# Can capping wax be "pure"?



## jwcarlson (Feb 14, 2014)

Very interesting, Jim. Thank you for sharing!


----------



## Joe Hillmann (Apr 27, 2015)

What does LOD stand for?


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

Joe Hillmann said:


> What does LOD stand for?


Level of detection, or the smallest amount the testing equipment can detect.


----------



## TWall (May 19, 2010)

Jim,

That is very interesting. It is nice to see that no neonictinoids were detected. And, ppb is very, very small amounts.

Thanks,

Tom


----------



## jwcarlson (Feb 14, 2014)

Would be interesting to have someone treatment free have their wax tested from their honey supers and compare.


----------



## Fusion_power (Jan 14, 2005)

It would be interesting to run a sample of the foundation you are using to see how it compares. I expected cappings to be the closest to clean wax.

You highlighted the issue of burr comb which seems to bring in quite a bit of hive chemical contamination. Will you be changing your methods of wax handling to reduce this?

Since I am treatment free for 11 years now, I would expect the only contamination in my wax to be from foundation or environmental.


----------



## gruntworker (May 20, 2013)

Thank you very much for sharing.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

Fusion_power said:


> It would be interesting to run a sample of the foundation you are using to see how it compares. I expected cappings to be the closest to clean wax.
> 
> You highlighted the issue of burr comb which seems to bring in quite a bit of hive chemical contamination. Will you be changing your methods of wax handling to reduce this?
> 
> Since I am treatment free for 11 years now, I would expect the only contamination in my wax to be from foundation or environmental.


There really isnt much of anything in there that I cant account for. I used CheckMite for 2 seasons the most recent being maybe 12 years ago but we buy lots of coated plastic foundation each year as well so its only a guess where the coumaphous readings come from. The dmpf reading is most likely a self inflicted wound as none showed up in the previous year. We thoroughly scrape our lids each fall so that they seal down properly for the winter. I wanted separate hive tools to be used for Apivar strip insertion and lid scraping but I'm pretty sure we got a little sloppy at times as can happen during long hard work days.


----------



## beeware10 (Jul 25, 2010)

a number of years ago mary anne frazer from penn state did a testing of beeswax from various sources. she tested from one source that had never bought fdn or used chemicals. coumaphous showed up. It apparently was brought in from an unknown source by the bees. with the improved testing accuracy some results may beyond a threshold of being worry some. I bet the same results would show up in some top bar hives. jmo


----------



## wildbranch2007 (Dec 3, 2008)

thanks for the excellent write up. I was most impressed with "not even any thymol, which we use extensively each year", I had always wondered if it would show up in the honey supers. also should be a relief for those that sell wax cappings wax to people for all the uses they have for it.


----------



## JRG13 (May 11, 2012)

Good information, I would run some brood comb wax next time, just to see what was actually showing up there as well.


----------



## clyderoad (Jun 10, 2012)

Thank you Jim.
Glad to see the results for cappings wax showed little to no contamination.
Honey supers are a nice safe place for the bees to store their honey.


wait...you're a commercial beekeeper, right? 
how can this be?


----------



## Foxhound (Feb 19, 2015)

Thanks for sharing all that and spending the money. It's good


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

3 seconds is one billionth of a century 
Great way to convey that measurement in lay mans terms


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

You did not find a trace of the pyrethrin based dairy spray but you did from the herbicide stored in the shed..? Any thoughts on how?


----------



## max2 (Dec 24, 2009)

Excellent!
many thanks


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

Ian said:


> 3 seconds is one billionth of a century
> Great way to convey that measurement in lay mans terms


I read that analogy here along with the dual analogy of a single drop of water in 11,000 gallons.

http://blogs.usda.gov/2011/08/02/pesticide-residue-detection-in-nsl-apiary-beeswax/

I also stumbled onto this disturbing article which piqued my interest in beeswax purity or lack thereof. I just had to try to separate myth from fact or at least the facts as they apply to the beeswax we harvest each year. 

http://www.lauratyler.com/art-blog/beeswax-and-breasts-do-you-know-whats-in-yours/

As many of you know who read my posts, I have been outspoken at times against beekeepers who play a bit fast and loose with the "recipes" used for bee treatments. Bee products continue to enjoy a "pure" image with consumers but I have long feared we are only one incident away from damaging it, maybe irreparably by someone who deduces that if a little is good then a lot must be a lot better. There has been increasing consumer awareness of food safety in recent years, and whether what's found in bee products is or isn't "safe" seems almost beside the point. Anything that dosent register as ND or zero is interpreted by many advocates as being tainted (see links above) despite how infinitesimal the residue levels may be.


----------



## rkereid (Dec 20, 2009)

Thanks for sharing this with us. Very interesting.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

Ian said:


> You did not find a trace of the pyrethrin based dairy spray but you did from the herbicide stored in the shed..? Any thoughts on how?


I really don't have a clue Ian. I normally spray our windows in the extracting room for flies at first light each morning so I wasn't going to be surprised if some traces of pyrethrin showed up in the wax. Trifluralin, given it was a really small amount, is kind of a head scratcher for me, it (treflan) used to be the chemical of choice for preemergent grass control in broad leaf crops like soybeans but I'm not sure it's used much commercially anymore. I washed the samples well before melting them together to eliminate any surface contamination, washed any containers used thoroughly and sealed the resulting blended samples in a ziplock bag before shipping.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

Trifluralin is still used, but as you mention not nearly as much thx to round up and breeding tech. Trifluralin, by the very nature farmers exploited, holds a very long residue in the soil, years in dry conditions. I'm thinking perhaps dust blown residue, mopped up by the bees, into the hive. 

Makes you glad those soil treatments are not used as much anymore.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

Ian said:


> Trifluralin is still used, but as you mention not nearly as much thx to round up and breeding tech. Trifluralin, by the very nature farmers exploited, holds a very long residue in the soil, years in dry conditions. I'm thinking perhaps dust blown residue, mopped up by the bees, into the hive.
> 
> Makes you glad those soil treatments are not used as much anymore.


Yes, you are quite right, I decided to refrain from using the "R" word for fear of derailing the thread. However, I wasn't aware that it broke down slowly. I'm remembering that you could rotate back to corn the next year without any issues, but I may be mistaken.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

In dry years... we would see seedling damage in the following years wheat crops.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

With all the fungicide used on the crops it's a wonder your cappings wax does not show more fungicide residue.


----------



## Mbeck (Apr 27, 2011)

http://www.ipmcenters.org/cropprofiles/docs/SDbeefcattle.pdf

If you look under pesticide use you'll see a survey sited that Coumaphos is used in 5% of herds. If cattle producers answer surveys like Beekeepers there is no telling what the actual uses are.

Also of interest ia its use under the category Pesticides products for face fly control through dust bags. 
Coumaphos Is availible in a 1% dust.


----------



## windfall (Dec 8, 2010)

So great to see folks take the time effort and money to gather hard data. Thanks for sharing

Jim, it sounds like you have thought out the process quite carefully, but what were you using for wash water? The water or any hosing it traveled through could be a source of contamination for the sample.....but given your care, I'm betting you have considered this and used distilled.


----------



## Mbeck (Apr 27, 2011)

http://www.y-tex.com/pdfs/CoRalDust.PDF

This product recommends placement of pesticide dusting bags in front of mineral stations (lick?) as one option.


----------



## jrhoto (Mar 2, 2009)

Thanks Jim beekeeping needs more people like you to share facts and not fiction.

poor valley bee farm


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

There may well be legitimate uses for coumaphous in the cattle industry, anyone who has been around cattle in the summer and seen their backs covered with flies would have to agree that some sort of treatment would make them a more contented animal. 
We know, however that it has been used extensively in the past in beehives, most was through checkmite strips but there have been at least some reports of using the coral dust directly in the hive. In hindsight the approval of checkmite looks like a poor decision though, in fairness, it was done at a time when Apistan, the only real effective treatment had become largely ineffective and there was a real need for another product. I fell for the Checkmite pitch just like most everyone else did. I heard glowing reports and it was tested and approved so it must be good......right? I was furious when I found out the next spring, that our Check Mite treated cell builders were pretty much incapable of raising healthy queen cells and the result was thousands of lost queen cells and nowhere on the label was any sort of warning posted. Sorry for the mini rant. 
Putting all of this in perspective, though, it should be noted that the coumaphous residues have dropped to single digit ppb levels (24 seconds per century if you will) and NO fluvalinate was found at a 1 ppb lod. I find that pretty remarkable considering how extensively it has been used and that I have heard repeatedly was destined to be in our beeswax supply permanently. So I guess we can micro analyze a couple numbers that showed up but overall I find the results pretty encouraging.


----------



## Fusion_power (Jan 14, 2005)

Reading this about coumaphos makes me glad I never used it. I stopped at apistan, just about the time that widespread resistance was being reported.


----------



## Mbeck (Apr 27, 2011)

Just a thought.
It's really awesome that you can vouch for the product you produce and back it up with proof.
I hope someone like Savannah bee company swoops in and buys every drop you produce at a premium for a botique bottling. Something like "Lyon's Pride of the Great Plains".

There are some pricy honeys they offer
http://savannahbee.com/tupelo-honey-gold-reserve/


----------



## clyderoad (Jun 10, 2012)

Mbeck said:


> Just a thought....
> Something like "Lyon's Pride of the Great Plains".


Very fitting! I like that.
What do you think, Jim?


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

Ha, ha. This isn't exactly why I started the thread but that's not too bad. Savannah has found a really nice niche and one that might have some good growth potential. With recent negative developments in the wholesale honey market I think it's really important for US honey producers to make it a point to do everything possible to ensure the purity of what we sell and give the consumer a reason to demand it. Something better than the current race to the bottom on grocery store shelves.


----------



## RudyT (Jan 25, 2012)

You are absolutely correct. We cannot win the race to the bottom. And even if we could win the race, we would be the losers.
My wife does a good job explaining that I am not competing with the big stores' "honey."


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

Jim your testing cappings and not your brood comb. I would expect mite treatment levels to show higher in brood comb wax samples


----------



## Roland (Dec 14, 2008)

Jim wrote:.... I washed the samples well....

Windfall beat me to it. I also wonder if distilled water should have been used for the wash. Do you have your well tested for pesticides?

Very impressed with the cleanliness of your wax. 

Crazy Roland


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

No distilled water just good ole ogallala aquifer courtesy of Tripp County Rural water. Here's results of their 2014 water tests. 
http://trippcountywater.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/2015-TCWUD-CCR-DENR-Report-2014.pdf


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

Ian said:


> Jim your testing cappings and not your brood comb. I would expect mite treatment levels to show higher in brood comb wax samples


I don't doubt that Ian. My premise wasn't to determine what was in the brood combs (which we burn when we are done with) but rather if it was possible to produce wax that could be used for new foundation that was free of chemicals. Be interesting to get a brood comb analysis as well but at $400 per test........


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

jim lyon said:


> I read that analogy here along with the dual analogy of a single drop of water in 11,000 gallons.
> 
> http://blogs.usda.gov/2011/08/02/pesticide-residue-detection-in-nsl-apiary-beeswax/
> 
> ...


Remember Alar? And what the kerfufle over it did to the apple and cider industry?


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

Ah I see, 
Yes, cappings wax for foundation.

Guys testing brood comb up here, the results confirm the decision to rotate out old brood comb.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Can you rotate enough comb to make any difference, unless you rotate out all the old comb?


----------



## Mbeck (Apr 27, 2011)

jim lyon said:


> I don't doubt that Ian. My premise wasn't to determine what was in the brood combs (which we burn when we are done with) but rather if it was possible to produce wax that could be used for new foundation that was free of chemicals.


Do you use foundation? Waxed plastic foundation?


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

sqkcrk said:


> Can you rotate enough comb to make any difference, unless you rotate out all the old comb?


Yes, keep bringing in fresh, dilution is the solution


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

How many frames per box per year is recommended?


----------



## Fusion_power (Jan 14, 2005)

I have been replacing 1/3 of the combs in the brood chamber per year for 3 years now. It is a bit difficult for the bees to draw that many frames early in the year. My reason for replacing is mostly because my combs were older with many in the 7 to 10 year range. I don't treat so what I am trying to achieve is better control of disease organisms in the broodnest. There is a benefit in colony health from regular renewal of combs.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

sqkcrk said:


> How many frames per box per year is recommended?


Recommended??


----------



## AstroBee (Jan 3, 2003)

Very nice Mr. Lyon! What a great contribution to our community. Thanks for sharing this!


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Ian said:


> Recommended??


Do you recommend? Do you switch out each year?


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

sqkcrk said:


> Do you recommend? Do you switch out each year?


I do switch out each year, working on culling out all my wired comb so far. Some of that comb is 50-60 years old


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

We have a lot of those 50+ year old frames still in use as well. My policy is to cull only those that are structurally unsound. I do have a lot of combs I would love to get rid of but when you run a lot of singles it isnt often that you can pull out a frame that dosen't contain either brood or honey. We give the top bars on those frames a big scratch (the death mark we call it) and move out of the center of the brood nest.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

Ya I only cull from dead out losses. 

I would be equily interested in the same chemical wax analysis Jim did on samples of brood comb (20 years and older) and new ( 19 years and newer)
That reoccurring question between Beekeepers, does old comb automatically = more pesticide residue. 
Just like Jims findings of a trace of Trifulan in his cappings... When it's rairly used anymore, how much of those soil treatments are in our old brood combs? Would it really matter anyhow?
The contamination from recent hive treatments ( check mite, apistan, Apivsr ) would be the same whether the comb is new or old. 

Pulling old comb to purge the hive of accumulated Chem treatments my be a feel good exercise.


----------



## Mr.Beeman (May 19, 2012)

Nope. With all the pollutants in the atmoshpere? Not a chance.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

Mr.Beeman said:


> Nope. With all the pollutants in the atmoshpere? Not a chance.


It's these kind of blanket assumptions I'm trying to dispel with actual data. Did you read the opening post?


----------



## beeware10 (Jul 25, 2010)

some people don't want to be bothered with facts. lol


----------



## TWall (May 19, 2010)

Jim,

When I first saw the treflan I wondered if anyone was using it on canola?

We used it a lot for soybeans and strawberries too. It breaks down relatively slowly, thus the residual benefit. I never remember having a problem coming back with corn. Not like using aatrex for corn with carryover damage to beans.

We once had a 300 gal tank with treflan mounted on a disk break just starting to spray a field. That spot never grew anything again. It has been 15 plus years since I have been to that farm. I bet you can still find the spot. Right along the road where everyone can see it!

I wonder if it is in the water in the aquifer? It wouldn't be surprising.

Tom


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

jim lyon said:


> It's these kind of blanket assumptions I'm trying to dispel with actual data.


You may want to reread your signature quote.....


----------



## Bob Anderson (Jun 13, 2014)

jim lyon said:


> Level of detection, or the smallest amount the testing equipment can detect.


More specifically, LOD stands for Limit of Detection and is, as you state, the smallest amount that can be distinguished from background noise using prescribed methods and equipment. In your case the LODs were given as ppb. If the LOD of a contaminant is 10 ppb and they report that contaminant as ND (not detected) then the level of that contaminant is less than or equal to 10 ppb. If they report a 'trace', then they did detect it in which case it was above the LOD and they should have reported the level of the contaminant in terms of ppb. (I don't understand why they didn't do that for your 'trace' amounts).

Great thread. I have also wondered how much contamination there really is in beeswax. To me, your beeswax is very clean. A problem with modern analytical technologies is that they are so sensitive that you often find minute traces of lots things where you don't expect them and that can cause great concern. Some people may read your analysis and conclude that yes indeed all beeswax is highly contaminated whereas I say it is clean. How pure is pure? Ultimately, there would have to be limits set for contaminants in order for the beeswax to be used for pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, art supplies, or for the beekeeper to feel comfortable in leaving the comb in his hive for another year. We are a long way from that at this point.


----------



## Mr.Beeman (May 19, 2012)

jim lyon said:


> It's these kind of blanket assumptions I'm trying to dispel with actual data. Did you read the opening post?


Yes, I read your opening post. It stated that in testing there were contaminates, however minute, but not "pure". Most of the contaminates are posterior to the cappings. I wonder how many contaminates were cleansed away with your peparation proceedure of the samples?
I do appreciate your testing/contribution and data however.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Bob Anderson said:


> More specifically, LOD stands for Limit of Detection and is, as you state, the smallest amount that can be distinguished from background noise using prescribed methods and equipment. In your case the LODs were given as ppb. If the LOD of a contaminant is 10 ppb and they report that contaminant as ND (not detected) then the level of that contaminant is less than or equal to 10 ppb. If they report a 'trace', then they did detect it in which case it was above the LOD and they should have reported the level of the contaminant in terms of ppb. (I don't understand why they didn't do that for your 'trace' amounts).


I am fairly certain that certain terms like "trace" have specific meanings. One of the definitions of the word "trace" which I found was this. "*a* *:* a minute and often barely detectable amount or indication <a _trace_ of a smile>*b* *:* an amount of a chemical constituent not always quantitatively determinable because of minuteness"
So maybe the element was determined to be present but not in an amount determinable.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Mr.Beeman said:


> Most of the contaminates are posterior to the cappings.


Who says?



Mr.Beeman said:


> I wonder how many contaminates were cleansed away with your peparation proceedure of the samples?


 When one buys commercial bee's wax....don't you think it goes through a 'preparation process'? The whole point was to actually measure how much contamination exists within the wax.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

Mr.Beeman said:


> Yes, I read your opening post. It stated that in testing there were contaminates, however minute, but not "pure". Most of the contaminates are posterior to the cappings. I wonder how many contaminates were cleansed away with your peparation proceedure of the samples?
> I do appreciate your testing/contribution and data however.


The premise of this whole thread is to find out what is contained in wax because of its lipophilic absorption properties. If obtaining "pure" wax were as simple as washing it we wouldn't even be having this discussion. I should also mention these samples were never filtered in any way and that any non beeswax sediment were simply allowed to settled out.


----------



## Mr.Beeman (May 19, 2012)

beemandan said:


> Who says?
> 
> Common sense says. It stands to reason that the bees bring in pollutants/contaminants on their legs which get deposited ON (posterior) the wax cappings as they wallk across them.
> 
> ...


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Mr.Beeman said:


> Common sense says.


My common sense says not necessarily. Funny how our common sense is so different.
At least Jim Lyon didn't depend on his common sense but, instead, decided to find out objectively.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

delete


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

Mr. Beeman:
Thanks for the link and the comments. I'm not seeing anything in your link about pesticide levels in wax being too high for eggs to survive but I dont doubt it has happened in highly polluted environments. I think what your article shows (and there is nothing specific about beeswax) is there are areas of the world where pollutants are a major concern. My results were obviously quite different as the only pollutants found that werent beekeeper applied were a "trace" of a fungicide and a single 4ppb reading of trifluran in one of the two samples. Again, the thrust of this thread isn't whether wax contamination happens because obviously it does but rather is it possible to harvest capping wax from untreated combs that is free of any pesticide contamination beekeeper applied or otherwise. How many places in the world those results could be replicated I have no idea, I'm just giving the folks the data I have.


----------



## Roland (Dec 14, 2008)

Do we need to redefine "treatment free" in that forum?

Although not totally free of residues, the tests do show that prudent use of in hive chemicals can result in extremely low levels.

Good job, the industry is proud of you.

Crazy Roland


----------



## Fusion_power (Jan 14, 2005)

You burn old brood combs which would tend to remove a major possible source of contaminants. Your tests show that as long as the combs from which honey is harvested are not on the colony at time of treatment, it is possible to get relatively pure wax. It highlights that we need all beekeepers to FOLLOW THE DIRECTIONS if they are using hive chems.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

Who burns old comb anymore. They buy old wax for a good price


----------



## kengineer (Jul 4, 2015)

Jim, you are a smart keeper, Data rules! 

Imagine if we all threw in 20 bucks and had some Chinese wax tested to see what it looks like? 

Can I be the first to pledge 20 towards the cause? I would send it to Jim and ask him to buy a random sample of organic wax from Ebay for submission to his lab. 

Although the wax we have is not as good as mothers milk, it is so close. What kind of stuff is floating in other wax? 


Let's build some momentum, tell me where to send the cash and show if we are better or worse than labeled organic stuff. The data will set us free.


----------



## Mbeck (Apr 27, 2011)

kengineer said:


> Although the wax we have is not as good as mothers milk, it is so close.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1513324/

.....or perhaps it's better and less contaminated.

I suggested a name for his premium product and now I'm struggling to avoid the temptation of giving it a slogan or coming up with a marketing jingle!!


----------



## Gypsi (Mar 27, 2011)

Very nice information, thank you Jim


----------



## Planner (Apr 3, 2016)

I would also like information on treatment free. It would make for an excellent comaprison.
Thanks Jim for the great information.


jwcarlson said:


> Would be interesting to have someone treatment free have their wax tested from their honey supers and compare.


----------



## ruthiesbees (Aug 27, 2013)

Planner said:


> I would also like information on treatment free. It would make for an excellent comaprison.
> Thanks Jim for the great information.


I would be happy to submit my wax for testing, if only I knew where to send it.


----------



## beesohappy (Jun 3, 2009)

jim lyon said:


> not even any thymol, which we use extensively each year.


Please take a minute Jim and elaborate on how and why you use thymol.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

beesohappy said:


> Please take a minute Jim and elaborate on how and why you use thymol.


Not trying to speak for Jim but I'm pretty sure he uses a thymol based varroa mite treatment.


----------



## beesohappy (Jun 3, 2009)

beemandan said:


> Not trying to speak for Jim but I'm pretty sure he uses a thymol based varroa mite treatment.


Thank you. I was assuming that is what he meant but I've assumed before and got into trouble. I'm a amitraz user and was hoping for a breakdown and timeline for his use of thymol.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

I am taking great liberty here speaking for Jim but do recall some of his posts on the subject.
I believe he does an end of season thymol mite treatment. I think he gets tymol impregnated strips.
I believe his spring mite treatment protocol consists mainly of splitting aggressively and requeening his hives with queen cells. He may do something during the subsequent broodless period. 
If my memory serves me, he has avoided amitraz. 
He might do more….but this is what my old brain could dredge up….and I’m sure he will come along and correct me.


----------



## oliviadavid (Nov 10, 2017)

Great information for new learners. Thank You..


----------

