com/propane-torch-with-push-button-igniter-91037.html


----------



## warmbees (Mar 4, 2014)

*Re: waa offered free bee equipment....*



sqkcrk said:


> If you had done this w/ half of the equipment and not w/ the other half chances are you would have the same results. I doubt that you actually did anything effective to destroy any AFB, which is all one really needs to be concerned w/ in this case.
> 
> If you had done this experiment w/ equipment which actually had AFB spores/scale present and you had the results you have, that would be something. Otherwise, sorry to say, you are concluding something not necessarily evident.
> 
> And now you have inspired someone else to do what you did. Though doing so shouldn't be dangerous, just possibly misleading and unnecessary.


My apologies to the OP for any undesired sidetrack to his comment/question... That being said, I feel that some of the most informative threads in public forums, are those where people from all walks of life gather and share their experience, observations, interests, questions and answers as a group. This is actually where the real power of the internet shines, because in almost no other forum or medium can you get input from potentially millions of people, experts and beginners alike, in one place, and all have a voice. One thing I appreciate the most, is the exposure to ideas and methods and a collective creativity, and interactivity that is nearly unparalleled. I very much appreciate the good old methods that we hear and learn in threads like this, but I am also wired differently than most, and love technology, invention, and pretty much live outside the proverbial box. My brain is kind of short circuited with the analysis switch stuck in the on position and do get obsessive with whatever my current passions happen to bee.

So I certainly mean no malice and don't wish to frustrate or mislead anybody. However, as an idealist with an open fertile mind, I don't believe that every perfect solution has already been found to every problem. I've also learned over my years in a technical service industry, that there are always other methods to get things done, and that the experiences and exposures of others, can always teach me something new, so I now rarely stomp my feet, turn blue and camp on only one "best" answer. Theories are great and I love to participate in the thought experiments that lead to them and prove or disprove them.

To be clear, I never made the claim that my little experiment was "THE" correct or only, or best way to clean or disinfect beekeeping equipment. In fact my comment was simply that I wanted to do something rather than nothing, prior to placing the equipment that I got, into service. Conventional wisdom teaches us to boil contaminated water. It is also accepted standard practice to disinfect surfaces and skin using alcohol, hence the wipes before every injection. So frankly, my thought path leading to my little experiment isn't so far out that it should be simply discounted and blown off, without reasonable scrutiny and perhaps further testing. Is it how hives are supposed to be disinfected? I have no idea, but now I've learned how many others have done it. I have enjoyed hearing other's thoughts on it, and like any good science, a good debate and scrutiny is healthy. I suppose I should not have been so eager as to chime in so quickly in the thread, before the old time beeks could respond with the proven methods.

As far as "concluding something not necessarily evident", I'm not sure that: "I tried something different with some old acquired equipment, and so far so good." is a strong conclusion, nor has it been proven to be totally ineffective! In fact the subsequent posts, not only state that my results so far, are not conclusive, but invite anyone with practical knowledge on the subject, to chime in and freely correct or shed further light on the subject.

As far as "inspiring someone else to do what I did." or be "possibly misleading and unnecessary" are concerned, I do feel like my method was new and different, and I believe it to be a good idea until we prove it not to be. It was presented as new and different, with no intent to mislead, and I believe that my original context that this new idea was better than no treatment at all, is a valid statement that stands for itself.

As far as the whole subject of microwave energy being used, it must be known that microwave energy is a form of radiated energy that very possibly may act on many if not all of the biologic elements being discussed, and again may be a good idea until proven otherwise. Again I'm not making any claims, but merely presented it as an idea for discussion on an interesting thread, as merely a thought experiment.

Both methods may totally end up being bunk, but hay, if nothing else, this discussion may lead to that answer, but it has been interesting to me and may inspire the next invention that really does work and may make it possible keep valuable equipment that would otherwise be burned, and lead to a better health in beekeeping...

If I'm out of line for having offered either idea in this forum or thread, please advise. TommySnare, do you feel your thread was taken off course or are you frustrated with it? Thanks in advance.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

*Re: waa offered free bee equipment....*

That's fine. But what did you accomplish? Was there something infectious that needed to be dealt w/ to begin with? Was what you did necessary? That's what I was asking.

Take your idea to any Bee Disease Specialist, pick one from ABJ or Bee Culture, and see what they think. See if they think what you did was a good idea, a new idea. Maybe it is both. Good.

Write to ABJ and ask about what you did in the School House Q&A section of the magazine. It would be interesting to see what reply you would get there.

I commend the doing of something different/new. I'm simply asking whether your conclusion is valid. Effect does not necessarily indicate cause.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

*Re: waa offered free bee equipment....*



warmbees said:


> I believe that my original context that this new idea was better than no treatment at all, is a valid statement that stands for itself.


That is your right but I believe it is not a valid statement. Microwaves by themselves have no disinfecting qualities. You, I and practically the whole world is being bombarded with constant microwaves everyday from cell towers and land based communications. The only way they kill anything is by heating water or oil to such temperatures to do so. You think you have accomplished something but I know you haven't. The proper testing would prove me right or you wrong however you want to look at it.

I am all for new ideas, trust me.


----------



## WWW (Feb 6, 2011)

*Re: waa offered free bee equipment....*

Last year I torched then soaked 20 old used frames in a water/clorox/OA solution, they foamed up after soaking for a while but now you guys have me concerned about cause and effect. I did come to the conclusion that fooling around with old used frames is a time wasting proposition.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

*Re: waa offered free bee equipment....*

Wood (for this thread I am referring to wooden frames, but it applies to all wood) _always _has a water content. Once you remove all the water, what you have is ash, not wood. Water content of kiln dried wood varies, but typically the lowest water content for "indoor" kiln dried wood is about 8%. "Outdoor" kiln dried wood is more like 12%. Reference:
http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/fplrn/fplrn226.pdf

Here is a Forest Service paper on intentionally drying wood in a microwave:
http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/pdf2005/fpl_2005_du001.pdf

Wood in a microwave oven _*will *_heat up, and if you continue heating it, it will catch fire. 

Also, regardless as to whether beeswax is an electrical insulator, it will also heat up in a microwave oven. You can find plenty of threads here on beekeepers melting beeswax in a microwave.


----------



## warmbees (Mar 4, 2014)

*Re: waa offered free bee equipment....*

SQKCRK, I re-read my post that I sent last night, and it struck me as rather scathing. Sorry for that. My intent was to clarify that my original comments were not intended to be claiming any position of expertise or authority, but merely to consider a possible option.

Acebird, the sentence, to which you refer in your post #32, I made in reference to the steam/alcohol technique that I conceived of and then tried. So the "validity" that I made reference to, is merely that it is my "belief" to be better than doing nothing at all, at least until I observe that it failed as a treatment. I have not observed any disease processes in that equipment as of yet, in over a year of use. As I've stated previously, I'm quite aware that this instance and observation are not, nor can they be considered a valid conclusion, but nothing has been observed by me to rule the method out either. Additionally, my original comments, I believe, indicated that my steam/vapor procedure was a personal experiment, (at the time, not intended to be particularly scrutinized) and I took measurements over about an hour time period, to evaluate for myself, how effective I thought it might actually be. My own conclusion at the time, of which I believe you are in agreement, was that the 140 F temps that I observed, are not adequate for effective sterilization. That is exactly why I then further conceived of adding alcohol as an added measure toward any form of success in sterilization. I consider the jury to be out on this method, and certainly understand that spore based biological agents would/could survive this treatment, but I believe that many or most other biological agents such as bacterial or viral, may not. Hence the conclusion on my part, that it is "perhaps" better than doing nothing at all. If nothing else, I felt better having tried something... As always, I appreciate your comments. In my world as a technologist, bouncing ideas off of a group has proven to be invaluable in learning answers to complex issues. Many heads are better than one, and if one idea turns out to be poor, then somebody else might come up with a better one because of discussions like these.


----------



## CircleBee (Mar 3, 2012)

I would quote directly from the bible of AFB, "Elimination of American Foulbrood Disease without the use of Drugs" by Mark Godwin, but I'm not sure if its legal for me to do so. So I'll paraphrase here:

It states basically that a number of substances have been studied to see if they kill AFB spores, including alcohol, kerosene, soaps, etc. and none have shown ability to kill these spores. The book suggests heating equipment (paraffin wax dipping) to 160•C for 10 min, anything less than that temp and that time duration is ineffective. However, Bleach is one of the few agents that is able to kill the spores. Research has shown (again per the Book) that a 0.5% sodium hypochlorite (active ingredient of bleach solutions) in contact with the spores for 20 min. will kill them. Again, the 20 min contact time is crucial. It cautions that soaking in bleach only kills the spores on the surface of the equipment.

So with the above in mind, I have to agree with Sqkcrk in that the difficulty of destroying AFB spores should not be taken lightly. That is why in New Zealand (in my opinion the experts in AFB control) the only legal way of dealing with an AFB contaminated hive is to burn it.


----------



## warmbees (Mar 4, 2014)

*Re: waa offered free bee equipment....*



WWW said:


> Last year I torched then soaked 20 old used frames in a water/clorox/OA solution, they foamed up after soaking for a while but now you guys have me concerned about cause and effect. I did come to the conclusion that fooling around with old used frames is a time wasting proposition.


WWW, thanks for the suggestion. I believe the first or second comment on this thread referred to scorching as a method to try something to at least feel better about unknown equipment. That is actually the comment that prompted me to contribute my subsequent post. The thought that ran through my mind at that time, was that scorching would be effective over all, however may not reach into cracks or corners, or small holes etc. and therefore could miss something. I believe that, again, its better than doing nothing. But then my involuntary analysis kicks in and my mind went to that it would be better to place the entire box in an oven and heat it to around 300 F for a half hour and ensure that every nook and cranny was covered, which then convoluted to the thought process of using microwave as a possible solution. I'm quite certain that placing the entire equipment into an oven at 300 F, long enough for all internal temps to reach 300 F, for at least a half hour, would be nearly 100% effective in pretty much all biological elements that we normally deal with in beehives. Again, I'm not an authority on this, nor have I done this. I'm just extrapolating current technology and methods for sterilization, and mentally applying them to this argument.

The concept of being able to place an entire box, frames and all, into an oven, and then coming back an hour later to remove and then place into service (after cooling of course! - Such a tough crowd  ) may be about the least time-wasting method I can think of. Of course we could always just destroy old equipment without trying anything, but then this thread would be no fun, and we all will have wasted our valuable hobby time here reading/writing, and not gained a thing. At the very least, its mildly entertaining?


----------



## warmbees (Mar 4, 2014)

CircleBee said:


> I would quote directly from the bible of AFB, "Elimination of American Foulbrood Disease without the use of Drugs" by Mark Godwin, but I'm not sure if its legal for me to do so. So I'll paraphrase here:
> 
> It states basically that a number of substances have been studied to see if they kill AFB spores, including alcohol, kerosene, soaps, etc. and none have shown ability to kill these spores. The book suggests heating equipment (paraffin wax dipping) to 160•C for 10 min, anything less than that temp and that time duration is ineffective. However, Bleach is one of the few agents that is able to kill the spores. Research has shown (again per the Book) that a 0.5% sodium hypochlorite (active ingredient of bleach solutions) in contact with the spores for 20 min. will kill them. Again, the 20 min contact time is crucial. It cautions that soaking in bleach only kills the spores on the surface of the equipment.
> 
> So with the above in mind, I have to agree with Sqkcrk in that the difficulty of destroying AFB spores should not be taken lightly. That is why in New Zealand (in my opinion the experts in AFB control) the only legal way of dealing with an AFB contaminated hive is to burn it.


Now were getting somewhere! Here's something I didn't know, and had not heard before. So that pretty much closes the book on the alcohol experiment with regard to AFB. But any other biological, that can be killed that way, should be gone. I still like it better than doing nothing.

It sounds like we can close the book on microwave as well. Thanks for this info.


----------



## tommysnare (Jan 30, 2013)

i turned the 2 deeps in to 2 , 4 way split/2 frames each mating boxes. will torch and bleach when possible. i will not radiate,microwave or shoot any of my equipment in to space to have the aliens sanitize them. i think shipping would be too high on a box i can recreate for $6. but....i dont want to side track this post hahaha. You guys are awesome. 

Ok ... as you were opcorn:


----------



## BeeCurious (Aug 7, 2007)

warmbees said:


> It sounds like we can close the book on microwave as well.


Yes, and "closing the book on the microwave" will be much easier than closing the door...


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

CircleBee said:


> So with the above in mind, I have to agree with Sqkcrk in that the difficulty of destroying AFB spores should not be taken lightly. That is why in New Zealand (in my opinion the experts in AFB control) the only legal way of dealing with an AFB contaminated hive is to burn it.


Did I say that? I agree, but, first determine whether there is a problem before spending time doing something unnecessarily. If there isn't any infection, don't treat it.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

*Re: waa offered free bee equipment....*



warmbees said:


> The concept of being able to place an entire box, frames and all, into an oven, and then coming back an hour later to remove and then place into service (after cooling of course! - Such a tough crowd  ) may be about the least time-wasting method I can think of. Of course we could always just destroy old equipment without trying anything, but then this thread would be no fun, and we all will have wasted our valuable hobby time here reading/writing, and not gained a thing. At the very least, its mildly entertaining?


Are you referring to a diagnosed case of AFB?


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

warmbees said:


> I still like it better than doing nothing.


If it makes you feel better than it is a positive thing. But it appears you have learned and that is definitely a positive thing.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

*Re: waa offered free bee equipment....*



Rader Sidetrack said:


> Once you remove all the water, what you have is ash, not wood.


I am not sure that is correct. To get ash you must burn. What you will have would be more like cellulose which can be used as insulation.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

warmbees said:


> I still like it better than doing nothing.


What is it you are trying to do? I don't understand doing something w/out knowing whether there is a need and whether what you did accomplished anything. Especially anything beneficial.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

*Re: waa offered free bee equipment....*

> Once you remove all the water, what you have is ash, not wood.



Acebird said:


> I am not sure that is correct. To get ash you must burn. What you will have would be more like cellulose which can be used as insulation.



OK Ace, please tell us how to get _*all *_the water out of wood _without _"burning" it. 

Perhaps you would like to read this reference about pyrolysis.  
Even if you use those wood frames to make _charcoal_, there is still moisture in freshly made charcoal.


FYI, there is still water in ordinary cellulose insulation. Typically, that cellulose insulation is just reprocessed paper (fire retardant added), and there is moisture in paper too. Cellulose insulation is hygroscopic.


Allow me to point out that the original issue was whether wood frames will heat up in a microwave oven. As long as there is some water in that wood, it will heat up in the microwave. If you somehow find wood that doesn't heat up in a microwave, I highly doubt that anyone will recognize it as _wood _anymore - it is more likely to resemble _ash_.

:gh:

.


----------



## windfall (Dec 8, 2010)

*Re: waa offered free bee equipment....*

The term "oven dry" is used for wood that has had all of the free water as well as all of the bound water removed from it. Oven dry is used because it is nearly impossible to reach this state anywhere except in an oven. In any normal atmosphere wood will absorb moisture to come into equilibrium with that atmospheres relative humidity. Wood is hydroscopic. 

Oven dry is oven dry...not ash. It is just the state that wood reaches when it can no longer lose any mass by releasing water from its matrix or chemistry without changing into new material.

There are still the elemental components held within the wood that are capable of making water through process like combustion or pyrolysis but that is different from the material containing water as such. Those are chemical reactions.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

*Re: waa offered free bee equipment....*

> Wood is hydroscopic. 

I don't think that is really the case.  hydroscopic

Perhaps you were thinking of hygroscopic instead? :lookout:


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

*Re: waa offered free bee equipment....*



windfall said:


> The term "oven dry" is used for wood that has had all of the free water as well as all of the bound water removed from it. Oven dry is used because it is nearly impossible to reach this state anywhere except in an oven. In any normal atmosphere wood will absorb moisture to come into equilibrium with that atmospheres relative humidity. Wood is hydroscopic.
> 
> Oven dry is oven dry...not ash. It is just the state that wood reaches when it can no longer lose any mass by releasing water from its matrix or chemistry without changing into new material.
> 
> There are still the elemental components held within the wood that are capable of making water through process like combustion or pyrolysis but that is different from the material containing water as such. Those are chemical reactions.


Errr, do you mean kiln dried? I'm no wood expert, but oven dry is not a term I have heard of. Air Dried and Kiln Dried.


----------



## windfall (Dec 8, 2010)

*Re: waa offered free bee equipment....*

Yes radar, quite right thanks for the correction...typing too fast

Sqkcrk, oven dry is the term used for what I outlined. 
It is not a commercially available form like kiln dried or air dried. It is the end state used to determine a species total dimensional stability/movement and dry weight


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

*Re: waa offered free bee equipment....*

No problemo mi amigo.


----------



## warmbees (Mar 4, 2014)

*Re: waa offered free bee equipment....*



sqkcrk said:


> Are you referring to a diagnosed case of AFB?


In a word, NO! The original premise was equipment of unknown disease status. Nothing more than a desire to preemptively do something, rather than nothing, to attempt possible reuse, rather than just burn it. A question, or nudge, born out of total ignorance, but cleverly concealed, in an innocent attempt to provoke creative thought, toward an easy, inexpensive alternative to said action, that could reverse loss of investment, and be more conducive to keeping conscientious bee-loving caretakers remaining in the game, and applied toward the care and advancement, and preservation of our little winged friends. But I believe the book has been closed on that thought progression. And it's a good thing to, because we were almost on to something there.


----------



## warmbees (Mar 4, 2014)

Acebird said:


> If it makes you feel better than it is a positive thing. But it appears you have learned and that is definitely a positive thing.


I will be the first to admit that I don't know exactly how many diseases there are in the world of beekeeping, however, if let's say for the sake of argument, there are 20 major common accepted diseases, and alcohol kills 18/20 (all but the spore based), then my stated premise was that this was better than having done nothing at all, and at least I wouldn't have to worry about those 18. Statistically, if this were even remotely realistic, it would stand to reason, that I would have a better chance at success than failure. I'm not sure that I am wrong on this, but have already conceded.

So then would a conventional oven specifically designed to hold full size boxes with frames at 300 F, and maintain 300 F for an hour, be an effective alternative to destroying equipment? It just seems that something like this would be simple and inexpensive to construct, and could be made available in the local clubs for general use to disinfect used equipment.


----------



## warmbees (Mar 4, 2014)

I finally got some time to further research the subjects, and have found several references showing alcohol at high concentrations, as being effective at killing most nasty's including many viral and spore based diseases, to nearly 99% in just 1 to 2 minutes of contact. So with the very few possible exceptions including AFB and, I'm sure, some other spore or prion based biological's, the alcohol vapor method isn't a bad idea for equipment of unknown disease status, if nothing else, to hedge your bet. In my opinion...

With regard to using microwave energy to disinfect, it turns out there is also a fair amount of experimentation that has taken place for using microwave energy to disinfect. It is also quite effective at killing microbial agents, but it has also been shown that it is the heat from the water, that appears to be responsible rather than the microwave energy itself, as many of you suspected. I guess I won't be buying any petri dishes.

So with alcohol being the closest to being a winner, I'm now intrigued about any other chemical vapor agents that might be considered. It was just too easy to place a pan below a stack of equipment with frames, and treat. Just some further feedback for those still reading...

As I reread this thread from the top, I feel that I became a bit defensive as it felt like all the energy of the conversation was toward killing the ideas rather than brainstorming ideas, or collaborating to improve the current condition and plight of honeybees. I apologize for becoming defensive and / or any offense that I may have caused. I was traveling through the last half of this thread and continuity was, for me, disjointed, which at least for me, contributed to my foul mood. In any case, keep on keeping beeeeeees!


----------



## bluegrass (Aug 30, 2006)

But then you have to ask what a high concentration of alcohol is? And can it be achieved consistently with a vapor? Isopropyl Alcohol is 70% mixed in water, but what concentration is it evaporated and mixed with air? 

No need to apologize for anything.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

warmbees said:


> I feel that I became a bit defensive as it felt like all the energy of the conversation was toward killing the ideas rather than brainstorming ideas,


It is hard not to be negative when you know some of the pitfalls. I know that ETO, gama, and very high temperatures are the standard procedures for killing microbes. Microwaves are not used for sterilization of microbes. 
I asked one of the cell tower worker if he was concerned about having his chest 6 '' away from one of the antennas and he said nah it just gives you a good warm and fuzzy feeling. Yeah, 200 ft in the air standing on a an iced up piece of structural steel. One thing I noticed is there is not a lot of old people going up those towers.


----------



## warmbees (Mar 4, 2014)

One of the articles I was looking at regarding the effectiveness of alcohol, was this one on Wikipedia on hand sanitizing in the medical profession: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand_sanitizer . The strong alcohol sited is from 70% to 90%.

I know that starting with 70% Isopropy alcohol might be kind of week, but the fact that this method heats the mix, means that the alcohol would in theory be driven off first since it it has a lower boiling point. So it sounds reasonable that this process would concentrate the alcohol vapor at a higher level. In my case, I added the bottle to an already boiling pan of water, which makes some sense, would cause the alcohol to somewhat flash off, with a brief higher concentration of alcohol. If you started with just the 70% concentration from the store, then I could see the process being at a higher concentration than the original 70%. Since the alcohol would be the first to boil off, and the first to condense on the inside surfaces, it should do well in this application. I also imagine that we can find alcohol in higher concentrations than 70% as well. But if alcohol kills off a high number of agents, including that portion of the viral agents that have lipid coatings, then we are in the 98th percentile including many of the viral agents before considering any other vapor materials.

Now the question is weather there are any additives that could push it over the edge. My thought process is perhaps a home brew recipe that would render a stack of equipment virtually sterile, perhaps even including AFB/EFB etc. without leaving any residues that could have long term consequences. I'm going to have to find the book cited earlier that indicated that alcohol won't kill AFB, to see what other products were tried.

So Acebird, Bluegrass and all, PURELY FOR THE SAKE OF THOUGHT AND HYPOTHETICALLY SPEAKING... PREFACING THE FOLLOWING COMMENT WITH - NOBODY TRY THESE AT HOME WITHOUT PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE OF SAFETY METHODS, PROPER FACILITIES, OR KNOWLEDGE OF APPROPRIATE LAWS... What if after a half hour of an alcohol vapor treatment, a chemical reaction were devised that would release chlorine gas into the stack? I haven't done any research on this yet, but again, just for the sake of argument, chlorine gas is used in most municipal water systems to disinfect our typical drinking water supply. If not chlorine, then perhaps ozone gas, or both. I believe both may be possible candidates to push a procedure over the top???? Chlorine may leave some residue for a short time, but Ozone is so reactive, that it would not remain very long at all. Consider that chlorine gas is used to bleach our flour, purify our water, and probably many other processes that are not obvious in our lives, it obviously doesn't leave long term residues that pose lingering issues.

*It must be understood that both chlorine gas and Ozone gas are extremely toxic* and not to be experimented with irresponsibly. But like so many products on this planet, which can be very toxic or deadly, can also be used safely under the right circumstances, and with very worth-while results.

While chlorine can be easily smelled in low concentrations without permanent damage or toxicity, Ozone gas is fairly odorless, but smelling or inhaling it in even low concentrations can permanently damage smell and taste sensors in your mouth, nose, and sinuses. So fair warning!


----------



## warmbees (Mar 4, 2014)

Finding some very favorable results on both chlorine and Ozone.

http://indoorair.net/id73.htm - Showing Ozone is effective on mold and spores.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0740002085800058 - Showing Ozone is effective on clostridium spores.

http://www.epa.gov/iaq/pubs/ozonegen.html - shows some of the issues with safety and use near humas, pets, and products such as rubber and ink.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinfectant - (Look at Oxidizers) It appears that chlorine is highly effective at disinfecting, molds, spores and all other biological agents. Additionally, look at Hydrogen Peroxide in the oxidizers. It would be another contender for use in disinfecting a hive stack. Also hazardous in vapor form!


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

warmbees said:


> The strong alcohol sited is from 70% to 90%.


I am not trying to be negative but have you tried to buy it? You could buy new equipment for what it costs.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

warmbees, would you like me to send you some AFB samples so you can test your ideas w/ a known pathogen? Your ideas are interesting. But they bare testing and validating. Until you can actually show that vaporizing alcohol through supers does anything, what do you have other than theory, aka mental masturbation.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. If you don't know if it isn't broken doesn't that mean in all likelihood it isn't?


----------



## warmbees (Mar 4, 2014)

Acebird, no I haven't tried to buy it, but I'm not sure it's necessary. The act of heating, evaporating, and condensing, is how alcohol is refined and concentrated. So it seems like starting with the available cheap stuff that we can get in the drug store should be fine. Since we are not using it as is topically, but the procedure here in question is by its nature concentrating the alcohol, it may achieve the higher numbers as cited.

SqkCrk, thanks but no, I had to deal with AFB many years ago, which is one of the reasons I took any interest in alternative methods. I suppose this, to me, was more of an exorcise to come up with alternatives for the next time I have to deal with it again, but at the same time, there may be others out there that have a current need or keen interest to find alternatives now. Any idea that presents the possibility of success that is or becomes easier, cheaper, or potentially more effective than current practices, would need to be scrutinized and validated independently by multiple labs or facilities around the world. To me this is not an exorcise to question or put down current methods. A tank of bleach is pretty cheap and fairly easy, as is hot wax. Recall that when I originally offered the vapor idea, I for one, had not heard of the bleach and wax method. I was glad to learn that method through this thread. But I feel that this new method, if it could be engineered to be safe and effective, may actually turn out to be cheaper and easier than the bleach and wax method. I'm sure that who ever came up with the bleach and wax method, or any other methods, were guilty of mental masturbation as you say, but that is the process for finding new and innovative and creative answers to current problems.

If we continue to do things the way we've always done, we should expect to continue to have the same results. With the global honeybee populations in crisis, it seems to me that, perhaps some creative thought and effort, and maybe even a little mental masturbation, might be called for.


----------



## tommysnare (Jan 30, 2013)

opcorn:


----------



## warmbees (Mar 4, 2014)

Tommysnare, you don't feel guilty for your OP surely? Normally you would have to purchase entertainment like this, no?

I, on the other hand, feel guilty for an apparent hijack of your thread. It was not my intention. It just sort of happened?

Say the word, and I'll post a new thread in the bee forum...


----------



## warmbees (Mar 4, 2014)

But hey, doesn't it make you feel good that your thread has gone into 4 pages?:applause:


----------



## bluegrass (Aug 30, 2006)

Do drunk bees make honey or do they hang around singing and stumbling into each other? Is it a crime for nurse bees to give alcohol residue to brood?


----------



## bluegrass (Aug 30, 2006)

In healthcare we do use a lot of Alcohol based hand sanitizes between patient contact. But only in situations where you walk into the room and walk out again... If any bodily contact is involved we scrub with anti-microbial soap and hot water. I have seen cultures done on hands that have been cleansed with alcohol based cleaners and they are not 100% effective. The cultures still grow stuff. Personally I would say I use soap and water probably 3.1 over alcohol hand sanitizer in any given day.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

And that hand washing removes what you don't want and puts it into the waste water system, it doesn't kill the microbes, does it. Whereas, the hand sanitzers are supposed to kill the bad bacteria. Isn't that about right?


----------



## warmbees (Mar 4, 2014)

My drunk bees just run around all over the ground, and group together in little parties. Kind of like speed dating...


----------



## warmbees (Mar 4, 2014)

Sounds like we're beating a dead horse. Dare I ask about thoughts on a chlorine gas option?


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

If you want to do something for the sake of not doing nothing, sort combs and paint the boxes.


----------



## bluegrass (Aug 30, 2006)

sqkcrk said:


> And that hand washing removes what you don't want and puts it into the waste water system, it doesn't kill the microbes, does it. Whereas, the hand sanitzers are supposed to kill the bad bacteria. Isn't that about right?


It kills the microbes; we use a sanitation grade soap. The recommendation is to hand gel if there is no visible contaminant, and full wash if there is. Basically if I don gloves and go into a room to give a Tylenol or just ask a question then we de-glove and hand gel afterwards. If we have patient contact then we are supposed to de-glove and do a full wash. 

We almost never come in contact with a patient without gloves on anyway, unless they code or something and time is an issue. 

Personally I don't think alcohol vapor would be enough for a spore. I have seen spore forming diseases close a room for weeks after the patient left while they clean repeatedly with healthcare grade cleansers. In healthcare maybe we are just overly cautious when it comes to spores and prions.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

bluegrass said:


> In healthcare maybe we are just overly cautious when it comes to spores and prions.


Unfortunately the constant cleansing procedures breeds super germs. There is not a good solution to this problem so protective clothing is a must if you work in health care. The gloves are for your protection not the patient.


----------



## bluegrass (Aug 30, 2006)

The gloves are actually to prevent us from spreading stuff to other patients. The risks to self come with the job; it is just an accepted part of it, just like getting shot is an accepted risk of being a cop. I have had dirty needle sticks, been spit on, puked on, bled on, and yes... pooped on. I have been hit, punched, kicked, scratched, exposed to hepititis, Aids, Critchfield-Jacobs (Mad Cow Disease) Tuberculosis, you name it.. Gloves don't protect you from that stuff. 

It is sometimes amazing what sick people will do to those who control their drugs and the size of the needle that gets put in them... 

But the job has it's benefits... I get a lot of paid time off, I make more money per hr then some doctors do and I don't work 90 hrs a week. I meet some really interesting people, including TV stars, and elderly people who lived through some of the most interesting periods in our history. I see the world through their eyes. And nothing people do surprises me.


----------



## virginiawolf (Feb 18, 2011)

This was the video I watched that made me think that scorching the boxes with a large torch would be enough to make sure that used equipment could be effectively made clean of AFB spores. I wouldn't use questionable old frames but the boxes I believe can be effectively de contaminated. Would you agree? I hope that this is beneficial to see. The guy Jeff has some nice videos. With a big torch it all goes pretty quick. I'm not positive it would work but as a preventive measure to sanitize a box it is what I have done based on this video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-ZWFmp1eBQ


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

It's a long standing technique used to save woodenware.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Who am I to say but I feel that method was executed horribly. Dry scraping like that will put billions of spores in the area. Most of the spores are going to be on the surface not deep in the wood. To me the safest way would be to wash the boxes. Wet the spores so they don't go airborne. I would even recommend collecting the water in a barrel to be disposed of in a hole and then buried over.

Secondly I think he went too fast with the flame. The flame may be at 2000 degrees but it is "time and temperature" that kills. The wood isn't even charring so the surface of the wood is barely getting to 400 degrees. He should slow down the movement of the flame until he see the wood turn black like charcoal. I don't know what you think Mark but what I saw in the video to me was totally ineffective.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Viewing the video, I agree w/ Brian, not enough burning of the surface of the wood. Whenever I have scorched supers I have stacked the supers upside down on a bottom board, laid a sheet of newspaper on the bottom board, dribbled some kerosene from the top onto the inner surfaces of the supers, and then lighting the newspaper. This will create a chimney fire. After letting it burn for a time the stack is knocked over and rolled around on the ground until the fire goes out.

Once all of that is done, the insides are scraped. Burning and scraping burns up the spores, which is better than killing them.

I assume that the guy in the video was using that crappy super purely for demonstration purposes, because that's definitely one for the burn pile.


----------



## virginiawolf (Feb 18, 2011)

Thank You for responding. His method was one of inspiration and not a method that I duplicated exactly at all. I luckily never had foul brood but to be on the cautious side starting last season any of the second hand equipment that I had not taken a smaller torch over the previous season I put it on a piece of wood and blasted with the flames from that torch I linked earlier. It was dangerously hot and completely cooked the insides of the boxes. I was very thorough about it. What I liked about the big torch was that I believed it did a thorough job and the size of it made the procedure reasonable as far as how much time it took. It was setting the board below the supers on fire so I had to wet that board if memory serves correct. 


I got some metal queen excluders second hand this past year that I haven't used yet and I plan to blast them with the torch here soon. According to the inspector last year there were only like 7 cases of AFB here in PA so that eased my fear of catching it as far as odds go. The one time that my bees swarmed into someone's eve of their house there had been a fire in that part of the house so I have to wonder if bees don't mind the smell of burnt wood or smoke? They definitely like a dry environment. I can understand recommending people to be wary of second hand equipment. As a newer beekeeper you all helped me understand some of the risks. Knowing what I know now I would have torched all of the boxes to be on the safe side.

I phased out most of the old frames after 4 years now but it has taken some time. With new combs and frames the brood patterns looked really good last year. I lost a bunch over winter but I am looking forward to implementing what I learned last year for this upcoming season. I will insulate my hives this coming winter unlike how I unfortunately did not this past year. Not insulating or providing a good windbreak this past season as well as failure to pre mountain camp every hive regardless of how much honey they had was poor beekeeping on my part. I was lulled into thinking winter wouldn't be that bad because 2011 and 2012 had a bunch of warm streaks in them comparatively. Anyway, Thank You to Tommysnare for creating a post that inspired some thoughtful responses on a subject that I have wrestled with as well and to Mark and Brian for responding to my question about the video. I am glad to know that you could get on board with not having to completely destroy the equipment if enough fire was used. :thumbsup: VW


----------



## virginiawolf (Feb 18, 2011)

Mark and other commercial beekeepers, As a commercial beekeeper is there always fear that putting your bees in close proximity to other bees is going to result in catching AFB? Do the bees really get thoroughly inspected every time you go over state lines? It seems like it would be impossible to inspect a truck carrying hundreds of bee boxes. I have gotten the impression that AFB is not super common but I could be wrong. 

I would think??? that the more hives you had that the odds would increase that there would be more potential problems but maybe not. The only commercial guy that I feel like I got to know in real life said his bees are inspected everywhere he goes and that he takes all of the potential for disease transmission very seriously so maybe the commercial guys and girls have these problems even less because they are so on top of their game.

Is AFB popping up much among the commercial beekeepers? Do you swap equipment and not worry about it? I know us newer beekeepers are encouraged to avoid used equipment but do commercial beekeepers avoid it also? It is a subject that interests me because it is so serious that It always peaks my interest as to what the odds are of catching this disease. It doesn't seem very probable but it seems possible.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

I don't worry too much about AFB and AFB exposure, but I keep my eye out for it and deal w/ it when I come across it in my outfit. I was given a cpl truck loads of used supers a few years ago. Seems like there was an upturn in the number of cases of AFB in my outfit, but still way below the State average. Whatever that means.

Very few if any States can really say w/ much accuracy how much AFB there is out there. There just isn't the budget and manpower to do a thorough statewide inspection. 

I believe it is possible that we have fewer cases of AFB today (though I don't know if we do or not) because varroa/virus kills colonies before AFB can get a foothold. Just a theory.

I look at varroa/virus as the "AFB epidemic" of today. Probably just as bad and maybe much worse. I stated one time that I believed that varroa has killed more colonies than AFB ever did. I don't have the statistics to back that claim up, but I bet it isn't far off the mark.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

I would guess that AFB cases have dropped because there is far less use of general antibiotics in the hive. Burning hives when cases are found is not hurting either.


----------



## virginiawolf (Feb 18, 2011)

Thank you for answering my questions! I am amazed how the virus's and mites have spread around and I suppose that the longer that I keep bees the chances will increase that any number of these problems could arise. At the classes that I participate in we talk about the diseases and pests and I think that the awareness that is spread would lead to the proper speedy torching of AFB infected hives. The mites are certainly noted as a major problem. This is the pamphlet we use for identifying diseases etc.

pubs.cas.psu.edu/FreePubs/pdfs/uf013.pdf


----------

